Times/Bay News 9 poll preview: Parking will be a huge problem, voters say

As debate rages over a proposed waterfront baseball stadium in St. Petersburg, most everyone agrees on one point: Downtown lacks the necessary parking.

According to an exclusive St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 poll to be released Sunday, 82 percent of the city's voters think parking would be a huge problem.

The poll, which surveyed 601 St. Petersburg voters May 27-28 and has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points, was aimed primarily at determining whether voters think the proposal should be placed on a November ballot, and whether they support a new stadium.

Check the St. Petersburg Times or Bay News 9 starting Sunday for stories detailing the results. On Monday, log on to the Times’ stadium blog, Ballpark Frankness, to see and comment on the poll results.

Mayor to Council: Vote yes on June 5

The city just released a recommendation to council members ahead of next week's June 5 vote. Read it here.

If you don't feel like clicking, here's the main points:

* Initiate the referendum process on June 5;

* Select a Tropicana developer on June 19;

* Set a Aug. 1 deadline to reach a number of milestones, including agreements related to financing and a lease as well as questions related to the Tropicana Field redevelopment.

Risk vs. reward: 1986 and 2008

Deputy Editor of Editorials Tim Nickens, who covered the debate over building a domed stadium downtown  as a young reporter for the Times in 1986, compares the city's risks  then and now.

In 1986, City Council voted to build the dome entirely with public money. There was no guarantee the city would ever get a baseball team. There was no viable ownership group, only the unlikely alliance of the civic-minded parent of the local utility company and a Sarasota developer.

Nickens writes:  "Several City Council members made short speeches before the vote. One stuck with me. The late J.W. Cate Jr. remembered riding a merry-go-round as a child and never reaching for a brass ring. I looked up his exact words again the other day.

"There's a brass ring there, my friends,'' Cate said just before the vote, "and I'm going to risk the thing this time.''

Fast-forward 22 years.

African American groups support November referendum

The local branches of the NAACP and Urban League, along with a pair of local African American ministers, held a press conference on Friday saying they support a November referendum on the Rays' stadium proposal.

Each group said that they did not have a position on the proposal, but believe a public vote is critical. They say  voters will be able to deftly judge the merits of the proposal and make an informed decision.

"Let's not disrespect voters by taking the opportunity away from them," said Gregory Johnson, local Urban League president. "Let the referendum go forward."

Added NAACP president Norm Brown: "People are intelligent in this community. Let's allow them to participate."

Mayor considers August, not June stadium vote critical

Spoke with Mayor Rick Baker, who's in Tallahassee on Friday working on state environmental policy, about the Rays' stadium proposal. Some of his comments are likely to appear in a story this weekend. But I wanted to share this quote now.

I asked  Baker how he viewed the upcoming June 5 vote. As you know, some people say it's critical, others say it's not (they point to the Aug. 7 vote, the third of three needed referendum votes, as being the real critical vote.)

Here's what Baker had to say:

"I'm considering the August date to be the drop dead date on this. There continues to be a lot of questions we have to work through that will not be resolved by next Thursday."

Baker wouldn't say what his recommendation to council will be next week, but said he would have one. By the sound of things, it will be to keep the discussions going.

Practically, his recommendation is just that. The council can do as it pleases. However, Baker's voice likely will offer political cover to any council member on the fence about keeping talks alive.

Poll of the week. Can a new stadium improve attendance?

We've all heard about the Rays continued attendance struggles. Will a new stadium help? Vote now.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Shelton on the Rays: Lead in standings, trail in attendance

ST. PETERSBURG — School isn’t out in Milwaukee, either.

Gas prices are up in Kansas City, too.

Also, there are a lot of other things to do in San Diego.

Things are tough all over. The economy is rotten in Minnesota, and the sun is hot in Texas and the ballpark in Denver is a long way from a lot of people’s homes.

Still, customers seem to find their way to the baseball park.

Just not here.

Heatcheck: Week 5

Week 5 of Heatcheck Wednesday, a permanent feature here at Ballpark Frankness. The idea behind this post is to track the past week's Rays home games and wonder how tolerable they would have been, had they been played outdoors.

Five home games since last Wednesday (Four night games, one Sunday afternoon first pitch). I was in Washington D.C. from Friday through Monday, so I asked Times colleague Chris Tisch to fill in for me on the ratings up until Tuesday's game. Here's what he came up with -- Four "Take me out to the ball games." Even Sunday, Tisch said, was a nice afternoon for a game outdoors. On Tuesday, I rated the game with the Rangers "Take me out to the ball game" as well.

So after 29 homes games, 36 percent of the home schedule, here are our up-to-date standings:

How you feeling? Hot. Hot. Hot. ---- 0

Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure. ---- 2

Take me out the ball game. ---- 27

There are five more games on this homestand for the Rays. After that, they don't come back to St. Petersburg until June 13. We're guessing the stats will start to turn then.

City response to DEP: Go to ...

The story about the DEP deed restriction changed mightily from the time I posted it on this blog yesterday afternoon until it hit papers this morning. Read the updated version here.

You've seen our polls, here's one from the Tampa Bay Business Journal

From the Tampa Bay Business Journal:

"St. Petersburg elected officials will soon decide whether to give residents the chance to vote on the proposed Rays stadium land use. But when the issue was offered up to a wider audience, readers were narrowly in favor of the stadium plan -- but not by much.

"That's the finding of the latest Business Pulse Survey, the nonscientific weekly online poll from the Tampa Bay Business Journal. The vote attracted 570 responses with 41 percent, or 239, in favor of the plan and 227, or 39 percent, opposed. Nearly 1 in 5 said they need to know more before they can decide."

Read the full article here.

