BOSTON—Not that the Boston 2024 Olympic bid didn't have its share of issues prior to the decision to abandon the bid last month, but a report commissioned by Gov. Charlie Baker and other political leaders points to what might have been considerable risks to taxpayers.

The report authored by The Brattle Group and commissioned by Gov. Baker and Senate President Stan Rosenberg and House Speaker Robert DeLeo focused particular attention on the potential cost overruns that might have existed for the temporary Olympic Stadium and other developments to be located on an elevated platform that the Boston 2024 organizing committee coined as “Midtown” in Widett Circle. Midtown would have been developed by a private entity that would have been responsible for the project (except the Olympic Stadium itself) at an expected cost of $1.2 billion. In return, the private developer would have received real estate tax incentives, rights to develop the land for permanent uses, and option agreements to acquire the land from current private owners, the City of Boston, and the Commonwealth.

The report released on Tuesday also questioned the financial feasibility of the proposed $2.9-billion Athlete's Village in the Columbia Point/University of Massachusetts precinct that like Midtown, called for a private developer to finance and develop the project in exchange for similar real estate tax incentives and development rights. Following the Olympic Games, the Athletes' Village would have been converted into rental apartments, student housing, senior housing, and other retail and restaurant space.

In its report, The Brattle Group stated that the cost estimate of the temporary Olympic Stadium, as well as other venues such as an Aquatics Center, an international broadcast and main press center were significantly lower than the costs incurred by London for the Summer Olympic games in 2012. The report charges that “past experience suggests that Boston 2024 would have been unlikely to meet those costs estimates, and a more reasonable cost estimate would have been over $970 million higher than reported in Bid 2.0 (Boston 2024's analysis of costs and revenues to host the Olympic Games). In addition the contingencies included in Bid 2.0 are considerably lower than those typically used in the construction industry for projects at such an early stage of development. If Boston 2024 had used a more typical contingency, its projected cost would have been at least $100 million higher.”

The report also questioned the reliance of more than $4 billion in private development funding for development and infrastructure-related projects at the Midtown and Columbia Point areas, pointing to the projects hinging on securing tax agreements with the City of Boston as well as other entitlements and option agreements with property owners. The inherent risks might have dissuaded some developers from committing to the project, the report charged.

“Even if Boston 2024 could have found developers for those projects, the contingencies it applied to those projects were significantly lower than those typically applied to developments at such a preliminary stage,” the report stated. “This was particularly true for the Midtown development, considering the cost and technical risks associated with building the platform, particularly given the platform would have had to be completed in time for other pre-Olympic development and, therefore, subject to an 'Olympic Premium.'”

In a prepared statement, Senate President Rosenberg said in response to the report's findings, “Even though the bid was withdrawn, this report demonstrates that there were a series of real risks associated with bringing the games to Massachusetts.”

Gov. Baker at a press conference on Tuesday told reporters that the Brattle Group's findings “demonstrated that there were, in fact, significant risks” to the city's Olympic bid, according to the Boston Globe.

“I would not have been able to provide the guarantees the USOC was looking for from the commonwealth,” Baker said at the press conference held the State House.