Hamilton County commissioners spar over Bengals MOU, disagree on messaging and next steps

Hamilton County commissioners spent substantial time at their April 24 meeting debating a proposed memorandum of understanding with the Cincinnati Bengals that would commit up to $184,000,000 for stadium improvements, with one commissioner sharply criticizing the timing and public messaging around the document.

Commissioner Alicia Rees (Hamilton County commissioner) told the board she did not support negotiating an MOU and that she had expected the county’s work to focus on a long-term lease. “I did not vote for one second to be spent on the MOU. I voted for the lawyer and the person we hired…and I just think it is a slap in the face to the voters,” Rees said during commissioners’ comments.

Rees said media coverage that same week gave the impression a deal had been reached and described the outreach as a PR campaign that left taxpayers confused. “It made Bengals nation and national news and this…we never even had a vote,” she said. Rees also raised concerns about the county adding $65 million more of taxpayer support without a final lease that guarantees county protections.

County Administrator Jeff Alito (county administrator) responded that there was no press release intended to present the MOU as a final lease and that media outlets had picked up early language and amplified it. Alito said the administration made the media aware the MOU would be discussed publicly and that the document was provided to the board late on Monday so staff wanted to ensure the media had time to attend the Tuesday discussion. He described the MOU as a planning and financing step, not a legally binding final lease. “There is language in the MOU that allows us to, if we don't get where we want on the lease, to reduce or terminate the funding that we authorize in this,” Alito said.

Commissioner Denise Dreehaus (president, Hamilton County Board of Commissioners) said the meeting where the MOU was discussed was held in public with press present and rejected the implication that the county intentionally misled taxpayers. “No one at that meeting ever said that this was related to the final lease, at least to my knowledge,” she said.

Discussion at the meeting included repeated references to headlines and social-media posts that suggested a completed deal, and to prior stadium arrangements such as naming-rights revenue that commissioners said had not meaningfully benefited taxpayers. Rees cited a past naming-rights deal reported at $66 million and said she was concerned that taxpayers would be asked to commit additional funds without a negotiated long-term lease.

No formal vote on the MOU or on a lease occurred during the April 24 meeting. Commissioners said they expect additional meetings and briefings as the county continues negotiation and planning. Administrator Alito said the MOU is intended to enable further planning and to secure potential NFL financing and that staff will continue to provide updates and clarifications to the public and the press.

The discussion concluded without action on the MOU; commissioners moved on to other business and later voted to enter executive session on an unrelated matter.

Ending: The board scheduled further briefings and signaled continued debate ahead of any binding decisions on stadium financing or a long-term lease.