Sneak peak: Wednesday's story on Tuesday

I'm working on a story for tomorrow's paper that should go somthing like this:

By AARON SHAROCKMAN
Times Staff Writer

ST. PETERSBURG — The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is asking the city to place a deed restriction on Tropicana Field saying that soil underneath the dome’s asphalt parking lots is contaminated.

But it’s unclear if the state regulatory agency’s request, which was first made in 2000 and is being renewed this month, impacts the possible redevelopment of the stadium property the city is now considering.

Meet the Rays' newest political consultant

[Dirk Shadd | Times]

We here at Ballpark Frankness hear that the Tampa Bay Rays have hired high profile Clearwater land use attorney Ed Armstrong to help make the Rays' case before the Tourist Development Commission and Pinellas County Commission.

Those of you who know Pinellas politics, likely know Armstrong. But if you don't, let's just say he's pretty effective at his job. He's also not cheap.

What are your predictions?

In less than two weeks, the City Council will either effectively kill the Rays' waterfront stadium proposal or take a vote to move the project along.

On June 5, the council will be asked to authorize the City Attorney to draft potential ballot language on the stadium. The City Attorney then must advertise the potential referendum and schedule two public hearings.

You could argue that the vote is no big deal. The final decision to put the stadium plan before voters in a November referendum won't be made until August. Council could vote yes on June 5 and then later stop the process.

On the other hand, if the council thinks the proposal is too sketchy, they could vote no and direct city staff to get back to whatever work they were doing before the Rays came up with the stadium plan.

So let's play political pundit and try to guess how the vote will go down. What do you think is going to happen on June 5th?

 
They'll vote to move forward with the waterfront stadium plan
They'll vote against a new stadium
Who knows, anything could happen

-- Cristina Silva, Times staff writer

County Commissioner to City Council: Speak Up

Stadium opponents have been dishing all week about how they wish the City Council would take a page from the County Commission's playbook and throw some real curve balls at the Rays.

When asked about the buzz, County Commissioner Ken Welch had this to say this afternoon: "The county commission is not going to be rushed into making any decisions without the proper protocol."

His advice for his fellow politicos in St. Pete: "Be as direct as possible. If we have questions, we just ask them."

-Cristina Silva, Times Staff Writer

Final tally last night

The final tally from last night, according to City Council member Wengay Newton (as relayed to us by Lorraine Margeson): 200 people for, 397 people against, 3 people with no clear opinion. The meeting didn't end until after 12:30 a.m.

Have a great weekend.

They're still talking

So the City Council and something like 586 of their closest friends are still talking stadium at City Hall. I had to file my story for tomorrow's newspaper already, but it looks like opponents will significantly outnumber proponents tonight.

Earlier today, the City Council asked a lot of pointed questions to Rays' execs regarding the stadium plan. The Rays had some answers, but not nearly enough to satisfy the council -- which seems to be getting more frustrated.

The timeline was also a major topic of conversation. As you may recall, the council needs to vote three times before they can schedule a referendum in November. If they vote 'yes' all three times, you have a referendum. They have to vote 'no' only once to kill the proposal.

The Rays and city administration seemed to be operating under the notion that Aug. 7 vote (the last of the three) is the truly critical one; not the first vote on June 5th. If true, that would give the Rays and the city an additional 10 weeks to reach agreements on the finances and parking. Stay tuned if the City Council agrees to that line of thinking.

Now, we at Ballpark Frankness want to hear from you. What major questions must the Rays and city and county answer between now and a possible council referendum vote?

I'll start with one stolen from City Council member Karl Nurse (thanks Karl). Who will pay for the demolition of Tropicana Field, and how much will it cost?

Put your questions below. We'll make a list of the Top 20 or so and track when we get answers if we do.

Chamber's letter to the city re: June 5 vote

Some folks have been asking to see the chamber's letter to the city from Tuesday. Well here it is.

The chamber also released traffic and parking recommendations. The chamber found:

• The Rays should focus their traffic/parking plan assuming a sellout of all 81 home games;
• The Rays may need to construct a parking garage of 1,700 spaces (city says 3,500, Rays say 800);
• Have a minimum of 5,500 parking spaces within 1/2 mile committed under written control reasonably guaranteeing their availability in 2012;
• Develop expanded formal transit plan from multiple satellitle lots covering an additional 1,000 cars (in addition to 2,000 vehicles coming from tropicana Field);
• More specific plans for seniors;

Stadium fan, critic TV showdown

I've been told that Kenny Locke from Fans for Waterfront Stadium and Niel Allen from POWW are going to be on FOX 13 with Kathy Fountain today starting at 12:30 p.m. If anyone's near a TV, it might be worth watching. If I have a chance, I'll update this post and let you know how it went.

Sorry, it's Hamilton Hanson, not Niel for POWW.

UPDATE: Hamilton and Kenny were also on 620 WDAE "The Sports Animal" this morning. Our friends at 620 are working on getting us the audio. We hear it was pretty entertaining. Here's the link to audio.

Can't make it to Thursday's meeting?

St. Petersburg City Council holds its fifth public meeting on the Rays plans for a waterfront stadium at 6 p.m. Thursday. Supporters and opponents will get a chance to present their views.

If you have an opinion about the Rays' plans but can't make it to the meeting, state your case on It's Your Times, the St. Petersburg Times' community journalism site. It's Your Times editors will be sure City Council gets a copy of all the statements.

So I went for a walk this afternoon ...

So I decided to go for a walk today after lunch. And as I was walking, I decided to test the Rays' parking circle map that's shown above. I walked to the Coliseum (It's marked on this map by the green lot right at the edge of I-375) and decided to time my walk to the new stadium.

