Editorial: The $16.3 Million Isn’t The Final Cost. It’s The Admission Price.

By Mickey Lamm
Editor, JoCoReport

There was a time when Smithfield was talking about a $6 million baseball stadium.

That number is gone.

The latest estimate for the proposed Smithfield Tobs stadium is $16,298,751 — $10.77 million for Phase 1 and another $5.53 million for Phase 2. That is more than $10 million above the figure presented when the Town Council approved the project last year.

The increase alone should have forced a serious reset.

Instead, on Aug. 18, a divided council voted to keep moving forward, with Mayor Andy Moore breaking a 3-3 tie.

Supporters can point to outside contributions, tourism dollars, county money, state money and the possibility of naming-rights revenue. They can argue that not every dollar will come directly from Smithfield taxpayers.

All of that deserves to be acknowledged.

But it does not change the larger concern.

The $16.3 million is not the final cost of this stadium. It is the admission price.

Once Smithfield builds it, Smithfield owns it. And ownership means maintenance, repairs, utilities, replacements, staffing and the inevitable expenses that come with a public facility year after year.

That is where this discussion has not received nearly enough attention.

The town’s agreement with the Tobs makes Smithfield responsible for construction, maintenance and repairs. The town also pays water and sewer and provides refuse service. The Tobs pay electric and internet costs, maintain the playing surface, clean the stadium and provide event security.

The Tobs will lease this publicly financed facility for $1 annually during the first two years. Rent rises to $10,000 in 2028, $12,250 in 2029 and $25,000 annually from 2030 through 2034, with increases later in the agreement.

Even $25,000 a year is a very small return against a public investment of $16.3 million.

And Smithfield does not receive a share of ticket sales, parking or advertising revenue under the arrangement presented to the council. The town does retain naming rights, which officials hope will generate significant money, but hoped-for revenue is not the same thing as money already in the bank.

The town’s own budget has already anticipated stadium expenses for cleanup, utilities, building maintenance and supplies. Those amounts may look small beside a $16.3 million construction estimate, but they illustrate the point: the spending does not stop when the ribbon is cut.

Smithfield only needs to look to Wilson to understand that.

The Tobs have played for years at Fleming Stadium. According to Ballpark Digest, the Wilson Tobs drew 30,805 fans over 25 reported home dates in 2024, an average of 1,232 per game. That was actually above the Coastal Plain League average of 1,109, so it would be unfair to portray the Tobs as a failing or poorly attended franchise.

But 1,232 fans per game also puts the scale of this project into perspective.

Smithfield is contemplating a $16.3 million public facility for a summer collegiate baseball operation whose recent attendance in Wilson was measured in the low thousands, not tens of thousands, per game.

That does not mean the Tobs cannot grow in Johnston County. They may. A new stadium could produce larger crowds.

But taxpayers should not be asked to finance a project primarily on what might happen.

And Wilson offers another lesson: stadiums age.

The City of Wilson reported last year that it had invested more than $1 million in Fleming Stadium during the previous decade just to keep the facility operational. In 2023 alone, Wilson spent $368,000 on what officials described as a short-term structural fix. Two years later, city leaders were considering long-term options ranging from $285,000 to $3.6 million, with a $1.75 million renovation receiving serious consideration.

Fleming Stadium is old, and nobody should pretend a new Smithfield stadium will face identical problems anytime soon.

That is not the point.

The point is that public buildings eventually need roofs, concrete, seating, plumbing, electrical systems, pavement, HVAC equipment, scoreboards and other major components repaired or replaced.

A new stadium postpones those expenses. It does not eliminate them.

Twenty years is a long lease.

What will a scoreboard cost to replace in 2040? What about seating? Parking lots? Concession equipment? Restrooms? Drainage? Lighting? Roof repairs?

Who pays?

Under the present arrangement, the answer to many of those questions ultimately leads back to the Town of Smithfield.

And before we start talking about economic impact, taxpayers should demand evidence instead of slogans.

When Johnston County approved $2 million toward the stadium, town officials cited an estimated $7 million annual economic impact and roughly 60 full-time jobs. Those are impressive numbers.

But what assumptions produced them?

How much spending would truly be new to Smithfield rather than money local residents would have spent somewhere else in town? How much tax revenue would actually flow back to Smithfield? How many of those “full-time jobs” are direct jobs created by the stadium?

Those questions matter because economists have spent years studying taxpayer-supported sports facilities, and the findings are far less enthusiastic than stadium sales pitches.

A 2026 study published in Economic Inquiry examined public spending on 134 minor-league ballparks and found state and local governments had spent about $7 billion constructing and renovating them. Using Major League Baseball’s restructuring of the minor leagues as a natural experiment, the study found no difference in local income between communities that lost teams and those that retained them.

Summer collegiate baseball is not the same as affiliated minor-league baseball. But the lesson is relevant: a ballpark should not automatically be treated as an economic-development machine.

None of this is an argument against baseball.

The Tobs may become a popular Johnston County attraction. Families may enjoy the games. Young players may benefit. Restaurants and hotels may see additional customers. A well-used stadium could become a community asset.

But enjoying baseball and questioning a $16.3 million taxpayer-backed stadium are not contradictory positions.

The issue is proportionality.

Smithfield has streets, parks, infrastructure, public safety needs and other capital demands. Every dollar placed into this project is a dollar that cannot be used somewhere else.

And money taken from reserves does not become free money simply because the tax rate did not increase to collect it this year.

Phase 1 alone now costs approximately $10.77 million. The town has identified about $7 million toward that phase and plans to reach into reserves for more than $3.27 million. Phase 2 carries another estimated $5.53 million, and a complete funding plan for it has not been identified.

That should concern anyone regardless of whether they like baseball.

The original discussion was about a $6 million stadium.

We are now at $16.3 million before the first pitch has been thrown.

The question facing Smithfield is no longer whether a baseball stadium would be nice to have.

The question is how much the public should be expected to spend to have it — not just next year, but for decades.

Because $16.3 million is not the final cost.

It is only the price of admission.