Bill Carlson seeks East Tampa, Drew Park and downtown CRA changes in Rays stadium deal

Tampa Bay Rays negotiators may need to rewrite more than the price tag to secure Tampa’s participation in a new ballpark.

With the proposed $100 million contribution from Tampa’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) stalled, the Rays, Hillsborough County and city officials are discussing a different mechanism that could use future property-tax growth from the development to pay for surrounding infrastructure.

The alternative would change the original game plan, but it would not bypass the Tampa City Council, whose members would still have to approve the new structure and other pieces of the deal.

Tampa City Council Member Bill Carlson told Florida Politics that the deal presents a broader opportunity to restructure how redevelopment money is distributed across the city, rather than simply negotiating Tampa’s contribution down by a few million dollars.

He envisions extending the East Tampa Community Redevelopment Area, protecting Drew Park’s control over future tax revenue, and capping the amount of property-tax growth retained by the Downtown CRA — potentially redirecting hundreds of millions of dollars toward road repairs across Tampa.

The current framework contemplates roughly $180 million from the city and its redevelopment agency, including $80 million in Community Investment Tax revenue and $100 million in redevelopment funding. 

“It’s not whether you go from $180 million down to $175 million,” Carlson said. “It’s about figuring out something else that we can put in there that would show that we’re getting a net benefit to the community.”

Carlson said he raised his ideas in recent discussions with Rays CEO Ken Babby on Friday as team leaders try to regain momentum after the City Council stalled two major pieces of the proposed ballpark and mixed-use development at the Hillsborough College Dale Mabry campus near Raymond James Stadium last week.

The latest talks follow two setbacks last Thursday. Sitting as the CRA Board, Council members voted 5-2 to remove discussion of the agency’s proposed $100 million contribution from the Aug. 20 agenda, then voted 4-3 as the City Council against sending a sweeping land-use amendment for the Hillsborough College site to state reviewers. That procedural step was separate from final approval of the ballpark and its financing.

Carlson said Babby and other project partners committed to meeting with the City Council and Hillsborough County Commissioners to hear their concerns and determine whether changes could attract additional support. That outreach is still ongoing.

Carlson’s proposals include extending the East Tampa CRA, which he said would allow the community to retain and reinvest property tax growth for a longer period. The change would not require additional money from the Rays or Hillsborough County, but could give Council members tangible returns for community residents.

“Almost everybody, I think, on Council — and in the community — wants to extend the life of the East Tampa CRA,” Carlson said. “That’s something that would cost the county nothing. It would cost the Rays nothing.”

Carlson’s most consequential proposal may involve the Downtown CRA, which he argues no longer needs to retain all of the property-tax growth generated within its boundaries.

Carlson argued downtown no longer has the slum and blight conditions redevelopment districts are intended to address, yet continues retaining between $30 million and $40 million annually. He said Water Street Tampa alone generates about $20 million in taxes that remain within the district.

Under one scenario, Carlson said Tampa could cap the Downtown CRA at 50%, initially freeing about $20 million annually for road repairs. He estimated that amount could eventually grow to about $40 million per year and generate between $600 million and $1 billion over 30 years.

Carlson said the effort could address what he described as a roughly $2 billion road repair backlog.

“Downtown was a success because it’s been built up,” Carlson said. “So now the rest of the city should benefit from it.”

Carlson is also seeking greater protection for Drew Park, where residents and business owners worry that future redevelopment revenue could be redirected toward the ballpark district.

The Drew Park CRA is scheduled to expire in 2034. Carlson said negotiators are considering replacing it with a less restrictive tax increment financing district that would capture future property-tax growth from the larger development and use it for roads, sewer, stormwater and other supporting infrastructure.

That revenue would flow through a Community Development District (CDD), which Carlson said would add another layer of oversight to how the money would be spent. He said the District’s governing body would be subject to Florida’s public records and Sunshine laws, and infrastructure contracts would have to run through the CDD. 

