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.

Comments

[Brian]

The stadium will be great and will really help St. Pete grow as a city and not regress into the stone ages. This will also ensure that the Rays stay in the Tampa Bay area. GO RAYS! LET'S BUILD THIS BALLPARK!

[Thomas]

Sounds an awful lot like the "growth" that the Trop was supposed to stimulate... How did that work out Brian?

You know what ensures that the Rays will stay in the Tampa Bay area?
The lease at the Trop and the cost to get out of it.

[H.L.Menchen]

Brian sounds like the witless rah rah folks at "Fans". The stadiume will do just the opposite Brian. It will impede the growth of downtown and ensure St. Pete stay in the "stone age" by emphasizing sports at the expense of city services. Yeah, Go Rays to another town!

[JudyToo]

This is interesting reading from the New York Daily News. Probably explains why the Rays owners up there are so hot to fleece us for a new stadium. They know there's GOLD in them thar stadiums!

Let me know if anything rings a bell with you folks.

--------------------------

Secret papers show how Yankees became richest team in sports
Sunday, May 18th 2008, 1:49 AM

The Yankees are floundering in the standings but the team's reputation as the money machine of American sports is as dominating as ever.

The millions of dollars earned by the Bronx Bombers - whose estimated $1.2 billion worth makes them one of the most valuable franchises in the world - have reached record levels.

Documents obtained by the Daily News under a Freedom of Information request provide a rare look at the Yankees formidable cash-generating operation.

Even die-hard fans accustomed to paying top dollar to watch the superstar team will be astounded by the numbers.

Last year, the team - which hasn't won a World Series in eight years - grossed a record $188 million in gate receipts, a 20.5% increase over the 2006 season.

Factoring in other revenue streams like overpriced hot dogs, beer, pizzas and souvenirs - and income from the cable TV rights to home games - Stadium income surpassed $319 million in 2007.

The team's annual rent report filed with the city Parks Department shows the Yanks netted $65.3 million in concessions last year.

That should come as no surprise with prices like these:

- $9.50 for Budweiser on tap.

- $10.50 for Foster's beer on tap.

- $5.75 for a box of Cracker Jacks.

- $8 for Italian sausage.

- $5 for a Nathan's hot dog.

Since the Yanks have a player payroll of $208 million - the highest in the league - they need to be one of the top-earning teams.

And 2008 is guaranteed to be another record no matter where the team finishes in the standings because fans are desperate to see games in the final year of the House that Ruth Built.

The Team Marketing Report pegs the average price of a New York Yankees' ticket this season at $41.40 - up from $35.05 in 2007.

Ticket prices will get even crazier next season in the new ballpark: For example, a seat that today costs $250 will go for $850 in the new Stadium. That's for one game!

As recently as 2004, the Yankees reported total gate receipts of only $122 million - half of what they are projecting for next year.

The last time the team won the World Series, in 2000, gate income was a mere $83.7 million.

Along with last year's financial report, the Yankees gave the city a rent check for $14,976,488.

The Stadium lease agreement allows the Yankees to deduct maintenance costs - about $5 million annually - from their overall rent, plus an additional $5 million in planning costs for the new ballpark.

Next year, the city will get nothing in rent because the Yanks will own the new stadium outright, even though taxpayers put up hundreds of millions in state and city subsidies for garages and infrastructure around the stadium.

The team also will pull in more from concessions because they will be run in-house, rather than be contracted out.

More importantly, the Yankees won't have to make public their finances, since they will no longer be required to file an annual rent report with the city.

All of which proves that while the Bombers may be mediocre on the field, team management remains World Champs at the money game.

[get-smart]

HA - THEEZ GUYZ R CRIMINALZ! NAACP, FERG U BETTER GET UR IRONCLAD CONTRACT NOW, B4 THE RUSH. WAIT A MINUTE NAACP, I THOUGHT THEY PROMISED THE JOBZ TO THE UNIONZ. UNLESS THEY R GOIN' TO UNIONIZE, DEPUTIZE AND RE-GENTRIFY THE NAACP. THANKZ JUDYTOO, I NEEDED A NEW YORK REALITY CHECK & I THOUGHT IT WAZ ME.

