Legislation being introduced for future funding of American Family Field: UPDATE New lease through 2050

[MrTPlush]

16 hours ago, patrickgpe said:

Reading through these comments, it seems like the brewers / legislature /  governor has done a horrible job communicating what this bill entails. From my understanding, there will be no new tax increases to pay for these repairs. The majority of the money would be from the projected income taxes that the players pay. I'd be fine with a ticket surcharge to make up any difference, but it sounds like the repairs can be paid for with allocating the tax revenue that the brewers garnish rather than adding an additional tax. 

Do you really think it matters? The people complaining don't read the details...they just start complaining. $1 of public funds and they aren't happy. 

That being said I think they have done fine communicating it. I mean really, what the public thinks it quite meaningless. Not like we get to vote on it. 

 

[homer]

4 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

Concert revenue.  Liability of people breaking in and getting injured, vandalizing it, using it as a homeless shelter, etc.  It will cost a lot of money to demolish it and dispose of the waste.  And it would make for one helluvan eye sore driving into downtown Milwaukee to have a decrepit old stadium collapsing in on itself, and wouldn't give much confidence to any business that was thinking of making a significant investment to set up shop in Milwaukee.

Or....tear it down and redevelop the whole area. 

[patrickgpe]

2 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Do you really think it matters? The people complaining don't read the details...they just start complaining. $1 of public funds and they aren't happy. 

That being said I think they have done fine communicating it. I mean really, what the public thinks it quite meaningless. Not like we get to vote on it. 

 

I get it, but its literally just the brewers stadiums that seems to be controversial around here. Bucks stadium was built with little controversy.  Milwaukee  / Wisconsin gives tax subsidies to companies to keep them  / attract them all of the time and nobody cares or complains. 

[homer]

Just now, patrickgpe said:

I get it, but its literally just the brewers stadiums that seems to be controversial around here. Bucks stadium was built with little controversy. Nobody bats an eye lash at any new public building project. 

Bucks arena spawned the Deer District and a bunch of ancillary developments. 

[patrickgpe]

6 minutes ago, homer said:

Bucks arena spawned the Deer District and a bunch of ancillary developments. 

so what. Fiserv Forum has made the bucks owners RICH. Lasry sold his share of the bucks to Haslem for 3.5 BILLION. The team was sold for 550 million from Kohl. If the argument is that the taxpayers are getting sports owners rich and thats bad, then any development is a bad thing. 

Also if you drove down 43rd street during the County Stadium days, you will see how much development has occurred by the stadium since Miller Park / AFF was built. 

[homer]

2 minutes ago, patrickgpe said:

so what. Fiserv Forum has made the bucks owners RICH. Lasry sold his share of the bucks to Haslem for 3.5 BILLION. The team was sold for 550 million from Kohl. If the argument is that the taxpayers are getting sports owners rich and thats bad, then any development is a bad thing. 

Also if you drove down 43rd street during the County Stadium days, you will see how much development has occurred by the stadium since Miller Park / AFF was built. 

Those other developments by Fiserv pay property taxes.

[patrickgpe]

2 minutes ago, homer said:

Those other developments by Fiserv pay property taxes.

I get that, but again way  more restaurants/ stores have gone up in the 20  years the new stadium was built south of the stadium than the deer district is responsible for.  Which anyway, that's my argument. While public money has  made the owners of the bucks and brewers rich, it has done a lot of good things including increasing the quality of life in the city and spurring development in the area. 

[MrTPlush]

24 minutes ago, patrickgpe said:

I get it, but its literally just the brewers stadiums that seems to be controversial around here. Bucks stadium was built with little controversy.  Milwaukee  / Wisconsin gives tax subsidies to companies to keep them  / attract them all of the time and nobody cares or complains. 

99% of the reason is the fact of how ticked people are over the last deal. Didn't really have that issue with the Bucks. Though some were pretty upset over the Bucks too...because of how Miller Park got put up. 

[owbc]

I mostly object to the amount of money. It's absurd. Seattle was in a nearly identical situation in 2018 and they signed a 20-year extension in exchange for $135 million in public funding. The suggestion that the Brewers somehow bring in $500+ million of economic benefit to the state is comical. 

Governments need to get out of stadium ownership entirely. The fact that the Brewers would not take AmFam field if it was offered to them for free tells you all you need to know. They are money pits. 

Unfortunately, cities like Milwaukee are a dime a dozen from the perspective of major sports leagues. There's always another one to threaten to move to. If the Brewers went to Nashville, the White Sox to Milwaukee rumors would start immediately and I would say the odds would be nearly 50/50 that the White Sox would be playing in Milwaukee within 10 years. Assuming the state once again offered a juicy package of public dollars of course. 

