What You Think You Know About The Stadium Deal Is Wrong 

RELATED: BREWERS KEPT STADIUM WINTERIZATION STUDY SECRET

In a baseball game, you always know the score. But in the baseball stadium financing game, the score might not be what it looks like.

According to advocates of recently passed legislation that Gov. Tony Evers is expected to sign soon, the renovation of American Family Field will be paid for largely by $365.8 million in state money, $67.5 million each from Milwaukee’s city and county governments and $150 million from the Brewers. The deal extends the team’s lease at the stadium — and its commitment to stay in Milwaukee — by 20 years, to 2050.

However, those figures don’t tell the whole story of who is actually paying what. They say more about the political spin needed to sell the deal to the public and lawmakers.

Based on information from the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the stadium legislation will cost the state $624 million in direct costs and lost revenue. The city and county won’t pay anything and will even come out money ahead, along with 67 other Wisconsin counties. The team will only pay $68.8 million toward necessary work and winterization, and all of its share could be offset by stadium naming rights revenue.  

And as large as the $673.6 million renovation price tag may seem, a state-commissioned study suggests it might only be enough to hold the stadium together until 2040, not 2050 as the legislation intends. If costs run higher, the stadium district might need to take out a loan from the state.

“I say it’s half a billion and counting for the taxpayers,” says Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee), who voted against the package.

What’s misleading about the numbers? Let’s start with the team’s share.

The Brewers said from the beginning of the legislative process that they would make a “sizable” contribution to stadium upgrades. That share was first publicly announced as $100 million, eventually rising to $150 million in the face of public and legislative criticism that the team wasn’t paying enough.

But that total includes the Brewers’ base rent, which would be frozen at the current $1.21 million a year. That accounts for $32.6 million, including $8.5 million that they were already obligated to pay through 2030. 

And none of that $32.6 million is going toward renovation costs. A January 2023 fiscal bureau paper says the rent pays for the operating expenses of the stadium district, which is the majority owner of AmFam Field.

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee), another opponent of the deal, says including the rent might be the team “boosting your stats, making your contribution look bigger than it is.”

The Brewers referred comment to the legislation’s authors. The package’s Senate sponsor, Sen. Dan Feyen (R-Fond du Lac), says it’s fair to count the rent. He also notes the Brewers are paying about $4 million a year toward day-to-day stadium maintenance.

However, neither rent nor maintenance expenses were counted as part of the team share in previous tax-supported deals to build the ballpark, construct Fiserv Forum for the Milwaukee Bucks and renovate Lambeau Field for the Green Bay Packers.

Larson and Carpenter have said this package should follow the pattern of the Fiserv Forum deal, in which the Bucks’ current and former owners agreed to pay half the cost of building the downtown arena. Feyen and stadium board chair Tim Sheehy say it’s not fair to compare the economics of Major League Baseball’s smallest market with those of the NBA or NFL. 

Also included in the Brewers’ share of renovation costs is $50 million for “discretionary” projects that the team wants — like golf simulators — but that were not included in consultants’ studies of work needed to extend the life of the ballpark. Carpenter calls those items “a luxury, not a necessity” and says they shouldn’t be counted either.

That leaves $68.8 million toward the work that was included in the studies and toward the $25 million cost of outfitting the stadium to host year-round events like concerts. Of that $68.8 million, the team was already obligated to pay $2.1 million in annual $300,000 contributions to a district renovation fund through 2030.

But the Brewers’ share of the main renovation expenses won’t necessarily come straight out of owner Mark Attanasio’s pocket.

American Family Insurance Co. is paying the team an estimated $60 million in a 15-year naming rights deal that runs through 2035. If the Brewers strike a similar deal for the last 15 years of their newly extended lease, the combined $120 million in naming rights revenue would offset that $68.8 million, plus the $50 million for discretionary projects, plus the last four years of annual renovation contributions.

Carpenter says he wanted to amend the legislation to split naming rights revenue and scoreboard advertising proceeds equally between the team and the state. However, he and Larson say a last-minute procedural move by majority Republicans blocked them and another opponent, Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), from introducing any amendments. 

A 2004 Washington Post analysis concluded that the Brewers didn’t pay any of their own money to build the stadium, originally called Miller Park, because the team’s $90 million share was covered by an estimated $40 million in naming rights revenue from what was then Miller Brewing Co., plus $50 million in loans eventually repaid by the district. 

In this deal, too, Carpenter says, “I think the Brewers put in nothing and the taxpayers put down basically everything.”

And the taxpayers, in this case, are entirely state taxpayers, even though Assembly Speaker Robin Vos had insisted that the city and county share the cost, as they did for Fiserv Forum. Feyen says cost-sharing is appropriate, because the city and its closest suburbs enjoy most of the economic benefits of hosting the Brewers.

The first version of the plan, drafted by Rep. Rob Brooks (R-Saukville), called for $135 million from the county and $67.5 million from the city. Local officials protested that this would take away from their hard-won gains earlier this year in Act 12, the legislation that gave them new sales tax powers and boosted shared revenue to help them avoid a catastrophic “fiscal cliff.”

