Who will the council pick? Hines or Archstone

Archstone has to be a heavy, heavy favorite, but stranger things have happened.

The City Council is expected to start their weekly meeting in a few minutes, and the Tropicana Field RFP question is pretty high up on the agenda. We know the folks from Archstone will be in the audience. We expect Hines will be represented here, too.

Keep checking back to see what happens.

UPDATE (3:05 p.m.) --- The meeting is just starting. Council member Jeff Danner is reading a proclamation recognizing St. Pete Pride. (For St. Petersburg regulars, the Pride proclamation is one of the very few, if only proclamation in the city that Mayor Rick Baker does not sign).

UPDATE (3:15 p.m.) -- Trop discussion just now getting underway. The city's lead negotiator, Rick Mussett, is on vacation. So economic development director Dave Goodwin is taking the mic. Mayor Rick Baker just also walked in.

UPDATE (3:35 p.m.) -- Council members are now launching into their questions for staff.

UPDATE (3:55 p.m.) -- City Council member Karl Nurse, praising the Archstone selection, and comparing it the failed developers of Bay Plaza: "The strength of Archstone group is like 25 times, 50 times stronger than the Bay Plaza group."

UPDATE (4:20 p.m.) -- The meeting, no offense, is turning into a pretty boring event. A camerawoman with channel 10 is sleeping the front row.

UPDATE (4:30 p.m.) -- Council selects Archstone-Madison 5-1. Herb Polson voted 'yes.' It was Leslie Curran who voted 'no.'

(City Council chairman Jamie Bennett is away on vacation, so vice chairman Jeff Danner is running the meeting).

-- Aaron Sharockman, Times Staff Writer

First reading of referendum ordinance moved back one week

The city will push back the first reading of the stadium referendum ordinance from July 17 to July 24, senior city development administrator Rick Mussett told Ballpark Frankness this afternoon.

The change does not affect the second reading, which would still happen Aug. 7, or the prospects of a November citywide vote, Mussett said.

It was made so that the Pinellas County Commission can consider its part of the financing package -- $100-million from a tourism tax --before City Council members would have to take a vote on holding a citywide referendum. The county's vote on the financing plan is scheduled July 22.

You write the caption

 

FYI: July 17 meeting is a first reading, not public hearing

The July 17 City Council meeting is not a public hearing, but simply a first reading. The public will not be allowed to speak. The public will be allowed to speak before the Aug. 7 second hearing (if there is one).

Council votes 7-1 to move Rays' plans forward

Councilman Herb Polson and Mayor Rick Baker talk after City Council voted 7-1 to proceed with the proposed referendum for a new waterfront stadium. Polson was the only one who voted no. [Martha Rial, Times]

The City Council just voted 7-1 to move the Rays stadium plan forward. Herb Polson is the lone no. A second vote is scheduled July 17.

The council is in session. They have a few other unrelated legal items to tackle before taking up the stadium issue. We'll be back here once the talk turns to the stadium.

UPDATE: While we wait, here's a lay of the land real quick. Norm Brown, president of the local NAACP branch is here, as is chamber CEO John Long. For the Rays, Matt Silverman and Michael lead a six-to-seven person contingent. Barbara Heck is here representing CONA. Will Michaels (St. Pete Preservation) is here. As are Hal Freedman and Hamilton Hanson from POWW.

UPDATES: Here we go. Leslie Curran starts by asking Matt Silverman to postpone the stadium question. Silverman says, politely, no. City administrator Rick Mussett is now taking the podium to go through details of the process.

City internal services administrator Mike Connors just gave a report at the environmental conditions at Tropicana Field. He estimated the maximum clean-up costs would not exceed $94,000 (excluding soft costs). "If it’s that modest, it might be something we do and get done with," council member Karl Nurse, whether or not the Rays' plan moves forward.

The talk is now turning to financing. City economic development official Joe Zeoli is now going through the Hines and Archstone-Madison redevelopment proposals. Neither proposal, right now, includes a sales price that would cover all of the existing debt at Tropicana Field. The Archstone proposal is $2.3-million -to-$3.135-million short. The Hines proposal is short between $4-million-to-$5.8-million. The city is still negotiating with the devevelopers on a purchase price.

"I believe we're in striking distance of accomplishing that objective," Zeoli said about paying off the Tropicana Field debt.

* The council is now doing it's 'we're mad and frustrated by the process speech.' They're taking some of the frustration out on the Rays and some of their frustration out on city staff. Mayor Rick Baker said Herb Polson was barking. Polson responded, "If I choose to bark, you will hear it." Leslie Curran just called the Rays bull-headed.

* Danner moved approval of moving forward; Newton seconds... It's Jamie Bennett's turn to talk. I think we're going to have a 7-1 vote.

7-1 it is. Polson alone voting no.

Waiting to begin

The council chamber is still pretty empty. Talking with a few folks early this afternoon, most think that the vote may be anticlimactic, with the council essentially agreeing to move the process along. We'll see.

Viewer's guide: Today's meeting

Check out our viewer's guide for today's meeting here.

Times ed board: Nurse muddies waters

Karl Nurse, who was appointed to the St. Petersburg City Council less than two months ago, has wasted no time becoming a divisive force. On the eve of an important council vote — one that could help determine Major League Baseball's future in the city — Nurse has insulted his more experienced colleagues by trying to undermine their debate today on a ballot question proposed by the Tampa Bay Rays to build a new waterfront stadium.

The council is to take a vote to start the procedures to schedule a November referendum so voters could decide if a $450-million stadium should be built on the site of Al Lang Field. As part of that plan, the Tropicana Field site would be sold for residential and retail development and returned to the tax rolls. This is just the first step in a multistep referendum process, and it is a reasonable move to enable negotiations to continue to progress over the summer. Council members have until August to make a final decision on putting the stadium question on the November ballot, and there is no reason to prematurely end the discussion now.

Now Nurse wants to muddy the waters and confuse voters. He said he would introduce a competing, and potentially conflicting, referendum question today. Nurse is acting at the urging of former council member Virginia Littrell, a vehement stadium opponent who lost her 2005 re-election bid. She wants to rezone the Al Lang site, which has been used for baseball for decades, and restrict development on it.

Read the rest of the blistering editorial here.

City Council chair Jamie Bennett says he'll vote to move the process along on Thursday

Council chair Jamie Bennett just told Ballpark Frankess that he'll vote to move the stadium referendum process along on Thursday, though he also sounded interested in supporting the proposed Nurse/POWW alternative.

"At this point, I could give it a try," Bennett said. "If that’s what people want to vote for, let’s give them the opportunity to vote for that too."

Bennett said he was aware the dueling referendums could produce confusion, and indicated that a single question outlining both positions may be best.

FWIW: Council member Bill Dudley also is on record saying he supports a referendum on the Rays' plan. No other council member has made their position known (though most expect Herb Polson to vote No on the Rays' question tomorrow).

Thursday's stadium meeting will start at 1:15 p.m.

This just in from City Hall: Though Thursday's council meeting begins at 8:30 a.m., the City Clerk has set the time for the baseball discussion to begin at 1:15 p.m. (It will not begin before 1:15 p.m.) Also, because it's a report item on the City Council agenda, people will not be allowed to speak -- unless the council specifically allows it.

After three public hearings already, and something like 850 people weighing in, I'm expecting the council will proceed without reopening public debate.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.