This is a production of WEDU PBS Tampa, St. Petersburg.

Sarasota.

Coming up, the roof repairs at Tropicana Field are up in the air as the city of St. Petersburg looks at possible funding sources.

Lawmakers are trying to reconcile bills to help condo owners meet new requirements for building maintenance.

And teenagers in Florida could soon make up some of the labor shortages lost by deporting migrants in the country illegally.

These stories and more are next on Florida This Week.

Welcome back everybody.

I'm Lissette Campos joining the panel this week.

We have doctor Susan MacManus is a distinguished professor emerita at USF Tampa and an ABC news political analyst.

We have Deborah Tamargo, who is the past president of the Florida Federation of Republican Women.

We have Darrell Paulson, a professor emeritus of government and politics at USF Saint Petersburg.

And Victor Dimaio who is a political consultant with Dimaio and associates and also a Democrat.

Thank you for joining us, everyone.

>> Thank you.

The decision on whether to repair the damaged roof of Tropicana Field was postponed this week, prolonging a state of uncertainty for the Tampa Bay Rays and the city of Saint Pete.

The city of Saint Petersburg is still determining where the money will come from.

The stadium's roof was ripped apart by Hurricane Milton last October.

The board was scheduled to vote on Thursday, but that vote was delayed.

The city has an insurance policy that may pay less than half of the estimated $55.7 million to repair the facility.

The city could redirect money from other parts of the budget with the expectation that they will be repaid by FEMA.

But with President Trump threatening to do away with FEMA, that money is uncertain.

The Rays pulled out of the redevelopment plan this month, claiming that insurance and other financial factors led them to the decision.

The city has said it plans to have the field ready for the 2026 baseball season, and the Rays will play the rest of 2025 at Steinbrenner Field in Tampa.

That's the spring training home of the New York Yankees.

And there are so many layers to this developing story.

Victor, I'd like to start with you.

From a contractual standpoint, what recourse, if any, does the city of Saint Petersburg have?

If the Rays press the issue of we need the stadium in place to play there to the end of our 2028 contract screwed.

I mean, they are contractually obligated for another few more years to keep that place up and running to whatever standards the baseball and and they agree to, you know, they're coming to the end of that contract, but they're still they're still in the contract.

So sadly, about a year ago, because of the insurance situation all of us are having to face because our insurance bills are going through the roof.

The city decided to save money to to cut the insurance company back or what they would cover.

So now they're on a bigger hook than they would have been if they had, you know, paid the, I don't know, half million dollar premium or whatever.

The deductible is higher now.

Yeah so, um, they're going to have to pay it.

There's no way out of it.

I mean, they there's a there's a there's a deal on the table to extend their, uh, the deal with the Saint Pete for ten more years.

I think so.

Everyone's so bitter right now on both sides of the fence.

I personally can't even believe they walked away from the 5 or $6 billion development deal that they could have made.

You know, he could have made a lot of money on that.

I mean, and from what I've talked to the people I know behind the scenes, um, because I work with several people in this deal, they, um, the biggest sticking point to him selling the team is that Sternberg is asking $2.5 billion to sell the team, and the team is only worth $1.5 billion.

So MLB is mad.

The commissioner's been mad.

And there's so much political fallout in this.

Dr. MacManus I mean, what are some of the some of the repercussions of this?

This is a classic case of economics and politics colliding from a purely economic perspective.

You got the city and the county both worried about finances at the time when spending money on this means they can't spend money on other things that are more pressing.

You've got the taxpayers who are split about, do I want higher taxes to pay for this or not?

And then, of course, you've got the political.

Let's face it, from the get go, there's been a tension between Tampa and Saint Pete over the Rays.

The fact that the Rays are playing their season in Tampa is catching a lot of people's attention.

They're watching attendance figures.

All of that's fitting into it.

And then, of course, next year is an election year.

So you've got people that are running.