“Usually those at first are controlled by a developer, and then they hand them off to the community afterward. So what a CDD does is it provides another level of public scrutiny,” Carlson said. 

“In some other cases, the city has given money to a developer because many times the private sector can get a better price to construct roads and sewers and things than the city can. But then there are questions about whether it’s a way for the developer to make money. So having a CDD allows another level of public scrutiny because they are a government agency that’s subject to public records in Sunshine.” 

Carlson also wants Drew Park to retain control over the tax growth generated outside the ballpark development. He said officials could extend the existing CRA or create a replacement district that excludes the stadium site.

“Drew Park wants to be able to manage its own future,” Carlson said. “So how about you extend the life of the Drew Park CRA or you create a new CRA that does not include the ballpark area? So that Drew Park, as it develops, will be able to control its own future.”

Carlson’s comments come as Tampa elected officials tussle over not only how much public funding Tampa should contribute to the project but also how the deal has been negotiated.

During an appearance Tuesday on “The JP Peterson Show,” Tampa Mayor Jane Castor pushed back on Carlson’s claim that the Council had been sidelined, saying the Rays and city staff have remained available to members throughout the process. She also defended the administration’s role in assembling the proposal before sending it to the City Council for approval.

When asked by Peterson about conflicting views with the Council, Castor said the politicking is a one-way street.

“I don’t know where that ‘we don’t know what’s going on’ is coming from, other than political motivation, but that’s just not me. I don’t get involved in that,” Castor said on the show. 

“The city team and the county team and the Rays have been working hand-in-hand — I mean, seven days a week — to try to hammer out a proposal that is equitable to all involved. Once we get a proposal, then it’s presented to City Council and they vote on that. But if you think about it … you don’t want to have Council crafting a deal that they’re then going to vote on.” 

Carlson offered a different account. He said several ideas he raised months ago were rejected, though neither the Rays nor Hillsborough County claimed responsibility for turning them down.

“I proposed several creative ideas six months ago, and the Rays got back to me and said they were rejected,” Carlson said. “I said, ‘Well, did you guys reject them?’ They said no. I talked to the county and said, ‘Did you guys reject them?’ And they said no. So that means somebody in the Mayor’s Office rejected them for no reason.”

He said that although Council members have been briefed, they have not been able to present concerns directly to team negotiators.

“All the communication to date has been one way. It’s the Mayor’s Office telling us what’s happening, it’s the Rays telling us what’s happening, but nobody’s been listening to the ideas,” Carlson said.

In a Facebook post Monday, Council Chair Alan Clendenin emphasized that Tampa’s proposed $80 million contribution would come from Community Investment Tax revenue rather than property taxes and that the city would own the stadium. He argued that investment could help unlock an estimated $6 billion to $8 billion in private development across more than 120 acres, including housing, hotels, restaurants and other commercial uses.

Clendenin also cited projections of 20,000 construction jobs and 15,000 permanent jobs, framing the project as an opportunity to expand Tampa’s tax base as local governments face uncertainty over future property-tax revenue.

He also highlighted that the stadium will be owned by the taxpayers, not by the Rays ownership group, and added that the economic engine could be pivotal if property tax reform changes are approved by voters in November. 

“I’ve also heard people ask, how can we even consider this project when there’s a proposed constitutional amendment that could eliminate property taxes? My response … How can we not?” he wrote.

Carlson said he remains skeptical of the project’s economic-impact estimates, but he is not dismissing the value of keeping the Rays. He said the team brings family experiences, civic pride and opportunities to introduce visitors and business leaders to the region.

Project leaders have said they want to resolve the remaining issues by the end of August. Carlson said the meetings now underway will determine whether the team can attract the additional Council support the deal needs.

“If they can address the concerns of their constituents, they might be able to pick up one or two more votes,” Carlson said. “We don’t know yet, because we don’t know what they’re willing to do.”