By the Rays' math, it should be at a maximum 25 minutes. I started west on 5th Avenue N and  crisscrossed to Al Lang based on the walk signs I hit at each intersection. Near BayWalk, I stopped for a minute to take a call on my cell phone, and also hit the ATM.

I didn't walk fast, but I did work up a bit of a sweat in the afternoon sun. Anyway, the total walk took me between 16 and 17 minutes. I then walked back to the Times' offices, which is on First Avenue S and Fourth Street. The Rays' map suggests that walk should take between 10 and 15 minutes. It took me five minutes.

BIG NOTE: Before anyone decides to jump all over me, I'm not saying the experience of me is in any way "proof" people will walk from the Coliseum or other points more than 1/2 mile from the stadium. Maybe I walk faster than most people, or maybe I'm in better health. I don't know. I just thought it was interesting, and worth sharing.

City officials, as you may recall, have said that the Rays cannot count any parking spaces more than 1/2 a mile from the stadium as part of their potential inventory. (That's all of the spaces beyond the second circle).

Trop tax analyses

As promised, here's the city's tax impact analysis on the two prospective Tropicana redevelopment proposals. There are three separate analyses.

Click here.

St. Petersburg Preservation opposes Al Lang location

Will Michaels, president of St. Petersburg Preservation, just released his group's view of the Rays' stadium proposal. You can read their analysis here. Michaels also was chairman of the Council of Neighborhood Association's baseball committee (CONA also is opposing the stadium).

City Council timeline; a refresher

There seemingly has been a lot of confusion surrounding the process of putting the stadium question on a citywide referendum. Pinellas County Commissioners on Tuesday even sounded unsure of what needed to happen, and when.

So, here's the schedule, as laid out by the city:

* On June 5, the City Council will be asked to authorize the City Attorney to draft potential ballot language. The council will be able to set the general parameters of a referendum, but it will not have to come up with specific ballot language. The City Attorney then must advertise the potential referendum and schedule two public hearings.

* Because the referendum requires an ordinance to be passed, there must be two public hearings. The first is scheduled for July 17. Usually, local governments roll over the ordinance to the second public hearing. That doesn't have to happen, though.

* The second public hearing is Aug. 7. This only occurs if a majority of council members approved both authorizing the City Attorney to draft ballot language and pass the referendum ordinance on first hearing. If council members approve the ordinance on second public hearing, we have a referendum.

* But, the City Council can still meet up until Aug. 14, and decide to pull the referendum off the November ballot, the city says.

The St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday characterized the real "decision" date as Aug. 7, as has Mayor Rick Baker (when he talked about parking commitments to the Times last month). Members of St. Pete Protect Our Wallets and Waterfronts, the anti-stadium group, have talked about the June 5 date as being critical, arguing that the process becomes harder to stop the further along it goes.

It's unclear what council members, the people who will make the distinction, believe.

Heatcheck Wednesday: Week 4

Week 4 of Heatcheck Wednesday, a permanent feature here at Ballpark Frankness. The idea behind this post is to track the past week's Rays home games and wonder how tolerable they would have been, had they been played outdoors.

Two home games since last Wednesday (One night game, one 4 p.m. first pitch). We rated Wednesday's home game against the Yankees "Take me out the ball game" and the Thursday afternoon contest "Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure."

So after 24 homes games, 30 percent of the home schedule, here are our up-to-date standings:

How you feeling? Hot. Hot. Hot. ---- 0

Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure. ---- 2

Take me out the ball game. ---- 22

Chamber official: Only a new stadium can keep Rays in St. Pete

ST. PETERSBURG — The leader of a group studying the Tampa Bay Rays' $450-million waterfront stadium proposal said Tuesday rejecting the plan may be the end of Major League Baseball in St. Petersburg.

Steve Raymund, co-chairman of the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce's baseball task force, said that if St. Petersburg won't build the Rays a new stadium, some other city will.

St. Petersburg's lease with the team, which will not expire until 2027, is unlikely to stop the Rays, Raymund said.

"The reality is that the Rays say they need a new stadium to remain viable, that it's critical to their organization," said Raymund, the former chief executive of Tech Data. "If it's not here, it'll be somewhere else."

More here.

Rays' revitalization extends beyond field

From my colleague, Tom Zucco:

The win-loss column isn't the only place where the Tampa Bay Rays are doing well. As the Rays hover around first place, they're also succeeding nicely in sporting goods stores, online and on television.

With slightly more than a quarter of the 2008 Major League Baseball season in the books, sales of Rays merchandise have risen faster than all but one other big league club — the National League champion Colorado Rockies. The Rays have shown a 70 percent increase in sales over last year, but the team still ranks second to last in total market share, ahead of only the Toronto Blue Jays, according to SportScan INFO, which tracks retail sporting goods sales.

Read more here.

A hectic Tuesday afternoon

Lots of news in the past couple of hours:

