Tampa Bay Lightning fans, rejoice. Your home team will stay in Tampa until at least 2043 under a deal Hillsborough County Commissioners approved to extend by six years the team’s lease to play at Benchmark International Arena.

Under the agreement, the county is committing $250 million to pay for arena renovations, an amount that could increase and that will come from a portion of the county’s tourist development tax. The deal does not require any general fund revenue, Community Investment Tax proceeds or property tax revenue.

In return, the agreement calls for Lightning ownership to spend at least $75 million on renovations.

The agreement protects the county by requiring millions in repayment penalties should the team breach its contract by leaving early.

The deal increases the amount of county funds committed under the original agreement in 2008 for arena renovations from $108.5 million to $358.5 million, and the amount the Lightning spend on such renovations from $38.4 million to $113.4 million, which is where the $250 million and $75 million spend split comes from.

The Lightning, under the agreement, can spend its portion incrementally, but the expenditures must be made before the county’s portion of the split is required.

To date, the county has spent about $91 million under the original agreement.

Prior to this deal, the Lightning had been obligated to play hockey in Tampa at Benchmark International Arena (formerly Amalie Arena) until June 30, 2037. Now, they must remain in the arena until at least June 30, 2043.

The Tampa Sports Authority, which serves as the landlord for the arena, previously approved the deal on a 7-3 vote.

Commissioners made clear Wednesday that the new deal with the Lightning could set a tough precedent as the Tampa Bay Rays seek a new stadium at Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry campus and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers work toward major upgrades to Raymond James Stadium directly across the street.

One Commissioner, Republican Chris Boles, said that would be “like comparing apples to rocks.”

Despite a failed amendment to the deal from Commissioner Joshua Wostal that would have increased the Lightning’s share of the cost split, which was seconded by Donna Cameron Cepeda, the new agreement cleared with unanimous support.

A proposal to turn the Naples Airport Authority into a board elected by voters, rather than appointed by the City Council, has advanced through its second House committee stop.

HB 4005, sponsored by Naples Republican Rep. Adam Botana, would transition the Airport Authority board away from appointments made by the Naples City Council to elections by Collier County voters beginning in the November election. If approved, the bill would cut short the terms of current board members unless they are elected.

The House Government Operations Subcommittee reported HB 4005 favorably after adopting an amendment that broadens eligibility requirements for Airport Authority board candidates.

The bill’s advance comes amid a clash between Naples city officials and members of the Collier County legislative delegation over the Naples Airport. Disagreements over board appointments, oversight authority and the airport’s future have strained relations between City Hall and the delegation — even leading into a heated email exchange between Naples Vice Mayor Terry Hutchison and Rep. Yvette Benarroch.

Botana told committee members Wednesday that the measure shifts decision-making power away from the City Council toward voters countywide, arguing the airport serves a regional function beyond city limits.

“We were having some discomfort with the City Council trying to move the airport,” Botana said. “This has been a fight a long time in the city of Naples. So we’re saying OK, instead of just having it appointed by the City Council we’re going to make these folks elected and give the power back to the people.”

The committee also adopted an amendment that revises candidate qualification requirements. The bill originally required candidates to have at least five years of experience in the aerospace industry, but the amendment expands that standard to allow candidates with backgrounds in financial management or small-business operations to qualify.

Opponents warned the revised bill still raises concerns. Jason Unger, speaking in opposition, said countywide elections could dilute the influence of Naples residents despite the airport being located within city boundaries. 

“All of the seats will be controlled by votes coming from outside of the city of Naples,” Unger said.

The measure advanced without debate and cleared the subcommittee on a unanimous vote. HB 4005 now heads to its final of three House committee stops with the State Affairs Committee.

Floridians know firsthand how quickly rising costs can hurt a household budget. Health care, particularly prescription drug costs, is often the most unpredictable and difficult expense to manage, so when there are important conversations in Congress about health care, most people keep a close eye on developments to ensure our policymakers do not pass legislation that would increase costs.

Fortunately, Florida has leaders who understand that affordability doesn’t come from more government mandates, but from competition, flexibility, and accountability. Sen. Rick Scott, in particular, has consistently shown he is willing to stand up for Florida families when proposals threaten to drive costs even higher.

Scott has long emphasized that Americans — not Washington bureaucrats — are best equipped to make decisions for their families. He has backed policies that keep consumers at the center of health care while resisting heavy-handed federal interference in private markets. That approach has proven especially important for employer-sponsored coverage, which millions of Floridians depend on for access to care.

Last year, Scott demonstrated that leadership in a very real way. When a massive spending package included last-minute provisions that would have inserted the federal government into the private health insurance market, including dictating how prescription benefits could be structured, he opposed it. Those provisions weren’t about lowering patients’ costs. They would have limited flexibility, increased premiums, and shifted leverage back to the pharmaceutical industry.

These issues aren’t abstract. In communities across South Florida, families are already struggling to keep up with rising prices. Seniors on fixed incomes, working parents, and small-business employees all feel the impact when health care costs rise. Too often, those rising costs are driven by prescription drug prices set by manufacturers — prices that families and employers have little ability to control. Policies that reduce choice or raise premiums only make those challenges worse.

These concerns are not just something Floridians are noticing. Voters across the country share the sentiment. Recent public opinion research confirms exactly that: a survey from the President’s pollster, John McLaughlin, of likely Midterm voters found that nearly three-quarters believe drug companies are most responsible for high prescription drug prices, not employers or patients. Even more telling, voters overwhelmingly favor keeping private health care choices available to employers rather than having the federal government impose one-size-fits-all mandates. Americans want more choice, not the government telling businesses how to design their benefits.

Large majorities also expressed deep concern that government interference in the private market would raise monthly premiums and ultimately increase Big Pharma’s profits.

Prescription drugs are a major driver of health care spending, and that disconnect between what voters want and what some policymakers are proposing is hard to ignore. Drug manufacturers alone set their prices, and those prices continue to rise year after year. Any serious effort to improve affordability should focus on increasing competition and holding drug companies accountable — not weakening the private-market tools that help keep costs in check.

Unfortunately, some of the proposals circulating in Congress would do exactly that. These ideas would bring new government mandates into the private market and eliminate options that help manage prescription drug costs. Independent analyses show these policies could raise premiums nationwide by tens of billions of dollars each year, while delivering massive new profits to drug manufacturers.

Florida families cannot afford that outcome. Neither can the American health care system as a whole. The goal of reform should be simple: lower costs, more choices, and better value for patients, not expanded government control that makes coverage more expensive.

Scott has shown that it’s possible to hold the line against policies that ultimately raise costs. As Congress continues its health care debates, Florida’s delegation should follow his lead and stay focused on real solutions that protect affordability, preserve flexibility, and put patients first.

That’s the kind of leadership Floridians expect — and the kind we need right now.

___

Barbara Casanova is the National Secretary and Florida Chair of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly. She also serves on the Miami-Dade Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.