This is one of those classic things of everybody has a different pony in the show, so to speak, Right Daryl, what is what would be the best case scenario for Saint Pete Mayor Ken Welsh in your opinion?

Well, that everyone would kiss and make up.

I mean, if you follow this at all closely, you'll have noticed that about a year and a half ago.

I mean, that's essentially where we were.

Everyone was in agreement.

You have so many moving parts here.

You've got the city of Saint Pete that is obligated.

You've got the Pinellas County government that's obligated.

You've got the Rays that are obligated.

So many contractual parts.

Finally, all of those pieces came together.

Everyone was patting one another on the back and saying, we love you.

Everything is great.

Baseball is here to stay in Saint Petersburg.

And within nine months, that agreement went by the wayside.

And now everyone's sticking knives in everyone else's back and saying it's their fault.

They caused this problem.

And the ownership group is blaming the city of St. Pete, saying they didn't meet their obligations.

So it's turned from a we all love one another to we all hate one another and somehow they've got to get back together, or else some of these parties are going to have to go away.

And that means either the city of Saint Pete or the ownership group or something like that.

And there's so much discussion on the deadlines and whether or not they're delaying votes or, or coming up with new plans.

A lot of focus on the leaders, but there's been little focus on the 4000 employees that work at Tropicana Field.

The economic impact of the facility on the surrounding areas.

Deborah, what else are we missing in the in these conversations?

Well, unintended consequences.

And clearly there were many from the time that the contract was proposed.

The public was against it.

The public saw it as corporate welfare.

So 35 years ago.

Yes, and and again, with this contract that was left for them to stay.

Um, and and they weren't really thinking about the impact to the community at that point.

Then the unintended consequences hurricanes, bad decisions, reducing the amount of insurance coverage, and so forth.

And now you have jobs at stake.

Fortunately, some of them will come to Tampa.

They'll work at, you know, the Steinbrenner field.

That will absorb some, but not all.

And the longer the politicians delay the decision, the more impact on the jobs, because they're kind of at a standstill right now.

They need to make a decision and move forward on a plan.

A good strategic plan that the public can buy into.

This is one of those stories that will be very complicated and could go on for years and years and years.

The other big story that we're watching is the whole issue of the condo associations, and what is going on with that.

And Florida lawmakers are pushing to adjust condo safety laws.

And right now, they've hit an impasse over two proposals legislators sponsoring the House and Senate bills are trying to bring condominium associations into compliance with laws they passed after the Surfside condo collapse in 2021, in which 98 people died.

Those laws mandated that condo associations get building inspections, as well as save funds for future maintenance and repairs.

A proposal in Senate Bill 1742 would allow condo associations to invest funds for future repairs.

Another proposal in House Bill 913 would bar associations out of compliance from getting insurance under the state run citizens program.

Many condo owners who cannot afford the extra expenses are now facing foreclosure.

Lawmakers will continue to negotiate the two bills in committee before they are taken up by the full House and Senate.

Darrell, I'd like to start with you.

Is this a financial relief or is this a jeopardizing safety?

Well, it depends what they do.

It's always in the end product, so to speak.

I mean, because you've got eight different bills now before the legislature.

Some are quite significant, some are very encompassing, some are just bits and pieces, parts of this.

And so some of those parts are, um.

State Senator Blaise Ingoglia of Spring Hill, Republican, has proposed changing the homestead exemption for condo owners.

That would give them some financial relief.

You've got the mandatory structural reserve, which is required for condos over three stories.

There's a proposal to change that to six stories.

There's also a proposal with respect to these financial reserves to allow the condo owners to invest this money.

So if there should be a point in time where they need to make repairs, not only will they have the base amounts of money put in there, but what they've invested.

And the big problem with that, of course, is where is that money going to be invested, who's going to do the investing?

And what happens if you start with $5 million in that reserve fund and you end up with $22.5 million, somebody's going to be awful angry at that point in time.

Victor, there's been a lot of discussion about these structural integrity inspections that have to be done and how, according to that report, it tells you how much money you have to have in the reserve.

