Tensions seem to be rising between the Diamondbacks and local officials as the sides negotiate a lease extension for the club at Chase Field in Phoenix before the current lease runs out in 2027. Back in February, team ownership appeared to be frustrated with the lack of progress in negotiations, and things appeared to escalate recently when club president and CEO Derrick Hall criticized a recent proposal from the county during a local radio interview, as discussed by AZFamily’s David Baker.
During the interview, Hall described the offer from the county as “ridiculous,” adding that the proposed lease extension would expect the team to pay upwards of $150MM for stadium upgrades without public funding. Said proposal from the county would come with a 50-year term and keep the Diamondbacks in Arizona until at least 2034, as the club would have the right to terminate the lease with three years’ notice starting in 2032.
Sasha Hupka of the Arizona Republic notes that a major sticking point in the negotiations is the fact that the D-Backs are seeking funding to renovate the ballpark and construct an entertainment district similar to the one surrounding Atlanta’s Truist Park. Hupka notes that the club and Maricopa County (which owns Chase Field) are currently “tens of millions of dollars apart” in negotiations over how much the team should invest in leasing and developing land around the ballpark for said entertainment district, including a proposed investment of $200MM if the team is allowed to develop mixed-use property on the Chase Field site. Hall criticized that proposal during the interview as well, noting that the deal would hamper the team’s development goals around the ballpark.
“They say they won’t allow us to even talk about that opportunity and ‘unlock’ that opportunity and possibility until we’ve put nearly $200 million into the ballpark,” Hall said of the team’s desire to build restaurants, shops, and hotels surrounding Chase Field. “Again, they’re not even putting a penny.”
The lack of public funding for stadium renovations in the county’s proposal also appears to be a major point of contention. The current lease stipulates that the team controls maintenance of the ballpark, and Hupka notes that both sides are in agreement on that continuing in a hypothetical lease agreement. While the club controls that maintenance, however, the club appears to want public funding for that maintenance that goes beyond the agreement from 2018 that gave the club control over maintenance at Chase Field. Baker notes that same deal funnels $2MM of the $2.25MM annual sum that the D-Backs pay to the county in rent and fees into an account reserved for covering stadium maintenance costs.
Regardless of whose responsibility it is to pay for maintenance, all sides agree that the ballpark has seen better days since it was built in 1998. Issues with the stadium’s retractable roof, which cannot be operated while fans are inside the ballpark, and a lack of air conditioning are at the forefront of problems with Chase Field that are in obvious need of repair, but Hupka notes that the team has previously indicated they aren’t willing to invest in upgrading the facility without a lease extension in place. Per Hupka, the club has put just $14.5MM toward stadium repairs since the 2018 agreement putting them in control of maintenance was put into place, a far cry from the more than $46MM Maricopa County invested in repairs from 2005 to 2017.
As part of a lease extension deal, the Diamondbacks are hoping to secure a tax recollection deal that would funnel tax revenue from the D-Backs’ operations (including state taxes on the salaries of players and staff) towards stadium maintenance. As Hupka notes, Spring Training’s Cactus League is already among the beneficiaries of the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority, which is primarily fueled by a tax recollection deal with the NFL’s Arizona Cardinals and also funds the Cardinals’ stadium.
That sort of tax recollection deal would require approval from Arizona’s state government, separate from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors that Diamondbacks have been sparring with to this point. With a major election coming up in November, officials both from the county and the D-Backs previously indicated that they hoped to hammer out a deal before the end of the year in order to avoid the possibility of changes in county or state leadership causing a setback in the negotiations. That no longer seems feasible, however, as recent comments from the team describing the current state of Chase Field as “shameful” prompted a letter from Board of Supervisors Chairman Jack Sellers.
“We find the recent remarks from the team that the stadium’s condition is ’shameful’ confusing and troubling,” Sellers wrote. “Reports of falling concrete and excessive heat are an indication that the party responsible for the structure may not be taking the steps necessary to maintain a safe and friendly environment.”
Given the friction between the current board and D-Backs officials, the club may at this point prefer to wait out the current administration and hope for a more favorable negotiating environment in January, when Hupka notes that three of the board’s five current members are set to depart the board after either declining to run for re-election or, in the case of Sellers, losing a primary election. With that being said, holding out for a potentially more favorable group of county officials to negotiate with runs the risk of the state government’s makeup changing during the upcoming elections, leaving the club with a less favorable climate in which they’ll be pushing their tax recollection plans.