[Rick K]

Judy Too:

What is the point of sharing that article with us?

Does it bolster your opinion that one year of deliberation about these twin development proposals is a "rush" to decide?

Does it add credence to your opinion that replacing the existing downtown ballpark with a new ballpark will destroy downtown as we know it?

Or are you making some other point?

As for Get-Smart, am I the only one who suspects that he is actually a pro-new stadium booster who is seeking to make the anti's look ridiculous?

[Rick K]

Thomas:

With all due respect, your assertion that the Rays' existing lease agreement for the Trop ensures that the Rays will stay in downtown St Pete is ridiculous.

And raising some vague issues about what you think were broken promises or unrealized dreams two decades ago is not going to persaude anyone, really.

Your disappointment (if that is what it is) is just not a relevant factor to most anyone. The anti's who raise that issue are being disingenuous, because what promises may or may not have been made by different elected officials (who hadn't even secured a MLB team) more than two decades ago has virtually nothing to do with the following groups of people:

1) Those who live in St Pete today (a majority of whom did not live here then),
2) Those who administer City government today,
3) Those who will become residents of the new development on the current Trop property,
4) Those who run the Rays organization today,
5) Those who will work downtown at the new jobs created by these paired redevelopment projects
6) Those who will shop downtown and patronize the restaurants/bars because of these redevelopment projects

(and so on)

[Thomas]

Rick:

It's not specific to St.Pete; Ballparks do not live up to the hype they are advertised with. They contribute very little to urban redevelopment and almost nothing to the economy. That's just the way it is.

If the Rays want to put this on the ballot, they need to replace their glossy slideshow with some facts.

First, let's get the public/private contributions accurate (counting the redevelopment of the public land at the Trop as "private" - that's more than shady, it's an outright lie). Followed that by putting some hard numbers behind the "hundreds of millions in new taxes generated" claims.

Then, let's look at the lease term sheet for the proposed new stadium. Who's getting what percentage of suite revenues, naming rights, concessions, etc.

Lastly, if this is such a lock to be successful, let's have the Rays guarantee the public share - as suggested by Troxler.

If the Rays cannot or will not supply that information, this should not go to the ballot.

Remember the Rays came to us, we didn't call them up and suggest a new stadium. If they won't publish the full details, it tells you everything you need to know: They're hiding because it's a suckers deal.

[Rick K]

Thomas:

Your statement about hype and disappointment is not true in many cases. The Ice Palace and Raymond James Stadium in Tampa have both lived up to their hype. (Exceeded, it, many would say). These are both world-class venues which have contributed to bringing world sports championships to their home teams. Both of those venues have also provided many other entertainment options for the people of the Bay Area.

When I think about other cities I have visited, particularly those with sports stadia built in the past 15 years, I know that the stadia that lived up to or exceeded the hype far outnumber those that did not.

I understand that certain specific predictions often fail to pan out. That isn't the question that is before us. Or, more correctly, that isn't something that concerns most of us.

Most of us will look at the proposed redevelopment of the Trop sight and see that as a great replacement to an ugly, underutilized chunk of downtown. That redevelopment is what has MANY of us excited about this deal.

That the anti's prefer to focus only on the new ballpark is telling, but not terribly important.

Your positive assertion that these twin redevelopment proposals will not result in significant contributions to additional economic growth in the City is ludicrous.

The Rays don't need to do ANYTHING, as far as I am concerned. If you want more information, go get it. Most who read your posts here doubt that there is ANYTHING that can be said about the new redevelopments that will make you support them. And there is nothing wrong with having your mind made up - the crime is in trying to prevent the rest of us from considering WHATEVER WE EACH WANT to consider.

Your ability to write about your understanding of development economics is not incredibly strong. You take views about which you are obviously passionate and dilute or destroy those points with inaccurate or untrue assertions.

Take, for example, your odd fixation on the term "private contribution."

It's pretty simple, really.

