CLEVELAND, Ohio - Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne is warning that a move by state lawmakers to lock the Cleveland Browns into a share of the county’s sin tax revenue threatens not just local control, but the future upkeep of the downtown baseball park and basketball arena.
In an unusually sharp rebuke of proposed language by Ohio Senate leaders, Ronayne accused the Browns of “end-running” the county and lobbying the state for a share of the sin tax, as the team eyes a $2.4 billion stadium in Brook Park.
The sin tax money currently is divided three ways between downtown Cleveland’s baseball, basketball and football venues. That even split is the result of a years-old decision by the county council, though voters in extending the tax in 1995 and 2014, were told the tax money would involve all three facilities.
This week, Ohio Senate leaders unveiled their version of the state budget, which includes a provision allowing an increase in the liquor portion of the sin tax—if county voters approve. But more significantly, the Senate plan would cement in state law that sin tax revenue must be “equally divided by the county among the sports facilities that exist within the boundaries of the county.” That language could override any future attempts by county officials to prioritize funding for the downtown stadiums.
Ronayne does not want the three-way fix locked into state law, as he continues his push to keep the Browns in Cleveland.
He wants to keep the option open to restrict sin tax dollars for use only at Progressive Field and Rocket Arena - regardless of whether the Browns stay in the county.
“Our thinking is if the Browns are on the ballot (for a sin tax increase) with the Cavs and the Guards, polls have already shown people are tired of the Cleveland Browns, and that it actually jeopardizes the Guards’ and the Cavs’ chances on a ballot initiative,” Ronayne said during a Tuesday news conference. “For us to put something on the ballot that would be dead on arrival doesn’t make any sense.”
Ronayne’s office, however, did not identify the source of such polling when asked follow-up questions the next day by cleveland.com.
Cleveland.com has viewed a poll summary that is being circulated. But the summary does not identify who paid for the poll, how the questions were worded and standard professional polling information, such as whether it involved a scientific sample of the public with a credible margin of error.
When asked why the Browns’ stadium should be excluded from a share of the countywide sin tax money if the team moves to Brook Park — still within Cuyahoga County — a spokesperson didn’t give a direct answer. Instead, they said, “We firmly believe that any decision about local tax funds should be decided locally, not by state officials in Columbus.”
Dave Jenkins, chief operating officer of the Browns and the Haslam Sports Group, denied lobbying to lock in the sin tax money for the new stadium, but he said the team welcomed the proposed change. He said such money would only be used for future capital needs, not toward the construction of the facility.
Dave Jenkins, Cleveland Browns
Dave Jenkins, chief operating officer of the Cleveland Browns and the Haslam Sports Group, says the team would welcome sin tax dollars for future capital repairs at a new stadium. But he said they would not be used for construction of the stadium.Rich Exner, cleveland.com
Separate from the sin tax, state lawmakers also have proposed providing $600 million for the Brook Park stadium.
The Ohio Senate plan involves borrowing from unclaimed funds in a state account. The House plan calls for the state to sell bonds. In both cases, the money would be repaid by taxes generated at the site of the stadium and related development. The final budget bill is due June 30.
How the sin tax debate has evolved
While the focus for months largely has been on potential financing for construction of the stadium - half to be paid for by the Browns - the sin tax has been emerging as a side issue.
Ronayne late last year asked legislators to change the law to raise more money. Because of shortfalls. The county and city each had to kick in another $20 million last last year.
First approved in 1990 for construction of Gateway, the tax is assigned on a per unit basis, so it doesn’t go up with inflation. For example, it always has been 1.5 cents per 12-ounce can of beer, 6 cents per standard bottle of wine, 4.5 cents per pack of cigarettes and so on. (The Senate proposal would allow an increase on the tax on hard liquor from $3 per gallon to $6, but only after county voter approval.)
During discussions over the Browns’ new stadium proposal, an open question had been whether the sin tax would follow the team to Brook Park.
Then a few weeks ago, with budget discussions ongoing in Columbus, the executive committee of the region’s chamber of commerce, Greater Cleveland Partnership, voted to endorse the increase in the sin tax and to “share it for all professional stadiums equally.”
Baiju Shah, executive director of the Greater Cleveland Partnership, said representatives from the Browns, Cavs and Guardians on the executive committee abstained from that vote, because of conflicts of interest.
But the Cavs and Guardians did not leave the issue at that - soon raising concerns about the position taken by the partnership.
“We believe, based on our engagement locally, that a sin tax modernization effort, which is intertwined with the Brook Park plan and strips local control from the decision-making process, undoing decades of precedent, is doomed to fail,” Rock Entertainment Group CEO Nic Barlage wrote in a letter addressed to the partnership. Rock is the entity behind the Cavs and related companies.
The Guardians confirmed that owner Paul Dolan, like Barlage a member of the executive committee, wrote a letter regarding the “modernization of the sin tax” but did not provide a copy of the letter or other details.
After those letters, the executive committee added a third clause to its endorsement — to “retain local decision-making on allocations” — even as it left in place its earlier recommendation that the money be split equally, creating an inherent conflict between the two positions.
Then on Tuesday, the Ohio Senate leadership released its proposal for the state budget that would write into state law the requirement that the money be “equally divided.”
Ronayne called on Gov. Mike DeWine to line-item veto that clause if it reaches his desk.