1. The Chamber of Commerce's baseball task force met with the Times' editorial board this afternoon. We'll have a short story on that tomorrow. But to recap quickly, baseball task force co-chairman Steve Raymund said the right question surrounding this debate shouldn't be "Do you want the Rays to play at the Trop or at a waterfront stadium?" It should be, he said, "Do you want Major League Baseball in St. Petersburg." Raymund also said there's been much misinformation about the Rays' plan when it comes to financing and parking. The chamber study group released a preliminary report that suggest the parking situation downtown will be manageable. Raymund also called the financing plan credible. "The people that don't want the stadium are maybe looking for excuses," Raymund said. AND lastly, the chamber issued a letter to the City Council asking the group to tentatively approve the referendum June 5. Raymund pointed out that the council has until the middle of August to decide if the stadium question should be posed to voters. Raymund and chamber officials said the city should use that time to continue evaluating the proposal.
2. Next, the city released its financial analysis of the potential redevelopment of Tropicana Field. To summarize, the city ran three different projections (one based on the city's numbers, one based on the city's numbers factoring in some business displacement and one based on the developers' numbers) to see how much $$$$ the city and all taxing authorities would see out of the development.  At buildout, the estimated total annual taxes range from $23-million to $45-million. The estimated St. Petersburg annual taxes range from $4.3-million to over $7.6-million. If you're trying to do the math at home, the Rays say they will be asking for somewhere between $5-million and $6-million from the city from 2009-2016. That number will increase at about 3 percent a year starting in 2017 for the next 25 to 30 years. (I'm not sure if the city's projections factor in an escalation of taxable value at the Trop site).
3. The Rays met with the County Commission this afternoon in Clearwater. The only real bit of news there is that the county probably will not make a decision on extending the 1 percent tourist development tax until July. Theoretically, that shouldn't be much of a problem.
4. The city released a list of questions to the Rays related to the financing plan. It's many of the ones you probably have yourself. A sampling: Is the $150-million payment to be made upfront or over time?; How was the $70-million developer payment derived?; How much of the $55-million is expected to come from team payments for city parking spaces?

There are lots of documents to go along with these points. Hopefully I'll be able to have them scanned in and posted by tomorrow.

POWW says the stadium could look like this

From St. Pete Protect our Wallets and Waterfront, the group opposing the Rays' stadium plan:

"Who controls the naming rights to the stadium and just how much of the stadium itself could be used as a billboard are still very much up in the air. Remember, they need money, money, money to pay for this thing!

"They could even use the sail as a huge movie screen and play ads on it that could be seen from miles away. Its just one more reason why this is a BAD IDEA.

"Why take something healthy and beautiful and destroy it when there are perfectly good alternatives??"

Rays, NAACP reach agreement on minority participation in stadium project

The Rays just announced that they have struck a deal with the St. Petersburg branch of the NAACP on minority participation in development of a new waterfront stadium. According to a Rays release, the Rays have agreed to:

• Creating opportunities for youth through scholarships, internships, job training and neighborhood development programs;
• Providing increased opportunities for African Americans, women and other minority groups within all levels of the Rays organization and through increased vendor opportunities
• Advocating for the development of a fair, affordable housing initiative and anti-discrimination plan for the redevelopment of the Tropicana Field site;
• Advocating for the development of a local hiring and minority business participation plan for the redevelopment of the Tropicana Field site; and
• Developing and implementing a local hiring and minority business participation plan for the Rays proposed waterfront ballpark.

“The advocacy and promotion of civil rights, equal education, and increased economic opportunity for St. Petersburg’s African American and minority community is an essential ingredient in the NAACP’s drive towards achieving the vision of a vibrant and growing community,” said Oretha Pope Jr., Economic Development Chairperson of the St. Petersburg Branch of the NAACP.   “We recognize that this unique partnership between the Rays and NAACP can strengthen both organizations, our neighborhoods, and our City.”

The Rays, meanwhile, said have engaged the Ariel Business Group, a Tampa Bay area consulting firm led by Thomas Huggins, to help develop this comprehensive program to include local residents and minority and women-owned business enterprises in all opportunity areas in the design, construction and operations of the proposed waterfront ballpark.

“The construction of a new $450 million waterfront ballpark will create enormous economic opportunity through the creation of 5,000 – 6,000 construction jobs and hundreds of other professional and service jobs and contracting opportunities,” said Matt Silverman, Rays President.  “The Rays are committed to allocating necessary resources and developing a comprehensive program to link the minority communities within the City to this great opportunity.”

Rays financing powerpoint

Thought many of you might like to see the Rays' powerpoint presentation that team officals made to the City Council on Thursday. Well, here it is, courtesy of the city. (The Rays gave members of the media a shortened version on Thursday).

A two-page explanation is available at the Rays' stadium site, www.majorleaguedowntown.com

What's coming up this week

Another busy week on Rays stadium watch:

* Tomorrow, the Pinellas County Commission gets its first opportunity officially to weigh in on the stadium proposal. The Rays are scheduled to make a presentation to the County Commission in Clearwater. The meeting starts at 3 p.m.

* And then on Thursday, the mayor and City Council are holding a workshop on the Rays project at 1:30 p.m. We're expecting the workshop to go in just about any and every direction. At 6 p.m., the public gets its third opportunity to address the council regarding the Rays plan.

* Besides hitting the meeting circuit, this week I plan to look at the parking revenues the Rays are interested in tapping to finance a new waterfront ballpark. As our experts said last week, tapping future parking revenues raises some new questions we hadn't really gotten into before.

* And though they don't return my calls or e-mails, we'll at least attempt to reach Hines and Archstone-Madison this week to see if the $70-million sales price the Rays need at Tropicana Field to make a new stadium fly, can actually happen.

* If you haven't seen it yet, be sure to read my colleague Cristina Silva's profile of Herb Polson, the lone City Council to vote against the Rays' plans. I recall he's actually voted twice against and once for in three related votes.

I think when we get a little closer to June 5, we'll have a contest to see who can guess how the council members will vote. If my bosses let me, I'll even add my two cents. And if my bosses are really nice, maybe we can even send some sort of prize to the winner. More on that later.

Why MLB says a new stadium matters

Food for thought: The Florida Marlins signed the cornerstone of their organization, shortstop Hanley Ramirez, to a new long term deal Saturday. The site for the announcement, the future location of the Marlins new ballpark.