The public already owns the land upon which the Trop sits. If private developers write a check to purchase that land, that money is a private contribution. Without the private party making the contribution, the City does not get the money. Therefore, in every sense of the word, it is a private contribution.

I understand the economic argument that says that when the City turns around and uses that private contribution to help build a new stadium for the Rays, that election by the City to spend the money on the new stadium now becomes a public contribution.

While that is true in a legal sense, it ignores the very real truth that the money is ONLY available if a private developer contributes it.

The Rays point in classifying that money as a "private" contribution is not to hide the fact that the government will receive the money then spend it. Their point is to demonstrate that the money will not come from tax coffers. It is money that will not be available to the city without these twin redevelopment proposals. Thus, it "offsets" the need to raise those dollars through some other means (like taxing the public or issuing government bonds).

This is pretty simple economic theory.

What confuses me, Thomas, is why you think you get to decide when the citizens of St. Pete have enough information upon which to base their decision.

Bottom line seems to be that you don't want the citizens to choose. Your objective seems to be to use whatever argument you can, to convince people that we ought not vote on this after a year's worth of consideration.

You should trust the people, Thomas.

[Thomas]

Mr K:

Did you really just try to defend the Rays designation of the Trop redevelopment money as "private"?

That's what you were trying to do with all your semantics right?

I do agree with one part of your diatribe, it is pretty simple:
If the city sells the Trop site then turns around and gives that money to the Rays - it's a PUBLIC contribution. Period.

Going out of your way to defend or attempt to rationalize this blatant lie is pretty telling about your character Rick.

Also, just so you have the story straight: I don't oppose a vote on the plan. However, they haven't presented a plan yet.

If the Rays cannot operate in good faith and disclose the full details - including the lease term sheet - then our leaders should lead and reject this request.

You may be perfectly content to look at the pretty pictures then go vote, and that's fine.

However, the responsible citizens are going to want to see some real details before they consider spending $300M in public money.

[Rick K]

No Thomas.

I think we will have plenty of information before it is time to vote.

At this point, I am not predicting the outcome of that vote.

But I think it will be a great civic exercise for the entire city to decide what we want St Pete to be for the next three decades.

[Don Mott]

"Did you really just try to defend the Rays designation of the Trop redevelopment money as "private"? That is exactly what he did. The spinmeister tried and failed to present a reasonable argument for why the taxpayers should fork over more than $450 million so several millionaire investment bankers can inflate their bank accounts. Please be reminded Rick the city does not need the new ball park nor the Rays permission to sell and or redevelop the Trop site and keep all of the monies. Let me remind you also that we do not have enough information, i.e. where is the $55 million coming from that they could not guarantee or account for? Your spin here is real weak.

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, Aaron -- Howard Troxler was asked where he came down, a couple of weeks ago, on the goodness of the Rays owners' Big Deal proposal. He at least answered the question directly then, and again in his column on Sunday.

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be an increasing flavor of a litle pro-"Build It" slant to the stuff you put in the Times, and the headline items and blog-owner-provided content here.

Would you maybe answer a direct question?

As a person granted a lot of access to the Dealers, and details such as they are, on all sides, what is your current position on whether or not the deal is so good for the whole community that City Council and County should just go go ahead with this set of transactions?

[Rick K]

Don Mott:

You use interesting spin.

It is a "private" contribution, since it isn't coming either from taxpayers or from any monies that the City/County already have on hand or plan to collect.

If you don't like the label, come up with a better one. To get both these redevelopment projects done, the Rays have found a creative way to offset much of the cost by bringing new money into the "construction" account from private sources.

Again, this money ONLY comes to the City if we undertake these twin redevelopment deals. If it were PUBLIC money, it would be money that the government is going to get anyway. The occupation of the Trop by the Rays precludes the City from collecting that money.

You can pretend that this infusion of new capital from the private sector is the equivalent of taxes collected from City residents. But the rest of us know better.

[Who Cares?]

Why does anyone really give two shidts about what Howard Troxler thinks?
Is he the voice of St Pete? LOL

[Thomas]

Rick K says: "If you don't like the label, come up with a better one."

We already did come up with a better and more accurate label: PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION.

