What’s in the Gas Plant redevelopment’s benefits package?
The City of St. Petersburg released long-awaited Historic Gas Plant redevelopment terms April 25, providing stakeholders with critical project details established through several months of negotiations with the Tampa Bay Rays.
The proposed deal eschews some of the Community Benefits Advisory Council’s (CBAC) affordable housing recommendations. The group, comprised of eight appointees and City Council Chair Deborah Figgs-Sanders, approved the Rays and Hines development team’s initial proposal 7-2 in February.
Erica Riggins, the city’s public information officer, noted that the $6.5 billion project’s redevelopment agreement included eight of the CBAC’s 11 additional recommendations. She credited the Rays for making “significant improvements” in a lengthy statement issued late Friday afternoon.
“I am confident that this collaboration will deliver on the promise of economic opportunity and transform acres of asphalt into a vibrant, connected and inclusive neighborhood for generations to come,” Riggins wrote.
A new $1.3 billion ballpark will anchor the expansive redevelopment. The first phase will break ground next spring and include 1,500 residential units, 500 hotel rooms, 600,000 square feet of office and medical space, a new Woodson African American Museum of Florida, 100,000 square feet of entertainment space and 60,000 square feet of conference, ballroom and meeting space.
The agreement does not offer a completion date. However, the public-private partnership expects the stadium to open in January 2028 and the second phase to follow.
The developers will pay the city $105.27 million over phases for the property surrounding the county-owned stadium site. The group must purchase $50.4 million in land by 2036.
The CBAC requested the Rays/Hines to build 300 onsite affordable and workforce housing units by 2028. The council also asked the developers to prioritize homes for those earning up to 80% of the area median income.
The development team added 50 units at 80% of the AMI to the development plan. They will also build 100 of the recommended 300 onsite affordable, workforce and senior housing units by 2028.
The CBAC unanimously voted to increase penalties from $25,000 to $150,000 if the Rays/Hines fail to meet offsite housing requirements and to $175,000 for onsite units. The latest agreement maintains the initial fine and original 2030 timeline for the first 300 apartments.
However, liquidated damages gradually increase to $75,000 per unit in the project’s final phase, which begins in 2047. Stakeholders expect to complete those 350 homes – and the remaining redevelopment – by 2054. The average penalty is now $51,000, a 112.5% increase.
The CBAC also voted to dedicate $5 million of the team’s $15 million in intentional equity to a housing trust fund. Riggins said the city will receive the total amount and “ensure that those funds are used to address the community’s greatest housing needs.”
A site plan for the $6.5 billion redevelopment project. Screengrab, city documents.
According to the agreement, the Rays/Hines will build 300 units for those making up 60% of the AMI, 350 at 80%, 100 at 100% and 500 for those making at or below 120%. At least 100 units are for seniors.
The developers must commit $750,000 to “restorative” community outreach, $16.75 million to create a workforce pipeline, $7.5 million to educational programming and $10 million to the Woodson Museum. The latter aspect is due by July 1, 2025.
The agreement mandates that disadvantaged workers and apprentices must complete 15% of all construction hours and requires them to receive a “responsible wage.” There is now an $850,000 penalty if city-certified minority-owned businesses do not complete at least 10% of the work by Dec. 31, 2035.
The developers would incur another $850,000 fine if they do not meet that goal by 2045. The penalty soars to $1.675 million by the end of the 30-year term.
The city will retain ownership of four parcels in the reimagined District to create rent-restricted housing with a 99-year affordability period. At least 10 acres must remain publicly accessible open space.
Riggins noted that the agreement addresses priorities shared during Community Conversation sessions. Those include adding a 20,000-square-foot grocery store to the “target development plan” and building at least one daycare or similar facility by the “first interim minimum development deadline.”
“In addition to a state-of-the-art ballpark, the development will include more affordable and workforce housing than originally proposed, greater assurances for minority business enterprise and disadvantaged worker participation, significant investments in workforce and business development, a renewed Booker Creek and a larger land purchase price than first offered,” Riggins wrote.
The city will allocate $287.5 million to the project and $130 million toward infrastructure costs. Documents show the city’s combined debt service estimate is about $700 million.
City officials hired Bank of America and Raymond James to oversee the tax-exempt bond issuance. Three minority and women-owned firms will also participate in the transactions.
Bank of America called the city’s proposed financing structure “prudent and conservative.” St. Petersburg’s city council will discuss the redevelopment agreement May 9 and the separate stadium deal May 23.
Scott Bitterli
May 1, 2024at4:03 pm
We really need to see a simple chart that shows PUBLIC FUNDS CONTRIBUTED vs. PUBLIC BENEFITS along side PRIVATE FUNDS CONTRIBUTED vs. PRIVATE BENEFITS. Cause, to me, it looks like this whole project is complicate way for the public to fund things they want, while also paying for what the private companies want. I’m not sure I’m seeing the net benefit to the community.
Karyn Mueller
May 1, 2024at10:07 am
After spending five weeks serving on the Community Benefits Advisory Council, it’s very disappointing to see Rays/Hines incorporated almost none of the unanimously voted upon recommendations. Think about all the members of the public who had to sit for hours to have an opportunity to speak and none of their priorities and requests were addressed.
Where are the Community Benefits this project promised?
Did the Developer commit to spending on Community Benefits? No, the $50 million in Intentional Equity is paid for by the City, not the Developer. They deducted it from the value of the land and subsequent purchase price.
