Ohio’s latest budget slates $600 million for a new Browns stadium — but that only gets them part of the way toward building a dome in Brook Park.
The team envisions a second $600 million filling out the public’s share of the $2.4 billion project. Plans that the team shared earlier this year called for Cuyahoga County to issue $600 million in bonds, sharing with Brook Park the cost of paying them back.
Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne said Tuesday that the other $600 million won’t come from the government he leads. Ronayne said the Haslams, who own the team, have swum only “halfway across the river.”
“We’re saying to Jimmy and Dee Haslam, then pull it out of your own pocket, don’t pick it out of the pocket of Cuyahoga County taxpayers,” Ronayne said after a news conference Tuesday. “We have no intention to issue bonds for the Browns stadium in Brook Park.”
The Haslams voiced their appreciation for state leaders’ move to fund the stadium. But in a statement, they did not offer clues about where they would find the second $600 million.
“Our fans deserve a world-class facility, and we are committed to building a state-of-the-art enclosed stadium that resonates with Cleveland, highlighting our loyal and passionate fans and the Dawg Pound, while also incorporating innovation, bold design, and an immersive experience,” the statement read in part.
Sin tax expansion in Cuyahoga County’s future?
One possible source of more money for Browns stadium: a hike in Cuyahoga County’s sin tax. The tax on alcohol and cigarettes currently raises around $14 million per year for repairs at Progressive Field, Rocket Arena and the Browns’ Huntington Bank Field.
The state budget allows the county to ask voters to double sin tax rates, extend the tax for another 20 years and levy the tax on vapor products for the first time. Proceeds must be divided evenly among the county’s major league sports facilities.
In other words, the county wouldn’t be able to cut the Browns out of the sin tax deal if the team leaves downtown Cleveland for Brook Park.
Ronayne said the sin tax language in the budget was too limiting. The current tax revenues are stretched so thin that the city and county came up with $40 million in additional money last year to repair the homes of the Cavaliers and Guardians.
“The Browns putting themselves in this arrangement only dilutes the drive for the Cavs and the Guards to get what they need,” he said, “and also potentially other teams that we would want to support.”
Those other teams are Cleveland’s newly announced WNBA franchise and a possible professional soccer team. Ronayne referred to polling that suggested voters wouldn’t back a sin tax that pays for a new Browns stadium in Brook Park.
“If you add the Browns into that equation, the issue tanks,” he said. “So why would we put it on the ballot? It’s dead on arrival.”
It would be up to Cuyahoga County Council to vote on sending a sin tax increase to the ballot.
What’s in Ohio’s budget for Browns stadium
The state money will come from Ohio’s Unclaimed Funds account, a $4.8 billion collection of forgotten bank accounts, uncollected paychecks and other abandoned property. The idea is that the team will pay the state back in the future through increased tax collections the Browns say the project will generate.
Lawmakers set aside another $1.1 billion in unclaimed funds for other future pro sports stadium projects. The Cincinnati Bengals and the Columbus Blue Jackets are among the teams lining up for state support.
Even though the measure made it into law, there’s bipartisan opposition to the idea of using Ohioans’ abandoned property for stadium projects. Republican Attorney General Dave Yost on Friday urged DeWine to veto the language. Marc Dann, a former Democratic attorney general, and Jeff Crossman, a former Democratic state representative from Parma, told reporters last week they planned to sue the state if the proposal made it into the final bill.
State legislators took other steps through the budget to help the Browns move to Brook Park. Late in the budget process, lawmakers inserted language watering down the so-called Modell Law, passed to prevent teams from breaking their lease and leaving town after the Browns left Cleveland in the 1990s. Lawmakers changed the law, which Cleveland officials had been using to sue the team over the planned move to Brook Park, so that it now only applies to teams trying to move out of the state.
DeWine said Tuesday in Columbus he would have vetoed the language had the legislature tried to abolish the Modell Law completely. He also dismissed the possibility of a lawsuit.
“That’s what courts are for,” he said.
One court is already taking notice. On Monday, U.S. District Judge David A. Ruiz paused all deadlines in the federal lawsuit between the Browns and Cleveland over the Modell Law.
Signal Statewide’s Jake Zuckerman contributed reporting to this story.