[Thomas]

Rick, you are quite a conflicted soul aren't you:

"The Rays don't need to do ANYTHING, as far as I am concerned. If you want more information, go get it"

Posted by: Rick K | May 19, 2008 at 08:15 PM

"Which is why I say let's keep getting information."

Posted by: Rick K | May 20, 2008 at 11:35 AM

* Ok, so we need to get information, but the Rays don't need to give information. Very astute contradiction there Rick.

"What I do have a problem with is trying to cheat by skewing the debate."

Posted by: Rick K | May 20, 2008 at 09:21 AM

"The public already owns the land upon which the Trop sits. If private developers write a check to purchase that land, that money is a private contribution. Without the private party making the contribution, the City does not get the money."

Posted by: Rick K | May 19, 2008 at 08:15 PM

* So you have a problem with cheating to skew the debate, then you cheat to skew the debate yourself by trying to rationalize a public contribution as a private contribution.

Thanks Rick - we know we can expect half-truths, spin jobs, and outright contridictions from you.

[Rick K]

Is it NOT a public contribution to these twin redevelopment projects because the PUBLIC does not have the money.

The money will come from the PRIVATE Sector, if, and only if, these redevelopment deals happen.

The proposal in this discussion is the redevelopment of TWO properties.

The idea is to SELL one of the two properties to the PRIVATE SECTOR, and use those monies (From the PRIVATE sector) to help finance the deal.

It is important to distinguish these monies (which come from the PRIVATE SECTOR) from public monies, which come from current government cash balances, future government tax collections, or borrowing by the government.

If the City of St. Pete were to either write a check from their bank account or to take on debt and use that money to build the stadium, then we could all agree that the contribution would consist of PUBLIC money.

In this case, a key component of these twin redevelopment proposals is to GENERATE NEW CASH, from the PRIVATE sector, which new private money immediately passes thru a government account (I admit that the City will hold these privately-contributed monies for a brief time) to be immediately reinvested in a public project which the City/County will own.

I have pointed this out before. These monies do not come to the City and cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever UNLESS these twin redevelopment projects are undertaken.

This "money" from the sale of the Trop site is not currently PUBLIC money. It is NEW money, which will NOT come from taxes or from increased government borrowing.

Calling it public money is as inadequate as calling it private money. There is probably a better, more accurate label in between which helps us to differentiate these monies from public monies that might come from taxation or current city cash balances.

Thomas, you can call a truth a "half truth," but that doesn't make it one.

You can call a plain recitation of the facts followed by openly declared OPINIONS "spin," but that doesn't make them spin.

It's "spin" to offer self defeating arguments and irrelevant tangents and unlikely hypotheticals in place of real facts or clearly labeled opinions.

We now all know that you cannot tell the difference. We'll let everyone else decide on their own, thanks.

[get-smart]

Please help! I am not the sharpest pencil in the box.

The City owns the Trop Site. Yes
Hines has $70M. Yes
------------------
The City Sells the Trop to Hines. Yes
------------------
The City has $70M. Yes
Hines owns the Trop Site. Yes
------------------
The City spends $70M on retiring an old debt. Yes
-----------------

Will some one please explain to me what a contribution is. Thank You

--

[Rick K]

Thomas,

Even though the following is unlikely to convince you (the lover of spin), I offer it to clarify for any who might be confused by the dust you kick up. You assert these two statements by me (from different discussions on different points) are contradictory.

"The Rays don't need to do ANYTHING, as far as I am concerned. If you want more information, go get it"

"Which is why I say let's keep getting information."

Taken together (as though I said them in the same context to the same question), these two statements by me make the point that we will get much more information in the coming months. The City, County, their consultants, potential developers, MLB, local business groups, and interested citizens will provide us with tons of additional information about these twin redevelopment proposals in the coming months.

So there will be loads of information even if the Rays did not provide additional information.

(OF course, the Rays WILL provide additional information, which makes this a moot tangent - which is what you love, anything but a discussion that disproves all your "anti" myths.)

