Antonio Releases Independent Report on Browns Stadium Funding

Today, Senate Democratic Leader Nickie J. Antonio (D-Lakewood) released a report that her office requested from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission (LSC) – a nonpartisan agency that provides the Legislature with research and fiscal analysis – regarding the constitutionality and economic implications of the Browns stadium funding provisions in the House-passed version of the budget (H.B. 96). Leader Antonio requested that the report also include an independent analysis of the documentation provided by the Haslam Sports Group.

“The proposed funding plan for the new Browns stadium raises serious legal and financial concerns,” said Antonio. “The Haslams’ projections are overly optimistic at best, and even their own consultants admit the analysis isn’t intended to justify financing. Let’s be clear: most of the so-called ‘new jobs’ are simply moving jobs away from Cleveland– stadiums like this do not deliver the economic windfalls they promise. We should not move forward until we know the courts, the numbers, and the public are on board.”

The LSC report included the following:

Bond backing

• The bonds as described in HB 96 would not be general obligation bonds (i.e., bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the State), but rather special obligation bonds.
• There is no clear constitutional authorization for stadium bond issuance.

Economic claims

• The Haslams’ economic impact projections are overly optimistic and lack transparency. 
  
  • “Some of the newly created positions in the mixed-use district will come at the expense of similar jobs in Cleveland,” the report states.
  • Reports from the Haslam Sports Group “[do not] include an explanation of how the reported 6,000 temporary construction jobs [are] projected]”. 
• LSC finds that “decades of research failed to find significant impacts on employment from the construction of new sports stadiums.”
• The Haslams’ claim that the new Brook Park stadium would attract an estimated 1.5 million new visitors was found by LSC to be “overly optimistic.”
• The stadium’s construction will amount to a roughly $10-11M annual loss in tax revenue for the City of Cleveland. 
  
  • There’s no evidence to suggest that cost savings from vacating the current stadium will offset the losses. 

“The overwhelming conclusion from this body of research is that there are little to no tangible impacts of sports teams and facilities on local economic activity. A second conclusion is that the level of government subsidies given for the construction of facilities far exceeds any observed economic benefits when they do exist,” the report reads. 

Leader Antonio also requested a legal opinion from Attorney General Dave Yost as to the constitutionality of the bonding provisions. She awaits a response. 

The report from LSC can be found here.