You can read the full article here, but here's a couple of paragraphs I thought might apply to the Rays' stadium debate here in St. Petersburg:

• "Today we're taking not one, but two giant steps forward," Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria said. "The first is that by standing here on this very site we reaffirmed the vision of our city and county leaders to guarantee Major League Baseball stays here in South Florida ... and we have one of the greatest young players ever to wear a Marlins uniform."
• "I think [the stadium] is definitely a big part of it," Marlins general manager Larry Beinfest said. "We've had a lot of good young players here. Whether it's Derrek Lee or Dontrelle Willis, several players were probably worthy of multiyear consideration. But there wasn't a stadium on the horizon. Now there is."
• The ballpark, plans for which are still being finalized, is expected to substantially increase revenue for a franchise with a history of poor attendance and tight budgets.

So you know, there was no referendum on the Marlins stadium deal. It is, however, being challenged in court.

Friday poll: Describe Tropicana Field

Okay, our second poll is now closed. And after 1,017 votes, here's what we can tell you:

• 42.1 percent of respondents said Tropicana Field was comfortable and functional, but not fancy.
• 30.9 percent said it was a dark dungeon that needs to go.
• 16.6 percent said it was a perfect place for baseball.
• 10.3 percent said it was a stadium that needs to be replaced, just not yet

The Rays actually might agree with these results, believe it or not. In a series of interviews over the past week, they have talked about the Trop as being both comfortable and functional.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Finances are in; what a day

So we learned a lot yesterday. Or did we. The Tampa Bay released their plan to pay for a $450-million waterfront stadium. You can read our story here.

And here's some questions and answers related to the plan:

Does the Rays’ financing plan cover all of the stadium costs?
The Rays say yes, including improving and moving Bayshore Drive.

Who would pay for any cost overruns at the new stadium?
The Rays, but only if they oversee construction.

Would the Rays pay rent at a new stadium?
Lease terms have not been discussed. The team pays rent at Tropicana Field based on the number of tickets sold. The Rays said Thursday they expect a lease agreement for a new ballpark would include similar or better terms for the city.

What parking spaces do the Rays want to buy?
The team would pay the city upfront for 2,500 off-street parking spaces downtown that are now unused on game nights. The Rays would then sell those spaces to season ticket holders. Specific lots might include those at The Pier and in city parking garages downtown.

Would the Rays own those spaces?
No. They would simply purchase the ability to park in those spots on game nights. They then would resell those parking spaces to fans.

Does that cover the $55-million cost the team has attached to parking revenue?
No. The Rays say they will still need to find $20-million more. One possibility, they said, is a $1 per car surcharge for game-day parking.

What’s the city’s risk?
$75-million for construction. That risk, the Rays say, would be offset by taxes generated by redeveloping the Tropicana Field site.

What’s the county’s risk?
$100-million for construction. The Rays say that money also would be offset by the site’s redevelopment.

The city must have a referendum on the plan, but does the county?
No. The city’s referendum would deal with moving the stadium to the waterfront. It is not needed to approve the financing plan.

What is needed to approve the financing plan?
The Pinellas County Commission and City Council have to approve it. Pinellas County Commissioner Ken Welch attended Thursday’s presentation. The Rays said they want to meet with the commission as soon as next week.

So what's next? For the city, it's pouring over the numbers in more detail. For the Times, we're reaching out to four of the leading sports ecomonists or stadium experts to rate the financing plan. We should have that in the newspaper tomorrow. We're asking the experts, Andrew Zimbalist, Victor Matheson, Mark Rosentraub abd Neil deMause to rate the financing plan based off of the poll question a couple posts down.

We're planning to publish the online results along with a couple of good comments in Saturday's paper as well. If you have something worth saying about the financing plan (and can keep it to a few sentences) please post that here. It'd be even better if you were willing to attach your name and where you're from to your post.

I'll be back with last week's poll results in a bit. I know we more than 1,000 votes this week!

Rays financing plan: Extend Tropicana Field payments

ST. PETERSBURG — The Tampa Bay Rays' plan to finance a $450-million waterfront ballpark will ask local taxpayers to extend the loan payments tied to Tropicana Field to construct a new stadium at Al Lang Field.

Click here to read today's story.

Poll: Rays' stadium financing plan

Paying for a new stadium
Putting aside your other questions, how would you rate the Rays' financing plan?
Swing-and-a-miss (No chance)
Single (Problems apparent)
Double (Not quite convinced)
Triple (Almost there)
Home run (Build the ballpark)

Waiting on the financing plan

Just so you know, we should have something for you on the financing plan starting at 3 p.m. Please check back then.

Sternberg: Stadium in 2012 or bust

Rays principal owner Stuart Sternberg was on New York sports talk radio this afternoon talking about the early success of the team, and the stadium came up. Listen to the interview here . (It's worth it).

If you don't feel like clicking, here's the gist of what Sternberg had to say, Courtesy of Rays Index:

• Sternberg made it clear that the stadium would either be open by 2012 or it will not happen. If the referendum does not pass this fall, there will not be another attempt to get it passed.

Rays financing press conference moved

Just in from One Tropicana Drive:

"Due to a scheduling conflict at Tropicana Field, the Tampa Bay Rays will present the preliminary financing plan for the proposed waterfront ballpark at the St. Petersburg City Council Meeting at City Hall tomorrow at 3 p.m.

"The team had originally planned to present the plan at noon on Thursday.  The Pinellas County Commissioners have been invited to attend. Rays officials will be available for media interviews following the presentation."

This means the press conference will no longer be a press conference. Rays officials will be making the financial pitch directly to the City Counci at the beginning of its meeting. Apparently, the council had a morning work session and would not have been able to make the Rays' press conference.

This also means the presentation will be broadcast on the city's TV network, WSPF, or Bright House Channel 615. We'll also have live coverage at www.tampabay.com starting at 3 p.m.