Exactly, and so one of the things that is being discussed is what is being analyzed, what is being included in that report, the fact that some things that are not part of the structural integrity are being included.

And a lot of condo owners are saying, how can this be happening?

What how do you feel about all this?

Well, the overriding issue here is, is, uh, is insurance, because insurance dictates really a lot of these issues, because if you don't have an inspection, if you don't meet certain standards.

Um, and as we saw, the older building gets, you know, and, you know, the standards have increased exponentially from 30 years ago to today.

So when codes we're we're dealing with stronger hurricanes, whether it be by global warming or whatever.

Uh, and that's, that's being factored into the to your premiums and then, you know, so that the insurance companies, whether they cut these out or not.

The issue is insurance company is going to demand it.

And if you can't get insurance, you basically don't have a condo.

So that's the issue here.

You know, the really I think if they solve the insurance, my issue, my personal feeling is if they can get everybody in a room and stop worrying about whether kids can carry guns to school and all these, these stupid issues, they waste a lot of time on, they they really need to figure out the insurance issue.

We found out a lot of stuff's been coming out over the last several weeks about the insurance commissioner.

They waited.

Who worked?

Left immediately to work for the insurance companies.

Who was our regulator?

The fact that insurance companies aren't paying 50% of their bills.

I mean, the condos are the condos are no different than us here at this table having to buy insurance for our homes.

So it's just an even bigger situation.

I was on this panel a few weeks ago, and one of my, a friend of mine who was here said that her premium and her condo of six people went from $39,000 a year to $390,000 in one year.

And then they're not.

And then the thing is, they are not paying 50% of their claim.

So yes, the guidance of whether or not to have a backup or money to repair and have your building in shape really more pertains to whether you can get the insurance or not.

That's what they're talking about.

And doctor MacManus, with so many condo owners in the state of Florida looking at the legislators and who votes for what?

This is a political hot potato.

Absolutely, because these bills, there's a bunch of them, as Darrell pointed out.

Republicans aren't on the same page.

This is just at the committee level.

It has to go through the whole legislative chamber, and it's a long way from done.

But what has happened is this fits in with the big, big picture story about the affordability of living in Florida.

And condos are a key part of that.

But condos in one part of the state are different in the threats and the newness of them versus others, and you have different legislators representing them.

And frankly, the affordability issue is extending broadly to a bigger problem across the country that everyone's looking at is we have ignored infrastructure for a long time, whether it's bridges, roads, buildings.

So again, Florida is right in the middle of a huge national discussion on that.

Yes.

Deborah, as a strategist, what would you say is the what we can do to help raise awareness of what is in the law as it stands now, do you think that there's a lot of confusion about what the law actually says?

Well, there certainly is.

And part of the confusion goes to the point of purchase.

And I do not believe that buyers are being well informed as to what the responsibilities are, the unintended consequences, the fees that they will escalate.

They come from perhaps up north.

They've never lived in a condominium.

They don't recognize that your association could raise your fees every year.

Now, what was surprising?

Special assessments are different from your association fees.

Very, very different.

And, um, the associations tend to kick the can down the road.

There are some focus on beautification as opposed to infrastructure.

Everyone wants the flowers and and they're not really looking at the fact that every building is a wearing asset.

It depreciates.

But the prices have been appreciating as the building repair has been depreciating.

So I think, uh, and I'm totally against more regulations, but I think there needs to be some regulations at the point of purchase where our buyers are better informed.

So some public campaign there also, and also there is a provision that says you have to have 100% of agreement in order to do certain things that needs to move down to 75 or even 50%.

And that was the problem in South Florida that they could not agree.

Some of them wanted to make the infrastructure.

So I think the strategy is more public information, a little bit more burden on the real estate agents, and to really delve into this and then the change of some of these regulations that are preventing the repairs from being done right now, because there's not agreement.

