$500 Million Stadium Deal Rewritten — But Taxpayer Questions Remain

The Senate is set to vote on it this week.

Arizona lawmakers have dramatically rewritten House Bill 2704, the proposal that would divert up to half a billion dollars in public taxes toward renovations at Chase Field. The updated version of the bill adds new limitations, enforcement mechanisms, and conflict-of-interest rules — though core concerns around public spending and accountability persist.

The legislation had stalled for nearly three months in the Senate following intense scrutiny, opposition from Phoenix and Maricopa County, and a lack of stakeholder consensus. This latest version is the first to incorporate the full range of changes sought by lawmakers and local leaders, following weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations and a stakeholder meeting hosted in the Governor’s Office.

What’s New in the Latest Bill:

• $500M Cap on Public Funds
  Tax diversions for Chase Field upgrades now top out at $500 million, adjusted for inflation. Any revenue beyond that amount must be returned to state, county, and city budgets. This cap didn’t exist in earlier versions of the bill.

• Mandatory County Contribution
  Phoenix has already committed a share of its local taxes. Now, if Maricopa County contributes less than Phoenix, the bill requires the county to make up the difference using its own transaction privilege tax (TPT) revenue.

• Relocation Penalties for the Team
  If the Diamondbacks leave Chase Field early:

  • They pay $10 million before 2035

  • $5 million before 2045

  • $1 million before 2050
    That money is split equally between Phoenix, Maricopa County, and the state.

• Conflict of Interest Clause
  The legislation now includes language requiring anyone handling or overseeing stadium tax funds — including team employees or associated parties — to follow Arizona’s conflict of interest law. This change appears to be a direct response to the behind-the-scenes involvement of real estate developer Andrew Cohn, who acted as an unofficial intermediary between the Diamondbacks and Maricopa County.

Cohn’s role in stadium talks drew scrutiny after he called Supervisors Jack Sellers and Tom Galvin to object to the county’s public criticism of the team. He later resigned from the Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority, citing what he saw as poor judgment by the Board of Supervisors. Cohn claimed he was simply acting as a citizen with experience brokering deals — but his close ties to the team (his wife sits on the Diamondbacks Foundation board) and his role in prior stadium negotiations raised red flags. The new clause ensures private actors with potential financial ties must disclose and recuse from key decisions involving public funds.

• Team Buy-In Still Not Legally Binding
  The Diamondbacks’ promise to contribute at least $250 million is still just a PR commitment. And it’s still unclear whether the team will rely on surcharges, public-private financing, or future tax credits to reach that number.

• An earlier version of this article stated that HB2704 legally requires the Arizona Diamondbacks to contribute $250 million toward stadium improvements. In fact, the bill expresses the Legislature’s intent for the team to make that contribution, but does not include binding language to enforce it. The story has been updated to reflect this clarification.

How Did We Get Here?
This rewrite follows public pressure and investigative reporting, including reviews of 7 years of stadium spending. Public records reviewed by Fourth Estate 48 show no third-party engineering reports indicating urgent capital needs to justify the $500 million estimate. Financial reports showed routine maintenance, a healthy repair fund, and little documentation of the team’s required $2 million annual contributions.

Meanwhile, the Diamondbacks have launched a grassroots-style campaign inside the stadium and to fans via email, as first reported by Zach Buchanan of the Phoenix New Times. At Section 126, fans are now being asked to fill out postcards urging lawmakers to support the bill — a move seen as mobilizing fan support to influence lawmakers.

Buchanan reports:

Diamondbacks season ticket holders received an email from team president and CEO Derrick Hall with the subject line: "Help Us Keep the D-backs in Arizona." In it, Hall thanked fans who have reached out about how to support House Bill 2704, which would capture some sales and income tax revenue to pay for major stadium upgrades. Noting there "is absolutely no pressure," he also gently nudged other fans to take up the cause.

Hall's email directs fans to an advocacy site called KeepAZMajorLeague.com, which says it is the joint effort of several local and state entities, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association and the Phoenix Community Alliance. The site contains talking points about the bill and includes a form through which people can contact state lawmakers. Website data shows the site was created on March 5, just as HB 2704 was transmitted to the Arizona Senate.

Supporters of the bill argue it ensures the Diamondbacks remain in Arizona while avoiding new taxes and creating a stable funding mechanism for stadium upkeep.

Additional Analysis
Policy analyst Dave Wells¹ argues in his personal blog, Make Democracy Work, that HB2704 would result in a net financial loss for taxpayers, despite the Diamondbacks’ popularity and contributions to civic pride. Drawing from economic research and real-world case studies, Wells contends that entertainment spending is relatively fixed, so money spent at baseball games would likely be spent elsewhere in the state if the team were to leave. He estimates that even under favorable assumptions about tourism and visitor spending, the Diamondbacks generate only $4 million in new tax revenue annually, leaving taxpayers up to $11 million worse off each year. The report, based on the original bill, challenges the notion that subsidizing professional sports teams leads to meaningful economic growth, urging lawmakers to weigh the true opportunity costs — such as potential cuts to public services like childcare — against the benefits of funding stadium improvements.

While the bill now includes more guardrails, the essential trade-off hasn’t changed: public funding mechanisms supporting privately operated upgrades. Opponents argue that even with a $500 million cap, the bill could serve as a model for future tax diversion deals with private sports franchises.

What’s Next?
HB2704 is advancing in the Arizona Senate and could come to a full vote as soon as today, June 18 or tomorrow June 19. Sources say additional amendments are expected on the floor — but the late-in-the-game nature of these changes has raised transparency concerns. With no further committee hearings scheduled, the public has no opportunity to weigh in on amendments that could dramatically reshape the bill.

It’s another example of Arizona’s legislative process playing out in private², even as lawmakers move to greenlight a significant public investment in a single sports venue.

Stay tuned. Fourth Estate 48 is continuing to follow the money — and who stands to benefit.

1. Wells is best known for his role as research director at the nonpartisan Grand Canyon Institute, where he has long analyzed the fiscal impact of major public investments.

2. This story was updated to remove the word “increasingly” due to this lack of transparency happening pretty consistently over the years. It was also updated to mention the change of date since it did not make it onto the floor for a vote on June 18.