Fans for Waterfront Stadium parking slideshow

The pro-stadium group Fans For Waterfront Stadium today released a Power Point slideshow meant to allay some of the parking concerns associated with a new ballpark. The slideshow was created from photos taken during the Sunday running of the Honda Grand Prix of St. Petersburg, when city leaders estimated 50-to-75,000 people were at the race downtown.

Fans For Waterfront Stadium says the slideshow is evidence that plenty of parking potentially exists downtown to accommodate a 34,000-seat ballpark.

Make up your own mind. View the slideshow (if you have Power Point on your computer) here.

Heatcheck Wednesday - Week 3

Week 3 of Heatcheck Wednesday, a permanent feature here at Ballpark Frankness. The idea behind this post is to track the past week's Rays home games and wonder how tolerable they would have been, had they been played outdoors.

Five home games since last Wednesday (Four night games, one Sunday afternoon contest). It's only May --- and things will change --- but so far neither heat nor rain has been a factor. We did rate Sunday's 1:30 p.m. first pitch "Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure," based on the strength of the afternoon sun. (We acknowledge that the Rays' say that the retractable fabric roof would shade the stands from the sun, but we're deciding to be conservative in our estimates).

So after 22 homes games, 27 percent of the home schedule, here are our up-to-date standings:

How you feeling? Hot. Hot. Hot. ---- 0

Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure. ---- 1

Take me out the ball game. ---- 21

NY Times weighs in on what Ballpark Frankness has been talking about all week

We're not saying the brass at the New York Times read Ballpark Frankness. But the NYT's story today about attendance at the Trop seems to mimic many of the points we all have been talking about here.

Take a look for yourselves.

We'll have more about attendance in tomorrow's print edition, as well. After less than 14,000 fans on Monday night, we're hearing that the crowd is not going to be that much bigger on Tuesday.

Waiting on the $$$$; looking for something to do

If you're like me, and do little else other than think about a new $450-million waterfront ballpark, the news that the Rays are finally going to release their financing plan Thursday feels like an early Christmas gift.

We'll see how much detail the Rays are going to present, how many local elected leaders come to Tropicana Field to hear the pitchm, and just how well or poorly the plan is received.

But while we wait, I wanted to let everyone know that a group called the African-American Voters Research and Education Committee is hosting a forum on the Rays plan at 7 p.m. Wednesday night. The forum is at the Enoch Davis Center, 1111 18th Avenue S, in St. Petersburg, and is open to the public.

Most of the big local politicos have been invited to attend, as has Rays senior vp Michael Kalt.

If you haven't yet, take time to vote in this week's poll question about Tropicana Field. We're sitting at 975 votes so far.

Psst! We're talking about the stadium on TroxBlog

Howard Troxler here, sneaking into Aaron's blog. (Hi, Aaron.) We're having a live chat over on TroxBlog and the stadium has come up in our conversation, in case you're interested. The chat transcript will stay up afterward, too.

Here's the link.

Financing details on Thursday

The Rays will reveal details of what they call "the preliminary financing plan'' for their proposed waterfront stadium at noon Thursday at Tropicana Field. The sesssion will be open to the public.
St. Petersburg and Pinellas County elected officials are expected to attend and get the details at the same time.
"We are eager to make public our plan to finance the new ballpark and begin the public discourse about it,'' Rays president Matt Silverman said in a statement. "As we have maintained since proposing the new ballpark and redevelopment of Tropicana Field last October, the plan will not require any new taxes. In fact, the plan should create new public funds in excess of those requested for the ballpark - dollars which can be used to help fund city and county services as well as Pinellas schools.''
Entry to the Trop on Thursday will be through Gate 4 on the 16th Street side of the stadium. Gametime that day is 4:20 p.m.
- Marc Topkin

Sign wars conspiracy

(Times photo / Scott Keeler)

Just checked in with Todd Yost, the director of St. Petersburg's codes compliance assistance department. Yost's department is the one which, among other things, track and monitor political signs.

Yost said the city is monitoring the political signs popping up for against the new stadium proposal, and said the city is removing signs that do not meet city code.

In short, here are the basic rules:

* Only one sign per lot, unless you're on a corner. Then you can have two --- one on each side.

* Signs cannot be placed in the grass between a sidewalk and the road. If you don't have a sidewalk, the sign must be six feet from the curb.

* The signs have to be removed one week after the election. In this case, if there is a referendum, that's not until November. If there isn't a referendum, we should know June 5 at the earliest.

The original Tropicana Field

Click for larger photo

Tropicana Field might have looked like this.

The St. Petersburg Times has unearthed a preliminary design for Tropicana Field that included outdoor seating with a tent roof to shield both the field and fans from the weather.

The black-and-white picture above was taken by Times photographer Fraser Hale in early 1983. (You should be able to click on the photo to make it larger). In the distance is the old Bayfront Arena. On the right is Interstate 175. A fabric roof stretches over a boomerang shaped baseball stadium, anchored to the upper deck on one end, and at the ground on the other. Fountains shoot up from center field.

That stadium, of course, was never built.

The plan, the work of the Pinellas Sports Authority, was shelved after city and county leaders pressed for a multipurpose dome to attract activities other than baseball.

The Tampa Bay Rays now want to level that dome for a stadium, shown at right, very much like the one local leaders first contemplated. The Rays had never seen the 1983 picture before, they say.

"People were really impressed with it," recalled former sports authority chairman Cecil Engelbert, one of the few living people still associated with the original design. "It would have sure been attractive."

If the Rays get their way, we still may get to see it.

Rays winning, but attendance woes continue

The Tampa Bay Rays entered Sunday with the second best record among the 12 Major League Baseball teams hosting a Mother's Day match-up. But the Rays, who defeated the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim 8-5, drew a Major League low 13,010 fans for the afternoon contest.

