Maintenance wasn't the issue when the stadium tax was approved. Now, it drives the debate
Tom Daykin, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
7 min read
American Family Field's long-term maintenance needs are taking center stage in the ballpark funding debate.
Long-term maintenance costs weren't top of mind for state legislators in 1995 when they narrowly approved public financing to help build a new Milwaukee Brewers stadium.
The debate focused on a 0.1% Milwaukee-area sales tax to cover most of the construction costs of Miller Park, now American Family Field. That tax raised more than $600 million before it ended in 2020.
Now, the Legislature is considering a $546 million spending plan for the publicly owned ballpark's maintenance and renovation expenses − in return for the Brewers' lease extending from the end of 2030 to 2050. The Assembly plans to take up the plan Tuesday.
That lack of attention on maintenance costs from the 1995 debate is tied to current ballpark discussions, said Sen. Tim Carpenter, D-Milwaukee, who was an Assembly member when the stadium sales tax was approved.
And it reflects similar situations in other communities that have publicly owned professional sports facilities.
"Yes, it’s very common for stadium debates to focus on the headline construction figure and ignore any ancillary costs like maintenance, upgrades or infrastructure," said journalist Neil deMause, whose fieldofschemes.com reports critically on publicly financed sports facility projects.
It's a big reason why the final costs of such projects are often substantially higher than initially disclosed, deMause told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Republican plan calls for state, city, county and Brewers funding
The American Family Field funding plan, written by Republicans who control the Assembly and Senate, calls for the state to spend $411 million over nearly 30 years, with $67.5 million each from Milwaukee County and the City of Milwaukee. The Brewers would provide $100 million.
That bill, facing opposition from Republican legislators, needs votes from Democrats to reach the desk of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers − who supports the plan after his own proposal was rejected by Republicans.
Democratic legislators are concerned about funding from the county and city − which both face ongoing fiscal challenges while the state carries a budget surplus of $7.1 billion.
The bill to be considered by the Assembly has bipartisan support and is endorsed by Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. It also needs Senate approval.
Stadium upkeep wasn't part of initial debate
The stadium is largely owned by the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, a state-created agency which leases it to the Brewers.
That lease says the district is responsible for most of the ballpark's renovations. That includes new group spaces and other improvements to keep AmFam Field up to par with other Major League Baseball stadiums.
Those long-term maintenance and renovation expenses are the center of the current debate. But they drew little attention from elected officials when the stadium funding plan was reviewed in 1995.
That's reflected in the Journal Sentinel's coverage.
Most of the newspaper's stories focused on the $250 million ballpark construction cost estimate, with $90 million provided by the Brewers and $160 million to come from taxpayers.
One of the few stories which discussed maintenance costs more extensively said $333 million "would be needed to retire the debt on the $250 million proposed ballpark."
"Adding tax-financed maintenance costs that are part of the agreement would bring the total needed from the (0.1% sales) tax to around $448.5 million," read that August 1995 Journal Sentinel article.
Five county sales tax raised about $609 million
The sales tax ran from 1996 to 2020 and raised $609 million, according to the stadium district. In addition, stadium-related highway work and other infrastructure was funded by $36 million from the state and $18 million each from the county and city.
The 0.1% sales tax was initially proposed for only Milwaukee and Waukesha counties. The Assembly in September 1995 approved a bill that added Washington and Ozaukee counties to the sales tax area.
Racine County was added in the bill's final version approved by the Senate in October 1995.
That 16-15 vote came after an all-night session in which Sen. George Petak, R-Racine, changed his vote to "aye." Petak lost his seat in a 1996 recall election.
Brian Burke was then a state senator. He was one of just three Democratic senators to support the legislation.
"Clearly, it was contemplated that ongoing maintenance would be paid for as long as the sales tax was in effect," Burke said in a recent interview.
"I think there was also some discussion that before the tax sunset, a pot of money would be set aside to pay for maintenance in the future," said Burke, a Milwaukee attorney.
"I don’t think there was any idea of the possible magnitude of these amounts," he said.
Carpenter, whose Senate district includes AmFam Field, was in 1995 an Assembly Democrat. He voted in favor of the stadium funding bill − which he now regrets.
The lack of discussion of the stadium's long-term maintenance costs in 1995 directly affects the debate coming 28 years later, Carpenter said.
"It's basically repeating the same mistake," he said. "I think for a lot of folks they really didn't think that far down the line."
Audit Bureau 1999 report raised maintenance concerns
A 1999 Legislative Audit Bureau report, issued as the stadium was under construction, mentioned that disconnect.
"At the time of legislative deliberations on the proposal to construct a new stadium for the Brewers, many legislators and others believed that sales and use tax revenue would be used to pay only for the stadium’s construction," the report said.
That comes as no surprise to deMause, a critic of publicly financed sports facilities.
"One of the big problems with projecting maintenance costs, of course, is that necessary repairs often get conflated with a team owner’s desired upgrades," deMause said.
For example, a team could decide it needs an improved video scoreboard, deMause said.
"Suddenly the 'maintenance' costs are less about repairs and more about keeping up with the Joneses," he said.
Improvements linked to work at other stadiums
The Brewers lease requires the stadium district to make certain capital improvements when they occur within 75% of other MLB ballparks. And those improvements must fall within the top 25% of those stadiums.
That's why the stadium district board in May voted to spend $6.45 million to replace AmFam Field's main scoreboard, which is nearing the end of its 10-year life.
The new scoreboard will be the fourth-largest in MLB, with double the size of the current scoreboard's video display board.
With the 0.1% sales tax gone, the lesson for elected officials is simple, said Tim Sheehy, stadium district board president.
"Avoid matching a finite funding source with an open-ended obligation to fund improvements," Sheehy said at a recent Assembly committee hearing on the ballpark funding bill.
That "finite funding source," aka the 0.1% sales tax, was dropped by the stadium board more than three years ago. That was before Sheehy was named board president and after bipartisan legislation, signed by Evers, mandated its termination.
The Brewers didn't publicly oppose the stadium board's decision. But, club officials asked the stadium district to conduct a comprehensive study of future improvements to make sure there was enough money set aside from the sales tax.
The stadium district instead in 2019 used a more limited report from Minneapolis-based construction firm M.A. Mortenson Co. That 10-page report amounted to a review of cost estimates within the district's master plan.
Brewers-funded report outlined long list of expenses
The Brewers then commissioned Brentwood, Tennessee-based Venue Solutions Group to do a 108-page report − which detailed a much longer list of anticipated maintenance expenses.
That report, reviewed by Denver-based CAA Icon, a consultant hired by the Wisconsin Department of Administration, is the basis for the current stadium funding legislation.
"We have always advocated for getting the facts around the needs of the ballpark, in order to make it possible for Brewers baseball to remain in Wisconsin for the next generation," said Rick Schlesinger, Brewers president of business operations.
"Our position from 2019 onward was that there should be a capital needs assessment to first understand the extent of any potential shortfall," Schlesinger said, in a statement. "That has been accomplished by VSG and CAA ICON. We will continue to work with policymakers on a bipartisan solution for the future.”