[Turnbows Barber]

Saying that there is no extra tax money going to the stadium is technically true but the city/county just passed a tax increase that hasn't even gone into effect yet and the Brewers are already siphoning money off the top.  I wouldn't be surprised if the politicians in Madison already had it in mind that part of that tax increase would be going to the Brewers when it was passed.

Dan Schafer has written a couple good pieces on the topic and why the Fiserv Forum deal and AFF deal are not comparable.

https://milwaukeerecord.com/sports/brewers-vs-bucks-comparing-the-amfam-field-and-fiserv-forum-stadium-deals/

https://www.therecombobulationarea.news/p/brewers-stadium-deal-complicated-question

I still question the need for the public contribution to be so high.  If Charlotte or Nashville or some other city is willing to pay 85% of the cost of a new stadium (what the public contribution of the current AFF deal is) why is Tampa paying 50% of the cost of their new stadium?  If one of those cities had the desire to contribute $1 billion+ to a new stadium, wouldn't Tampa have listened, if for no other reason than to gain leverage even if they didn't want to move?  I get that Tampa is a bigger market but it's also a market that has not supported the team and they went as far as considering a crazy alternative of splitting their season between two cities because they couldn't find a better plan.

[homer]

1 hour ago, patrickgpe said:

I get that, but again way  more restaurants/ stores have gone up in the 20  years the new stadium was built south of the stadium than the deer district is responsible for.  Which anyway, that's my argument. While public money has  made the owners of the bucks and brewers rich, it has done a lot of good things including increasing the quality of life in the city and spurring development in the area. 

I think it could be debated how much of the development on 43rd street is due to County Stadium/Miller Park. I believe all the developments around Fiserv were built by the group that own the Bucks so the correlation is a bit easier to make.

[torts]

3 hours ago, homer said:

Or....tear it down and redevelop the whole area. 

Still taxpayer dollars to do all of that.  

[MrTPlush]

4 hours ago, homer said:

Or....tear it down and redevelop the whole area. 

Into what? Industrial? I mean #1 yikes and #2 those companies will want tax dollars to build there too. 

[MrTPlush]

2 hours ago, owbc said:

I mostly object to the amount of money. It's absurd. Seattle was in a nearly identical situation in 2018 and they signed a 20-year extension in exchange for $135 million in public funding. The suggestion that the Brewers somehow bring in $500+ million of economic benefit to the state is comical.

Well a $150million payroll average (between the Brewers and whoever comes to town) is $12mil per year in income taxes. $12mil for 20years makes up nearly half of that. Not to mention in 10 years the average payroll for home games will dramatically increase...let alone 20 years from now. $125mil for tickets sales ($43 average) at 2.7mil fans per year. Which again, inflate that ticket price over 20 years too.

So yah, the Brewers easily bring in $500mil in economic impact over 20 years. You could probably get to that number through tax revenue projections directly at Am Fam and player/employee income tax. Let alone what is spent/built/done in the surrounding areas.

Not sure what the Mariners situation has to do with us. 

[homer]

2 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Well a $150million payroll average (between the Brewers and whoever comes to town) is $12mil per year in income taxes. $12mil for 20years makes up nearly half of that. Not to mention in 10 years the average payroll for home games will dramatically increase...let alone 20 years from now. $125mil for tickets sales ($43 average) at 2.7mil fans per year. Which again, inflate that ticket price over 20 years too.

 

Great! Pay for the whole thing with income tax revenue. 

[homer]

34 minutes ago, torts said:

Still taxpayer dollars to do all of that.  

Right but you get to recover those costs via property taxes on the development.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

The whole problem is that sports teams are public utilities owned by private parties who are primarily interested in profit.

How are sports public utilities? I'd argue that sports provide an essential emotional service in a lot of communities, and it isn't easy to replace that. We can talk about whether sports should be put in that position (I'm here for the argument that the US in particular cares way too much about organized athletics), but they're in it. I know people might be upset by this, but they serve an essentially religious function. They provide community and ritual and a whole lot of mystical wholeness that's hard to describe. I don't think that's a fiction. I think it's real and genuine and important.

The problem is, other than (MAYBE) the Green Bay Packers (the closest thing pro sports has to an actual public utility), everything in American pro sports has been commodified within an inch of its life. None of the actors with power are at all beholden the public utility goals of sport. Under those rules, communities have to decide between losing the closest thing to a collective, ecstatic experience that modern America can provide or participating in a rigged game.

You're either a martyr or a co-conspirator. There's no way out. I guess, as a fan, all I've got is this: I have no faith in any body of legislators to do very much right. At least them being wrong in this case has some positive side effects.