Does the project deliver on City needed development that will bring us the promised economic benefits in property tax revenues? No, the development schedule allows for 15 year timelines and loose deliverables with minimal methods to guarantee performance. In contrast, the stadium will be built by 2028.
Does it deliver on Affordable Housing? The developer can pay $25,000/unit and opt of building the affordable housing altogether. The developer is requiring additional grant funds from the City and County for affordable housing. They are getting free land, an infrastructure subsidy of $130,000,000 from taxpayers and additional grants and still can’t increase the penalty closer to the $300,000/unit it costs to build (estimated cost per Jeff Brandes on recent WMNF interview). Even in the best-case scenario, only 300 units of affordable housing will be delivered by 2030, 2 years after the stadium.
To put this project in perspective, realize the project prioritizes the stadium construction and the developer receiving the $130 million in infrastructure the taxpayers are contributing first, which can be used for due diligence including site work, demolition and public art. Since the stadium will be built, the likelihood is that the public infrastructure contribution will go toward the stadium development.
In addition, the requirements of the City are much higher than the requirements for the developer. Within the 12 year time frame that the Rays/Hines group has to pay only $50 million toward the land purchase, the City has an obligation to deliver $80 million of infrastructure subsidies.
The City will allow Rays/Hines to fund their $54 million contribution to infrastructure with a loan that is paid back with a special assessment of all new property owners on the Trop site. This will increase rent costs for future tenants on the site. The developer doesn’t have to contribute any upfront land purchase funds other than $4.4 million/year and they do not have to contribute money toward infrastructure at all. It is all upside with no risk and almost no cost to the developer.
The City should have demanded that the development of the Historic Gas Plant site be implemented within a similar timeframe as the stadium and at the Developer’s expense (like it was in Atlanta and San Diego). The Atlanta Braves and San Diego Padres’ developer paid the total cost of land and Infrastructure for its non-stadium development, unlike the Rays.
Can you imagine that after the City provides huge funding early for the stadium, the land, the Infrastructure, and all the other incentives, the Developer gets to take 30 years to deliver an ill-defined non-stadium development agenda and doesn’t provide the Community with the benefits this project was promised to deliver? That is what City Council and Pinellas County Commissioners will be voting on.
There will be two upcoming Committee of the Whole meetings on May 9th and May 23rd with votes on the stadium and on the development in June. Please contact your representatives to tell them to demand a better deal for our residents.
Hugh Hazeltine
April 30, 2024at4:14 pm
City spokesperson Riggins will have her last day on May 2nd. She is expected to return to Bay News 9 on May 6. She was paid $150K/year.
Drew
April 30, 2024at3:47 pm
More snowjobbing and propaganda from the Rays to cover the fact they are trying to hijack land, money, and the future of downtown St Pete. We are better without the Rays.
Ryan Todd
April 30, 2024at12:38 pm
The Rays are tone deaf. They just released the city connections uniforms, which are supposed to highlight the team’s connection to its host City, and I’m the unis still say Tampa Bay.
Seems excessively tone deaf considering their ask of St. Pete and the fact that city council members have asked if the Rays would change their name to reflect our excessive investment in the team.
Get bent, Rays.
Christopher Lerbs
April 30, 2024at11:25 am
According to the City’s presentation on 10/26/23 the $50 million “intentional equity” amount was subtracted from the land price. Therefore that is taxpayer’s money. Furthermore $50 million paid out over 30 years is $32 million. The Woodson Museum must raise a reported $40 million by July 2025 or the Rays keep $10 million of the benefit amount for themselves. (See COW agenda). Neither if the CBAC’s unanimous recommendations were adopted because they are fair for taxpayers and set penalties at the same level as other developers must pay. Where is the financial disclosure of the Rays financial benefit? Taxpayers deserve to know.
Alan DeLisle
April 30, 2024at4:32 am
The “Developer” is not paying for any Community Benefits. The city is paying for everything by giving away most of the land and paying $130 million for the infrastructure of the site that should be paid by the developer. Ask the Council to add up all the city investment and revenue it is surrendering and compare that to the profit of the “Developer.” And what does the city get in return: meaningless MWBW and small business goals and minimum, embarrassing development assurances. The Development Agreement does not guarantee what is articulated in the Targeted, Phase development, not even the African American Museum. Oh, and only 10 acres of green space. I can only imagine why the park advocates have not been in the streets. In every sense of a public-private development partnership, this is a horrible deal for St Pete residents and taxpayers. Be strong St Pete. Find the courage to speak the truth like you always have.
Roberts Jeffery
April 29, 2024at8:03 pm
The land is COUNTY owned, not the City. This is a major subsidy to the Rays. Whats the definition of “affordable”? More federal government subsidized low income housing. Rays are subsidized by larger market major league franchises. In the end,Tax payers essentially footing the bill.
S. Rose Smith-Hayes
April 29, 2024at6:43 pm
I appreciate the breakdown. I do not wish for the City to sell any portion of the land to any entity. Much of the land was owned by elder Jordan, a black man. I appreciate that up to 60% AMI salaried persons were considered, considering the majority of former citizens were ‘regular’ people with a few teachers and doctors and small business owners. There was No Luxury there. I realize what was there before cannot be recreated but I resent the word ‘Luxury’ anything being there.