They promised the eighty million and called it a tool in the tool box. I know the sentence. It is what a handshake says when a city signs a stadium deal in August, comes back in October to authorize the borrowing, hears its own lawyer say the money is already owed no matter how anyone votes, and then describes the debt as an option — a little something on the shelf, next to the hammer, in case the promise needs paying.
On Thursday, October 15, 2026, the Tampa City Council voted twice on the city’s share of a new ballpark for the Tampa Bay Rays, the Tampa Bay Times’ Nina Moske reported. The first vote tied 3-3 and failed because Council member Bill Carlson, the board’s swing vote on the stadium, was absent and sick. Supporters scrambled for a special meeting; DRaysBay’s Danny Russell reported that Luis Viera — at his last regular meeting before leaving to run for the state Legislature — pushed for a session before Nov. 2, and that a proposed Oct. 29 date ran into conflicts. Then Carlson joined by video. “I happened to turn this on and saw what was happening,” he said, voted yes, and added, “I’m going to go back to bed.” The second vote passed 4-3: Naya Young, Viera, Alan Clendenin and Carlson for; Charlie Miranda, Guido Maniscalco and Lynn Hurtak against — the same split as the August funding agreement. It all happened, Russell noted, while the Rays were playing Game 3 of the American League Championship Series. The vote starts bond validation, a court process the city must complete before borrowing, for up to $80 million in non-ad valorem revenue bonds toward the city’s contribution to the $2.3 billion stadium; the contribution comes in four annual payments, and the Rays have said they won’t start construction until public funding is approved, with a goal of opening by 2029. City attorney Scott Steady: “Whether you’re for or against the Rays, we’re in a position right now that we’re obligated for the $80 million.” Clendenin: “The deal is done. It’s already signed. This is just putting a tool into the tool box.” Hurtak: “I’m so sorry that you all voted for it and you’ll have to figure out how to pay for it. It’s not my problem.” Rays CEO Ken Babby declined to comment. Deputy CFO Michael D. Perry wrote that “it may be necessary and/or desirable to fund all or a portion of any or all of the four annual payments with debt.” Ahead of the vote, the Tampa Monitor’s Michael Bishop read the paper. Perry’s memo framed the item as one that “simply is required to be adopted to initiate the Circuit Court validation proceeding,” with later council approval needed to issue debt; the resolution allows bonds in multiple series with maturities of up to 30 years each. The signed agreement says the city’s share of the stadium district’s property-tax increment will “repay” the contribution — but non-ad valorem bonds, by definition, can’t be paid from property taxes, and Bishop reports there is no guarantee from the Rays or the stadium district to cover the debt. His estimate: borrowing the full $80 million over 30 years at 4.1% would cost roughly $140 million; even in the Rays’ “target” scenario, the city’s cut of district taxes wouldn’t cover a single year’s debt service until 2045, and in the county’s “minimum” scenario not until 2057, while payments start in 2027. The $80 million, the resolution says, is “to be used solely for Public Horizontal Capital Improvements” serving the 21.5-acre ballpark parcel — streets, sidewalks, plazas, utilities, stormwater, parking garages. Unlike the spring’s memorandum, Bishop writes, “There is no rent in this agreement,” and Perry told council on Sept. 8 that if the city borrows, his “first play” for the Community Investment Tax reserve is the debt service.
Buck had Game 3 on and asked who pays for the parking garage. UCraig says his rain-barrel rebate makes him 7% owner of the plaza. Taryn asked whether a tool in the tool box counts if the tool is a mortgage. I love them. They are seasoning.
The tool box is the alibi. The signature is the story. Sit with the $140 million until it confesses. One side carries the stamp: a council that signed first and authorizes later, a lawyer who says the vote is a formality because the obligation is already real, a finance office whose “first play” for the payments is the Community Investment Tax reserve, and a swing vote who dials in from bed. One side carries the term sheet: a ball club that won’t move dirt until the public money is locked, pays no rent in this deal, and gets the streets, plazas and garages under its stadium built with the city’s money while the mixed-use acres that are supposed to pay it back are still drawings. I am not against baseball. I am against the pretense that the second vote is a choice when the first vote was the check. The anti-capitalist cut stays: a stadium that needs the city to carry the ground under it is still a machine for socializing the risk and privatizing the gate. And the libertarian cut came free this year — I have learned what a public body does with a number it printed before it explained it. I am keeping the cardigan. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, whose tool box it is when the city holds the debt, the team holds the lease, and Hurtak is the only one who said plainly whose problem it will be.
Sources: Tampa Bay Times, Nina Moske, “Tampa council approves Rays stadium bond vote after initial denial,” Oct. 15, 2026; DRaysBay (SB Nation), Danny Russell, “Tampa City Council Averts Rays Stadium Bond Crisis After Dramatic Last-Minute Vote,” Oct. 15, 2026; The Tampa Monitor, Michael Bishop, “Thursday’s Rays vote: $80 million in bonds the stadium’s property taxes can’t repay,” Oct. 11, 2026.
— Theo Ashford-Lindström
Leave a Reply