The CEO and president of the Tampa Sports Authority has been sent a letter calling for four members of the board to resign because of a conflict of interest regarding the location of a proposed stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays.
And if they don't resign, the letter from Tampa attorney Jared Willis wants them removed by the local governments that appointed them.
The members targeted are Chair Patrick Manteiga, Tony Muniz and Andy Scaglione — appointees of the Hillsborough County Commission — as well as Joe Robinson, a city of Tampa appointee.
During the June 2 board meeting, Muniz made a motion for the board to send a letter to the county commission that said proposed renovations to Raymond James Stadium should take precedence over the Rays' project. All four voted for the motion, which passed.
In the letter to authority CEO Eric Hart, Willis said Manteiga, Muniz and Scaglione own properties in Ybor City that could increase in value if the current negotiations to build in the Drew Park neighborhood fail and Rays ownership reconsiders building in Ybor City.
Robinson was named as owning several parcels near Raymond James Stadium, which is across the street from the Drew Park property —currently the Hillsborough College Dale Mabry campus.
"Public records establish that multiple board members who participated in that vote held undisclosed real property and business interests that could be materially affected by its outcome," Wills wrote in the letter, dated Thursday. "None of those members disclosed an interest before the meeting. None recused. The motion itself was made by a member whose entities hold Ybor City commercial property."
"The honorable course for the members named above is to resign," Willis' letter states. "If they will not, the board owes it to the public to act: to call for their resignation on the record, to place the documented record before the appointing authorities with a request for removal under (Florida Statute) 112.501, and to refer the matter to the Florida Commission on Ethics."
Even though several Ybor sites were considered in the past, the Rays have said they have no other plans to build in the Tampa Bay area if the Drew Park proposal falls through.
Manteiga, who owns the newspaper La Gaceta, told WUSF he doesn't own property in Ybor City, but in the adjacent small neighborhood of Gary.
"It appears that the letter (to the commission) we sent would deal with creating a situation where it would be advantageous for us if the Rays would go to an Ybor site," he said.
After TSA voted on the letter, Commissioner Christine Miller asked the County Attorney’s Office to explain whether — and how — the county could remove or replace members of the sports authority board before their terms expire. She did not say why or name names, but is expected to get a response at the commission meeting next week.
“My question was meant to remind everybody what the mission of the authority should be,” she said at last week's meeting.
ALSO READ: Tampa Sports Authority puts spending priority in writing. It's Raymond James Stadium
Word of Willis' letter made it to a meeting on Thursday of the Tampa Community Redevelopment Agency, which is made up of city council members. City council member Bill Carlson brought it up amid concern of "dirty politics going on behind the scenes" that are going to "kill the deal."
“For some reason, there's dirty politics happening out around this, and some of the people involved in it are connected to the current administration. They are also connected to the former administration, and a mayoral candidate," said Carlson, without giving specifics.
"I would ask that everybody stop the dirty politics, stop stirring up all kinds of trouble," he continued.
The sports authority, which manages Raymond James Stadium, a sports complex and three golf courses, was created by the state and includes 11 members. Four are appointed by the county, four by the city, one by the governor and two are ex-officio members.
Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed Jennifer Collins to the board on June 1, replacing Don DeFosset, whose term ended in June 2025.
CRA board postpones vote on stadium plan
The CRA board meeting had its own drama before agreeing to wait two months to vote on using $100 million from the Drew Park CRA for the stadium project.
The vote, which had already been pushed back from May, was scheduled to take place Thursday, but is now on the agenda for the CRA meeting of Aug. 20. The vote was 5-2, with Lynn Hurtak and Charles Miranda against.
The CRA funds were included in a nonbinding memorandum of understanding with the Rays and local governments that detailed using $976 million in public dollars in the project. The city and Hillsborough County Commission have already approved it.
ALSO READ: Delay requested for key vote on use of Drew Park CRA in Rays stadium plan
The CRA vote had been on the agenda for Thursday’s meeting, but board member Alan Clendenin on June 4 requested a postponement until the July meeting.
Clendenin, an ex officio member of the sports authority, said he learned that negotiations over final definitive documents in the deal were ongoing but not yet complete.
“There may be opportunity to do this outside of what the existing agreements are, what the existing CRA is,” Clendenin said.
A CRA is a state-designated district that uses the growth in property tax revenue to fund development within that boundary. The city CRA board implements plans for each district.
Discussion on delaying the vote focused on the Legislature's recent decision to place a measure on the November ballot to cut property taxes.
Hurtak and Miranda requested the resolution be removed from the board agenda completely, with Miranda requesting to wait until after the election. Hurtak also took exception to Clendenin being the only board member updated on the negotiations.
“I’ve heard nothing about this — as the CRA board, they should be talking to every single one of us,” Hurtak said. “I'm sorry, but it's not appropriate that you (Clendenin) have that information, and the rest of us do not. I agree with board member Miranda in that there's no point in talking about this now, because of November.”
That continued a theme from a previous board meeting, with Carlson saying council members have not been directly involved in the stadium negotiations.
Carlson continued his complaint that the CRA funds were negotiated by the mayor’s staff, with no input from the CRA board or city council.
The city agreed to contribute $80 million from the Community Investment Tax, but the “mayor legally is not involved in the CRA,” said Carlson, who also wasn't included to keep the MOU vote on the board agenda.
“From everything I hear, they're not going to be ready a month from now either,” Carlson said of the stadium negotiations. “I would rather, when they're ready, that they formally request to the board to get on the agenda, and then we'll add them to the agenda at that time. But I don't think they're going to be ready.”
Carlson also suggested putting a nonbinding question on the November ballot regarding the use of the CRA money. Miranda was on board with that idea, although it was not voted on by the board.
“Whether we like it or not, or the public likes it or not, or the system likes it or not, the governor and the Legislature made some rules and regulations that we're going to have to follow,” Miranda said. “I'm saying get put it until you know what you're dealing with, we don't know what we're dealing with.”
'The landscape has dramatically changed'
The property tax vote is raising flags with county commissioners, who plan to review how lost revenue could impact stadium financing at their next meeting.
The presentation was planned after Commissioner Chris Boles wrote an email to the County Attorney Julia Mandell and County Administrator Bonnie Wise that said he remains open to moving forward on the stadium, but only with stronger financial clarity and assurance in anticipation of the tax cut.
Although the Rays have said there would be no further negotiations on the financial framework, he wrote, “The landscape has dramatically changed. … I believe an opportunity has now opened to reconsider any ‘financial template(s).’ ”
Boles, who voted to approve the MOU in May, asked Mandell and Wise several questions on the county’s debt capacity under existing commitments, worst-case exposure if projections fail, and whether the Rays’ financing and development plan was secure and enforceable.
The county ante would include $360 million from its share of the Community Investment Tax, $303 million from tourist taxes and $103 million from other unspecified reserves.
Of great concern is the inclusion of the reserves, which are typically built through the overall operating budget, where ad valorem revenue is a major source.
“Ultimately, there must come a point where all parties determine whether sufficient common ground exists to justify continued pursuit of the proposal,” Boles wrote.
These were similar concerns of Commissioner Joshua Wostal, one of two members who voted against the MOU.
