The House budget includes $600 million in bonds for a $3.4 billion domed stadium and surrounding development for the Cleveland Browns in Brook Park. Republican lawmakers who back the idea said they’re confident in the team owners' estimates of tax revenue the project will bring in. But there’s been no publicly released independent analysis of those estimates from the legislature or from the state.
The Haslam Sports Group presented to the Ohio Arts, Athletics and Tourism Committee last month estimates showing the stadium and development would raise $1.3 billion more than the nearly $1 billion the state will spend paying back the bonds over 30 years. The document does not show a breakdown of sales, income and other tax revenue. The budget also requires the Browns to put up $50 million in cash in case the numbers fall short - which is an increase over the $38.5 million the team had said at that hearing that they would be offering up front.
So far, there has been no official review publicly released of the revenue estimates from the state Office of Budget and Management, the Legislative Service Commission or any other state agency or office. But some state officials say they've seen something like that.
Some state officials say they've seen reviews of the Browns' numbers
“We have looked at the numbers. I will say it's not our job yet to verify those numbers. But we stand ready to do what the General Assembly asks us to do," said Republican Treasurer Robert Sprague, whose office oversees state-backed bonds. "We have had some behind the scenes conversations with the House and the Senate to make sure that the language is right. If they do approve that for the Cleveland Browns, that we're able to issue those bonds in an appropriate way. And we'll see what the General Assembly decides."
Sprague didn’t say he supports the Browns stadium project, but said the bonds package is constitutional. He also said it should be made clear to there's no connection between the Browns bond package in the budget and Issue 2, a $2.5 billion package of bonds to fund local roads, bridges, and water and sewer projects on the May ballot. That's a program that's been in place since 1987, but needs to be reauthorized every ten years.
"One is for accessing the capital markets for public infrastructure that's done at the local level and local governments get to determine what infrastructure is built, whereas the Cleveland Browns stadium is a an entirely separate issue," Sprague said. "I think it's really important that voters understand that."
Gov. Mike DeWine said on April 8—the day before the House budget passed—that his budget office has also looked at the numbers.
“At some point I think that will be released. I have read it. Agreed with some of it, but I think the for me, the the issue is much bigger than the Browns," DeWine said.
DeWine wants a doubling of the tax on sports gambling operators to create a stadium facilities fund, which he said would meet the challenge of Ohio having more professional sports teams than in the past, and with stadiums costing more than ever. His fellow Republicans in he House didn't support that tax hike and stripped that from the budget.
"We are going to face this as a state, years and years and years into the future. We can argue that the state shouldn't contribute. But the reality is the state has contributed in the past, for the last 50 years, and other states are doing it," DeWine said. "The reality is we cannot afford anymore to use general fund dollars to rehab stadiums or to build new sports stadiums. We do not have the money to do it. That money directly competes with education. It directly competes with money that we could use to help people with mental health challenges, people who have a drug addiction, early childhood development. All of these compete."
But DeWine has not directly threatened a veto of the bond package. The budget is now in the Senate, and must be agreed upon by both chambers and signed by DeWine by the end of June.