Ouch.

The Rays drew 5,625 fans less than the next lowest club, the Kansas City Royals. The San Diego Padres, who were 13-24 entering Sunday, drew 28,624 fans. The Seattle Mariners, who played during a 48 degree drizzle, drew 30,346 fans.

Even Saturday, when the Rays drew a more respectable 25,512 fans, the team had more fans than only two Major League clubs - the Royals and the Texas Rangers. The New York Mets, who played a doubleheader at Shea Stadium, drew more than 102,000 fans in total.

The Rays, despite the American League's third best record, now rank 13th out of 14th in paid attendance. Thank those Royals that the Rays are not last.

Five-day financing crash course. Day 5: The fine print

Day 5: The fine print.
The final installment in a five-day examination of the finances surrounding a new stadium, this section addresses the finer financial points related to the Rays stadium proposal. For previous coverage, see here.

Background: The Tampa Bay Rays have an ironclad lease to play at Tropicana Field until 2027. The team has said it is not demanding a new stadium, but that it cannot be successful longterm in the dome.

Potential problem: Could the Rays break the lease if voters, or the city, rejects their proposal for a new ballpark?

Analysis: The short answer is yes, but not without cost. The Rays' lease with the city includes a provision for breaking the lease. In order to break the lease, the Rays would first be required to pay any remaining debt on Tropicana Field.

In 2009, that would require a $69-million pay out. By 2012, the outstanding debt would have dropped to less than $40-million. In either case, it's a lot of money, but certainly less than the $150-million the Rays are prepared to put into a new stadium.

The expense may be more palatable if another city was willing to pay for more of the costs to build a new stadium.

But that's not the only cost the Rays may face.

According to the lease, payment of outstanding debt is only one element of the damages the city should receive. In fact, the lease says that neither the city, nor the Rays "has an adequate remedy at law for breach of this agreement."

Though the lease protects the city in some respects, it doesn't in others.

The city has lost $26.7-million operating Tropicana Field 1990. The losses likely will continue as long as the Rays keep playing in the dome. More than 95 percent of the city's operating costs at Tropicana Field are contained to two items: traffic management outside the stadium and property insurance for the dome.

Each year, the city spends about $400,000 managing traffic outside the dome. The city agrees to pay for those costs as part of the lease. The city also has been paying nearly $2-million a year to insure Tropicana Field.

Those costs are not offset by the revenues the city receives from the dome.

For discussion: What should be more important for the city and county: capping potential liability or maximizing the greatest potential return?

First poll is closed; waterfront concerns dominate

After 884 votes from across the country, and the world, our first poll is closed. Don't bother trying to add the numbers up to 100 percent. Because people could list up to two concerns, the numbers do not add up.

The results:
41.2 percent of people are most concerned about the waterfront location of the proposed ballpark.
26.1 percent of people are concerned about the cost to taxpayers.
24 percent list no concerns.

Instant analysis: Waterfront location concerns cannot make the Rays happy, since it seems difficult the team can win those people over. All the other potential concerns can be "fixed" to one degree or another. An aversion to building on the waterfront cannot.

Coming later today: Poll number 2.

Five-day financing crash course. Day 4: The public's share

Day 4: The public share
The fourth in a five-day examination of the finances surrounding a new stadium, this section addresses the costs the Rays’ are asking government to bear. For previous coverage, see here.

Background: It appears that the Tampa Bay Rays will ask the city and county government for $300-million, on top of 12 acres of waterfront property, to construct a new ballpark?

Potential problem: Where is that money going to come from?

Analysis: This remains the biggest unknown of the $450-million stadium plan. City Council members have asked for details by May 16, while the Rays have publicly promised answers before June 5.

In the interim, all we can do is dissect the public statement so far made by the team.

In its documents, the Rays say that “No existing taxes will be diverted to fund the ballpark, and no new taxes will be imposed.”

Originally, most people assumed the Rays would seek the city and county property taxes generated by the Tropicana Field redevelopment. And that they may ask for some of the sales taxes generated by the Tropicana redevelopment.

But the Rays said last month that they would not seek property taxes for the stadium project, and that the team would ask the city and county to roughly split the public contribution.

So what’s left?

First, the county. Currently Pinellas County is contributing $5-million a year toward Tropicana Field construction debt from a 1 percent hotel bed tax. Extending the 1 percent bed tax appears to be the Rays’ most likely target, since the tax cannot be used to fund general county services.

Extending the tax would require the approval of the Pinellas County Commission. But it’s not that simple. The county cannot increase the hotel tax further, meaning that funds would not be available until 2016 if bed tax funds continue to pay off the Tropicana Field debt.

The Rays say their financing plan will address the remaining Tropicana Field debt.

The city meanwhile, is contributing a little more than $5-million toward Tropicana Field construction debt – mainly from the state sales tax revenues that are allocated to St. Petersburg. Again, extending those contributions to the new stadium could be a likely target.

But there could be other possibilities. A Rays’ preliminary financial analysis – which was shared with the city before stadium negotiations went public – said the team could tap several different sources: from potential parking revenues to federal tax credits to county and state transportation funding to city and county workforce housing incentives for the Tropicana redevelopment, to simply refinancing the existing Tropicana debt.

The city and the Rays broke off all financing discussions after the stadium project went public. And the document clearly is outdated. (In one place it says new state funding was “anticipated,” when the team now has abandoned that potential revenue stream. The document also includes money generated by a hotel that was originally contemplated for the southwest corner of the Al Lang site, but never became part of the project.) But the one-page analysis does provide some hint of what the Rays are thinking.