[nate82]

I think teams need to go the route of what Minnesota did with the Vikings new stadium which the construction bonds were just paid off through electronic pull-tabs tax. 

https://www.si.com/nfl/vikings/news/vikings-us-bank-stadium-paid-off-23-years-ahead-schedule

I also believe some type of a crowd sourcing could be used.  If a video game company can raise over $500m in just over 10-years I think a sports team could definitely do this within 5-years if they get creative enough.  https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

 

 

[patrickgpe]

I think the solution is pretty simple, a user fee on tickets and using the income tax that is generated to pay for any repairs / new construction. I think we are past the days of building arenas with sales tax increases, it will never be accepted by most of the public. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

Since the odds of just about any government entity opting to take less money from people and businesses in taxes are zilch, count me in the camp of being ok with diversified tax dollar spending/incentives that includes things the primary tax base enjoys having around to spend disposable income/corporate profits at.

Glad this deal appears to be getting done one way or the other.

[RobertCrawley]

On 10/13/2023 at 6:10 PM, MrTPlush said:

It will be interesting to see what potential improvements (not just repairs will happen) may transpire.

The way attendance has gone, when they do the seating replacement, will we see a more high end area behind home plate?

When we replace the outfield door, is it possible for them to be clear…so it feels a tad less like an airplane hanger? 
 

Video board needs upgrading…will we finally see a second video along the lines in the terrace level so OF seating has something?

Of course you have the ‘Beer District’ task force…but I doubt much comes of that. 

I don't know if this makes anyone's priority list, but when they close the roof on a muggy day, the stadium is a petri dish in a sauna and no moving air. It's unbearable. Let's fix that, why don't we.

[LouisEly]

3 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

Well a $150million payroll average (between the Brewers and whoever comes to town) is $12mil per year in income taxes.

And that's just the players.  Add the income tax of the team executives and other employees.  The sales tax generated from all of the beer and food sales at the stadium (and at the grocery/liquor stores for tailgating).  If the team draws 2.5M fans in a season and each fan spends an average of $20 on food/beer in the stadium, that's $50M generating 5.5% sales tax.  Tax on ticket sales.  Sales tax on merchandise.  Tax on gasoline used to get to/from the stadium, meals/catering purchased by the team/players when in MKE, hotel/room taxes on hotel rooms for visiting players/fans, etc.

It's not unrealistic to think that the Brewers directly generate $25M/year in tax revenue, which would be $500M over 20 years.

[homer]

14 hours ago, LouisEly said:

And that's just the players.  Add the income tax of the team executives and other employees.  The sales tax generated from all of the beer and food sales at the stadium (and at the grocery/liquor stores for tailgating).  If the team draws 2.5M fans in a season and each fan spends an average of $20 on food/beer in the stadium, that's $50M generating 5.5% sales tax.  Tax on ticket sales.  Sales tax on merchandise.  Tax on gasoline used to get to/from the stadium, meals/catering purchased by the team/players when in MKE, hotel/room taxes on hotel rooms for visiting players/fans, etc.

It's not unrealistic to think that the Brewers directly generate $25M/year in tax revenue, which would be $500M over 20 years.

I don't have any qualms with the state-level tax revenue. They will make bank on the income taxes and sales tax. The state actually has something to lose if the Brewers leave.

Quote

An analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau done at the request of Republicans took a look at the likely taxes paid by the team from 2024 to 2051. The vast majority of the revenue 78.2%, will go to the State of Wisconsin through its income and 5% sales taxes.

My issue is at the local level.

The Brewers don't pay property taxes on 265 acres of land. Per one estimate:

Quote

As an estimate by Urban Milwaukee has found, the property tax exemption on the stadium is worth $216.6 million over the 40 years (2001-2041) it was originally expected to last. The exemption on the 265 acres of land, mostly used for parking, is worth $483 million. That’s a loss of nearly $700 million over 40 years

You could put literally anything else there other than a church and it would generate tax revenue for the city. The property tax exemption wouldn't be so bad if the city didn't also have to contribute to the maintenance. IMO, they already are contributing and then some.

[Fear The Chorizo]

27 minutes ago, homer said:

I don't have any qualms with the state-level tax revenue. They will make bank on the income taxes and sales tax. The state actually has something to lose if the Brewers leave.

My issue is at the local level.

The Brewers don't pay property taxes on 265 acres of land. Per one estimate:

You could put literally anything else there other than a church and it would generate tax revenue for the city. The property tax exemption wouldn't be so bad if the city didn't also have to contribute to the maintenance. IMO, they already are contributing and then some.

Where do the players and execs live or have residences?  Most likely the tri County area.  I'm guessing they pay property taxes on their properties, yes?

This is alot more complicated than comparing where state and local chunks of tax dollars come from on the front end and then not factoring in the impact of tax receipts by the same entities and economic benefit and local tax revenue having a mlb baseball team located in Milwaukee (and not, say, wausau) brings to the tri County area.

[torts]

19 hours ago, homer said:

Right but you get to recover those costs via property taxes on the development.

Assuming there isn't a deal to not pay property taxes to develop the land for x years, and is partially subsided by state funds. Like it's a lose lose situation that I don't understand why it's debated.