One quick point that was made by a member of the legislature, she said, all of these condo associations in Florida, the vast majority, are run by elderly people.

The implication was there are people who are not competent enough to manage the reserve funds that these condominiums may have and may be able to invest.

So a strange thing for a member of the legislature to say, when elderly people in Florida vote at a much higher rate than every other group in the state.

>> Well, voters who are tracking.

What's going on in Tallahassee this week are seeing are saying that a lot of strange things are coming out of this session.

Um, our next big story that we're talking about is the, you know, child labor laws and how young is too young, if at all, to to be working.

And so teenagers as young as 14 could soon be allowed to work late night shifts as part of an effort to roll back the state's child labor laws.

Senate Bill 918 would remove employment time restrictions for teenagers ages 14 and 15, if they're home schooled or attend virtual school.

It would also remove limitations on how late or how much 16 and 17 year olds can work.

The proposal comes as Governor Ron DeSantis says that a younger workforce could be part of the solution to replacing labor from migrants in the country illegally.

Right now, teenagers ages 16 and 17 cannot work before 6:30 in the morning or after 11p.m.

on a school day, and they can't work during school hours unless they are in a career education program.

Teens are also limited to 30 hours a week when school is in session.

A similar bill failed to pass a legislature last year.

Public backlash claimed that longer hours would impact their health and education.

For some families, you know, having the teenagers work is not a luxury.

It's a basic.

It's how they help pay the bills.

Doctor McManus, for those families, how can we best protect them during with these pieces of legislation?

A lot of it is going to lie with the employers who hire these young people responsibility.

And there has to be some sort of tracking of misuse and so forth.

But here again, there is a real big split on this issue, and it's got a long way to go too.

One is this is not good at all.

It's child abuse, not only from a health perspective and mental perspective, but also from an educational perspective that their schooling takes a backseat and that's not a good thing.

On the other side, you have arguments.

This is a good thing because we're not teaching young people about the viability of working and about economics.

And it would be up to the parent or, you know, together with the student to decide whether they would do it or not.

In terms of the labor, the three industries that would be most affected and are affected by the immigrants leaving.

Listen to what they are and the order of importance in our state.

Tourism, agriculture, construction.

And so for young people, those are where the most of the jobs are going to be.

Some are more taxing physically and mentally than others.

And other states do have similar laws.

Victor, what are the pros and cons that you see to this?

Well, I know we have a couple of farmers on the panel here, but I don't know about milking cows at three in the morning is a good idea.

Some of these bills simultaneously are having assault ages at 13 and 14.

Allow kids to work at that young age.

And as doctor MacManus says, I says, I don't know how you put a kid out in the field.

You know, a lot of people criticize the Mexicans that are busting their tails here to pick our fruits and our vegetables out in Ruskin and everywhere else.

But the fact of the matter is, that's very hard labor.

If you've ever been out there like I have to see these people work and putting, you know, these 8,100 pound sacks of whether it's oranges or tomatoes or whatever.

And Mexico, you make two bucks an hour.

They're making a lot more money here and sending half the money back.

The sad part is you can't put a 13 year old.

As doctor MacManus says, out in the field in the hot sun, working 30 hours a week and then be be be able to do his schoolwork and be effective.

You know, in construction.

I've done construction myself.

It's very dangerous.

You could get killed.

You could.

I mean, that's also a very heavy lifting for a 13 or 14 year old working 30 hours a week.

And I don't care if they, you know, cut them off at 1030 at night or 630 in the morning.

I mean, that's all this is just it's just sad.

The Republicans and the business people that support them are even pursuing this.

But and then, of course, the other part of the bill is that they want to they want to cut the wage.

minimum wage in half.

So you're going to be making half of the minimum wage and then classify you as a trainee or an intern.

And there's no there's no end to where the internship you could be working six years as an intern, six years as a trainee for half the minimum wage.

So it's just they should just scrap this idea.

Um, there's plenty of people out there that want to work that can work and not worry about, you know, slave driving.