In the first snippet of mine, I was arguing that the anti's should stop PRETENDING that the Rays have some secret agenda and these matters will come to a vote in November without full public consideration of the points that most voters regard as relevant.

You see, Thomas, in reading these blog discussion threads, it is obvious to me that many people on the ANTI-side which to hijack these discussions and make them about all sorts of things other than the relevant points. It's an old technique.

The anti's (together with some self-labeled skeptics like Trox) imagine that there was a secret plan to deny the public a reasonable amount of time to consider these proposals, without a single shred of actual evidence. They make up a fantasy and claim that the fantasy must be real.

Besides being silly, that has NOTHING really to do with the merits of the proposals, which either make sense or not, regardless of how these proposals came to light.

The person I was debating was offering the position that since they thought there were a lot of secrets still not revealed, no one else should be allowed to vote, until this one guy (the one I was arguing with) thinks he has enough info. I find the idea that a few people get to set timetables for everyone else by offering the "I need more time" argument to be ridiculous.

My reply to that person was to let him know that he does not decide when the rest of us have enough information. He also doesn't get to dicatate what information the Rays provide us.

Of course, in reality, the Rays WILL provide many more details. As will all those other groups, which is why I say (in a differnt context) that I think we should keep on gathering and analyzing all this information.

There is no contradiction, Thomas.

Just an attempt by you to obfuscate and cloud the important issues.

[Thomas]

I'd like to answer:

What is a PUBLIC Contribution.

YES- that's correct!

(Rick, just because it's not taxes doesn't mean it's not a public contribution. It's still very simple: Public land at Trop is sold to Hines. Public profit from that sale is given to the Rays = PUBLIC contribution)

[Rick K]

GetSmart,

I am happy to help.

The County owns the Trop Site, which it leases to the City, who then leases it to the Rays. This lease is for the TROP. The City is prohibited, by this lease, from tearing down the Trop.

The Rays propose to vacate the Trop and let the city redevelop that land, to improve downtown and add ecnomic growth to the city and region. (This voluntary offer is a contribution from the Rays, who are a private entity).

In exchange for freeing up this 80 acres of underutilized urban real estate, the Rays are asking the City to build a new ball park adjacent to the waterfront, on a site which currently houses an underutilized baseball stadium, a large surface parking lot, and ugly offices for Minor League baseball.

This new stadium has a cost. The Rays are recommending that the City could take some of the money raised from the redevelopment of the Trop site, and use that to pay for the development of the new stadium, in order to save the citizens of St. Pete from having to come up with that amount of money ($70 million?), either by paying more taxes or increasing the public debt.

Thus, the Rays are saying, "we will contribute by willingly vacating our lease early, the private sector will contribute by paying money to develop the Trop site, and that contribution from the developers can be used to pay for part of the construction costs at the new stadium.

Two good examples come to mind. The Federal Election Commission limits the amount of money an individual can contribute to a political candidate. If I was to give you $2000 with the understanding that you would turn right around and contribute the $2000 to the candidate I supported, the law regards your "contribution" as actually coming from me. Because it came from me. Without me, there is no contribution. You were merely a conduit through which the money passed, but whose temporary possession of the money is of no legal importance.

Similarly, the IRS lets me make gifts of a certain amount of money to anyone I choose, up to a limit, without any taxes owed by the person to whom I give the money. If I was to give you $10,000 and then you turned right around and gave the $10,000 to the person I asked you to give it to, the IRS treats that money as having been contributed by me. Because it was contributed by me.

In the case of these twin redevelopment proposals, it is very simple. The City/County own the trop but are unable to sell it to developers because of the lease with the Rays.

IF the Rays voluntarily vacate their lease, and IF the private sector voluntarily decides to pay money for the right to redevelop the Trop site, then that money will have been contributed from the private developers.

This is true because the purchase agreement could be written to require the Trop redevelopers to actually write a $70 million check to the construction contractor for the new stadium. The city will merely be holding the money for a little while, but their temporary possesion of it does not change the fact that the money was contributed by voluntary acts of two private entities.

[Thomas]

"Just an attempt by you to obfuscate and cloud the important issues."