Brooks then changed the package to ensure the stadium overhaul wouldn’t result in local service cuts. Here’s how that breaks down:

• Milwaukee city and county: Officially, the city and county are paying $67.5 million each. But the legislation reduces the administrative fee that the state charges for collecting the county sales tax, which is rising from 0.5% to 0.9%, and the city’s new 2% sales tax. That fee reduction is enough to completely wipe out both local governments’ contributions.

In addition, the fee reduction would increase county sales tax revenue by $10.5 million after the stadium contribution is satisfied, county budget director Joe Lamers says. The city’s share could be even larger, but it’s harder to estimate because its tax isn’t starting until Jan. 1, city lobbyist Jordan Primakow says. Both the city sales tax and the increase in the county sales tax are due to sunset by 2053, but could end sooner depending on when pension obligations are paid off. 

Another part of the legislation would allow the county to spend its sales tax revenue on day-to-day pension expenses, not just long-term obligations, freeing up $172 million of property tax money for other needs over the life of the stadium deal, county officials say. The city couldn’t do that because Act 12 reserves most of its sales tax dollars for public safety, city intergovernmental relations director Jim Bohl says.

Top leaders issued statements praising the deal. County Executive David Crowley said, “With this legislation, Milwaukee County will have more local dollars available to address local priorities, while keeping the Brewers in Wisconsin for decades without any additional impact on local taxpayers.” Mayor Cavalier Johnson added, “What that means is no negative impacts will be felt in future city budgets … as a result of the stadium deal.”

• Suburban counties: Lawmakers didn’t stop at reducing sales tax collection fees for the city and Milwaukee County. The legislation also reduces those fees for every other Wisconsin county that imposes a sales tax. 

From 2024 through 2050, that will boost sales tax revenue by $4.8 million for Ozaukee County and $7.1 million for Washington County. Waukesha and Racine counties won’t get anything because they don’t levy local sales taxes.

Farrow, Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann and Ozaukee County Administrator Jason Dzwinel all say they’re happy with the deal. Racine County Executive Jonathan Delagrave declined comment.

• Other local governments: Outside the Milwaukee area, another 65 Wisconsin counties levy 0.5% sales taxes — all except Manitowoc and Winnebago — and will benefit from the fee reduction.

Feyen says the legislation’s authors originally asked about reducing the fees for only the city and Milwaukee County, but they discovered that the state Department of Revenue was charging more than it needed to cover its costs for collecting and distributing local sales taxes. Republicans didn’t think that was right, so they decided to cut all the fees, he says.

Well, not quite all. The fee cut doesn’t apply to the Wisconsin Center District, which levies a 0.5% tax on restaurant food, beverages and candy sold throughout Milwaukee County to support Fiserv Forum, the Baird Center, the Miller High Life Theater and the UW-Milwaukee Panthers Arena. It also doesn’t apply to Wisconsin Dells and the seven other “premier resort” communities that charge municipal sales taxes. 

Feyen says he doesn’t know why those bodies were left out. He says he would consider amending a future state budget to include them.

For the 68 counties with sales taxes, the fee reduction will cut state revenue by a total of $250.6 million through mid-2050, fiscal bureau figures indicate. Milwaukee’s city sales tax fee reduction is structured differently and doesn’t have a similar impact on state revenue.

The legislation also waives state and local sales taxes on building materials used in stadium renovation, something that the state also did for the ballpark’s original construction, as well as the construction of Fiserv Forum and the renovation of Lambeau Field. That will cost the state another $7.6 million over the life of the deal, the fiscal bureau says.

Adding the $250.6 million revenue loss from the sales tax fee cut and the $7.6 million revenue loss from the building material sales tax exemption to the state’s $365.8 million direct contribution to stadium renovation brings the legislation’s total fiscal impact on the state to $624 million.

But it still could be more.

In addition to the state, city, county and team contributions, the fiscal bureau projects $20.8 million from a new surcharge on tickets to concerts and other non-Brewers events and $8.1 million from fees on Brewers license plates, which have been bringing in $300,000 a year. The district also has $35.2 million left from the five-county sales tax it previously collected.  

Together, those revenue sources could fund a total of $673.6 million in renovation costs. Excluding the $25 million for winterization and $50 million in discretionary projects, the total would be $598.6 million.

That would be just below the high end of a state estimate that ran only through 2040.

In a study commissioned by the Brewers, Tennessee-based Venue Solutions Group estimated that extending the stadium’s life to 2040 would cost $428 million. The state Department of Administration hired Denver-based CAA Icon to review the Brewers study. Using different assumptions, CAA Icon estimated the cost would range from $540 million to $604 million. Neither study included winterization or discretionary projects, and neither projected costs from 2040 to 2050.

If costs run higher or if revenue from the ticket tax or license plate sales fall short of expectations, the legislation authorizes the state to loan the stadium district up to $35 million. Feyen’s office noted that fiscal bureau estimates are typically conservative and that the Brewers predict that winterizing the stadium will attract more events and boost ticket tax revenue to $36 million.

By contrast, the Fiserv Forum deal called for the Bucks owners to pay for any cost overruns — which they did — as well as any future renovations.

Larson and Carpenter fear that the Brewers will just keep coming back to the state and asking for more money for renovations — or even a brand-new stadium at some point.

“It’s going to come out of my kids’ classrooms and firehouses all over the state and roads that won’t be paved,” Larson says.