Read the document, along with the notes from a city official, here.

For discussion: If the bed tax is used, do you consider that a burden on local taxpayers?

Coming tomorrow: The finer points.

Council chairman meeting with Rays right now

This tidbit from colleague Cristina Silva: City Council chairman Jamie Bennett is right now meeting with Rays senior vice president Michael Kalt. Presumably, the two are talking about a potential financing package for the $450-million ballpark.

Bennett (pictured) has been an interesting character in all of this. When news of the stadium first spread, Bennett sounded like a supporter. Here he is quoted in a November story about the project.

• "They've done their homework," Bennett said. "And from first blush, it seems like it could work."
• And on the stadium design: "If you look at it from the side, you can see through it," said Bennett. "It's not an obtrusive, big object."

Now, his tone is much different. Though the details of the proposal haven't changed much, Bennett now seems quite skeptical of the plan. The prospective 2009 mayoral candidate last month had this to say:

• "We need to ask, 'Is this in the best interest of the city?' " Bennett said. "We need to start asking these questions today. Right now, I am not so sure. This is a horrible time to be talking about selling real estate. It is a rough time to be talking about taxes."

What will he say today? Hopefully, we'll find out soon.

Five-day financing crash course. Day 3: Tropicana redevelopment

Day 3: Redevelopment of Tropicana Field
The third in a five-day examination of the finances surrounding a new stadium, this section addresses the potential redevelopment of Tropicana Field. For previous coverage, see here.

Background: The Tampa Bay Rays have not yet made the details of their financial proposal available, but the team has made one point clear: The tax benefits generated by the redevelopment of Tropicana Field will cover, or more than cover, the share the team is asking of St. Petersburg government.

Potential problem: What if the redevelopment does not meet developer’s projections?

Analysis: The city has just started negotiating with two developers on possible development agreements to redevelop Tropicana Field. Both developers, Archstone-Madison and Hines, have attached tax and revenue projections to their projects.

Archstone-Madison says its project will generate $11.2-million a year in new city revenues. Hines measures its economic impact in broader terms, but says new yearly tax revenues to the city, county and school district would top $24.5-million annually.

That’s on top of how much the developers are willing to pay for the 86-acre site (Archstone-Madison is offering $65-million; Hines is offering $50-million), but does not include potential environmental clean-up costs.

City officials says they will seek financial guarantees to ensure the amount of development proposed by Archstone-Madison and Hines actually happens within a certain time frame.

During the open RFP process, the city asked both Archstone-Madison and Hines what guarantees developers might provide. Here’s how they responded:

• Archstone-Madison –- “As part of a Development Agreement that the City and Developer will negotiate and execute as soon as possible after selection of Developer to develop the site, outside dates will be established for Developer to achieve in relation to plan approvals and start of construction. If developer does not achieve these Outside Dates, then the agreement terminates. In addition, there will be certain expenditure thresholds the Developer must guarantee as evidence of its commitment to the project. These include:
  
  Guaranty through Closing. Developer will incur and shall have paid in full not less than $3 million in Site and Developer Costs through Closing.
  
  Guaranty through to Construction Start. Developer will incur and shall have paid in full not less than $10 million in Site and Developer Costs to allow commencement of construction.
  
  Guaranty of Construction Commencement. Developer will guarantee construction by a certain Outside date or the City can terminate the agreement and receive all of Developer’s plans to date.
  
  Guaranty of Construction Commencement. Prior to commencement of construction of each phase, Developer shall execute a guaranty for the lien free Completion of all Improvements, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City.

• Hines -– “Each portion of this project will be established on a stand-alone basis, and Hines will approach the bidding and award of construction contracts in a manner to minimize the risk for Hines and the City. For each portion of the project undertaken by Hines, we will bid work to general contractors to achieve a Guaranteed Maximum Price contract for the construction of each program element defined under the master plan…Hines will require Payment and Performance Bonds from our general contractors, thus ensuring timely and budget certainty with respect to the construction costs.
  
  “With respect to the proposed acquisition structure of the Tropicana Field site from the City of St. Petersburg, Hines would negotiate with the City to establish a mutually agreeable take down schedule and criteria that includes provisions for mutually acceptable take down time frames after which control of the remaining land parcels not yet acquired by Hines would revert back to the City of St. Petersburg.”

In both cases, developers basically have articulated that if we don’t build, you get to keep the money we gave you and you get the land back. It’s unclear if either Hines or Archstone-Madison would be willing to go further.

Of note, the City Council has asked city officials to negotiate potential agreements that minimize further risk to the city. They inserted this clause into the negotiating document:

• Whereas, it is the intent of the City Council that the Final Disposition Agreement for the redevelopment of Tropicana Field ensures that the City incurs no financial risk in excess of guaranteed revenues generated by the Agreement; that the selected developer provide a financial guarantee to insure the development project will be completed within a defined time frame state in the Agreement; and, that the City does not become liable for unforeseen or underestimated costs.

The city hopes to have negotiated terms in place with both developers by June 5. The council would then be asked to pick a possible winner, contingent on the outcome of a November referendum (if one occurs).

For discussion: Who should be on the hook if the development doesn’t succeed? The developer? The Rays? The city?

Coming tomorrow: The public's share.

Heatcheck Wednesday

Week 2 of Heatcheck Wednesday, a permanent feature here at Ballpark Frankness. The idea behind this post is to track the past week's Rays home games and wonder how tolerable they would have been, had they been played outdoors.

No home games since last Wednesday so our standings remain the same:

How you feeling? Hot. Hot. Hot. ---- 0

Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure. ---- 0

Take me out the ball game. ---- 17

It's starting to get a little warmer out there during the day, but it's still nice at night ... The Rays come home starting Friday.