Actually my comments were very direct. There was no attempt to cloud anything.

1. The Rays came to us with the proposal. No one called them and pitched the idea.

2. If the Rays want this on the ballot, they need to disclose all information - including the lease term sheet - as well as validate their estimates.

3. There is no rush. We're not on any type of time line that would require this to be expedited.

You can call it a conspiracy theory if you want, because there certainly is no hard evidence to support it. But you sure could draw a logical conclusion that it benefits the Rays chances of getting this approved if they provide minimum details and try to rail it through as quickly as possible. If they can get it on the ballot while concealing the most important aspects of the plan then they could pump a few million into a slick advertising campaign; they might just get it passed.

[Don Mott]

Hey Rick K, How about we call that $70 million "future" taxpayers money since in reality that is what it is. It really absolutely does not matter where it comes from. Let us look at another scenario. If I own a piece of property and sell it to you, then give that money to another individual for new construction costs on another property that I own, is and was that not my money? How you can believe that this is a private donation is beyond me.

[Rick K]

Don Mott, I respect you. But I am having a hard time following your latest.

Again: What is on the table is TWO redevelopment proposals tied together.

The FIRST part of the proposal permits the redevelopment of 85 acres of underutilized land that is currently obligated to the Rays for another 20 years. The SECOND part of the proposal is the redevelopment of an existing baseball stadium, ugly offices, and surface parking lots, which will result, among other things, in extending the Rays commitment to stay in downtown St. Pete for another 20 years.

The way this deal gets done is like this.

A) The voters of St. Pete approve the part of the deal they have to decide on.
B) The County agrees to all the different components they must accept for the deals to happen.
C) The City agrees to all the different components they must accept for the deals to happen.
D) A PRIVATE developer determines that there is sufficeint PRIVATE capital in this marketplace to support PRIVATE development of the Trop Field site. Having made that determiniation, this PRIVATE developer makes a contribution of NEW (NON PUBLIC) capital (not available to the government now in any form whatsoever), in the expectation that their total investment of money, labor, management and entrepreneurship will produce a satisfactory profit as the result of PRIVATE citizens deciding to spend PRIVATE monies to make PRIVATE purchases at the redeveloped site.
E) The City/County region end up with fewer acres of underutilized / non-taxed land.
F) The Rays get a new ballpark
G) The community gets a new ballpark to replace the one that is currently used about 15 days a year, and the total amount of land in downtown St. Pete devoted to baseball shrinks by about 85%.

The City is merely a conduit for the money which will come from PRIVATE contributions. The fact that the city may hold the money for a while doesn't change that the money comes from the PRIVATE sector.

There is NO WAY this money comes to the City without these deals. It is not money that is available to the public. Therfore it is not public money.

Easy, really.

[Rick K]

Thomas, your arrogance is both insulting and typical.

It is very clear that you think the only way the Rays get approval for these deals is if the people are kept in the dark.

Your brand of egocentric elitism turns my stomach.

Trust the people!

[Thomas]

Actually Rick,

I would estimate that someone asking difficult questions about this proposal is really what turns your stomach.

It's not favorable to your position to take a look a hard look at this proposal.

The details will come out, as much as you would like to avoid that. I imagine that's because we both already know what we're going to find.

[Don Mott]

"There is NO WAY this money comes to the City without these deals. It is not money that is available to the public". Sorry Rick, your spin does not hold water. The city WOULD get this money without contributing to a new stadium once the Rays end their tenure in the Trop and move. Which from all indications WILL NOT be 20 years. Then the money becomes available to the public. Are you insinuating the city could not sell the property without building a new stadium? Just because the money comes from a private enterprise does not make it PRIVATE money no matter how you try to spin it. As I stated above in a different scenario, the land is a city asset, therefore any money generated from that asset is city money no matter how it is handled. I don't have a degree in economics or accounting but that, IMO is common sense.

[Thousands of little RED Signs]

I have just completed my straw poll.

Bring on the city referendum.

The Rays will loose the vote.

The Rays will then leave town.

Council then gets re-called.

Just another great day in St. Pete.