The 13 year olds out in the fields to pick tomatoes.

Well, Deborah, I see you shaking your head in our show prep.

You were saying that there are some positive things that can come of this.

Um, please share that with our audience.

Absolutely.

Positive aspects.

Number one, I believe that we have too much regulation over parents as it is, and all of the regulations we currently have on the books preventing this, preventing that.

I grew up in a farm family.

My father grew up in a farm family.

Everyone worked.

It turned out well My father said, you either work with your brains or you work with your back.

So it's kind of a motivating factor to be working.

Um, my brother was working, driving the tractor, doing everything at eight, ten years old as much as, and still went to school.

Um, so many of the farm families I know, their kids become doctors and lawyers, and they've worked shift work.

They work said it's foundational.

So I think it's parental rights.

I think we need to remove the regulations.

Um, this bill actually would line up with federal regulations, and then you still have your OSHA and your workplace.

So there's no slave labor going to occur.

They're still going to be safe conditions.

It could be a job at Publix bagging groceries.

I've known so many people to do that.

We didn't have those regulations when I grew up.

We really can't talk about, um, teenagers, school aged children without talking about the impact that it could have in, in their education and and in their school time.

Darrell, as a former professor, how do you see this affecting teenagers?

To me, there's two different issues here.

One is the educational aspects for students.

Are they going to work so hard because right now they can't work over 30 hours a week.

When this changes come into place, how many hours are they going to be unlimited hours for them?

They can work overnight shifts according to to the legislation proposed.

How are they going to go to school and work overnight shifts at the same time?

How is that going to impact their their scores?

Whether or not they get into college, they may have some money in their pocket today, but ten, 20 years down the road, will they have wished they had gone and gotten a better education, whether it's a college education or a trade education, but something that would have made them better off in the long term.

The other thing who's going to protect them?

What if you can work these longer hours now and your boss says, okay, well, you've already got your 30 hours in.

You need to work an extra five hours.

And I'm too tired.

I can't do it.

And this is a dangerous job.

I'm afraid I'll make a mistake and injure myself or somebody else.

He said you either work or you're fired.

So we've already seen where Perdue Farms was fined $8 million because in the the slaughterhouses, the children of the migrant workers who were working in these slaughterhouses were also put to work at minimum wage, sub minimum wages to assist their parents in getting the job done.

So I think.

There's a lot to look at.

People will take advantage of the workforce, whatever it is, whatever age it is.

Before we go, I'd like to ask each of you really quickly to tell us what are the big stories that we should be looking at this week.

Daryl, we'll start with you.

Well, I think one of the bigger stories is there are two special elections on April 1st in Congressional District one, which is the Pensacola area Congressional District six.

Both of those are members of Congress who left District one was where Matt Gatez was nominated to be Attorney general.

He was out.

District six is Congressman Walz, who's been much in the news the last couple of days with the botched mission.

Democrats have raised four times as much money as Republicans.

A lot of people think Democrats have a real opening here, but it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

Victor, thirty seconds.

I wanted to do that one, but I'll piggyback it because up north, north of us here, there's been three special elections going on simultaneously, and the Democrats have flipped three seats that were previously Republicans and very ruby red districts.

So I'm not saying that these two Florida districts are going to flip to be Democrat.

But I think with all the turmoil in Washington, starting with the president and tariffs and all the other stuff going on, I think Democrats do have opportunities.

And the midterms could be crucial because you only need a few seats in the House to flip the House.

Well, thank you so much for all of you for for joining us for this edition of Florida This Week.

That's all the time we have for now.

Again, thank you to my panelists, Dr. Susan MacManus, Victor Dimaio, Deborah Tamargo, and Darryl Paulson.

Send your comments about this program to FTW at wedu.org.

The show is on every Friday night at 8:30 and Sunday afternoon at 12:30, and also online.

You can watch past shows on YouTube.

And don't forget to friend us on Facebook from our entire team here at WEDU.

Have a great weekend!