A recent analysis by Governor Mike DeWine's budget office has raised concerns about the financial implications of a legislative amendment aimed at funding a new Browns stadium in Brook Park. The report, issued by the Office of Budget and Management (OBM), criticizes the plan for overstating potential tax revenues and exaggerating the project's economic benefits. Additionally, it highlights risks to taxpayers and the state’s fiscal stability due to an unclear revenue-sharing structure. Despite these reservations, the Ohio House approved a $600 million provision for the stadium in the state budget bill, sparking debate among lawmakers.
According to OBM Director Kim Murnieks, the proposal from Jimmy and Dee Haslam overestimates the future taxes expected to be generated by the stadium project. In her March 26 report, Murnieks pointed out that the state would acquire an ownership stake in the stadium, thereby assuming responsibility for future maintenance costs without any guaranteed funds to cover them. To mitigate this risk, the report suggests negotiating a revenue-sharing agreement as part of the financing plan.
The critique aligns with findings from the Legislative Service Commission, which similarly questioned the assumptions underpinning the proposal. Both reports argue that decades of research indicate professional sports stadiums often fail to deliver promised economic returns. However, the Haslam Sports Group disputes these conclusions, asserting they have addressed all concerns directly with Governor DeWine and other officials. They emphasize their commitment to creating a sustainable funding mechanism for sports facilities across Ohio.
Despite some disagreements with specific points in the report, Governor DeWine concurs that Ohio should not finance the project using its general revenue fund, which supports essential state operations and services. Instead, the legislature opted to include provisions in the draft budget bill allowing the state to borrow $600 million for the Browns’ stadium, repaying it through taxes generated by the project. This decision contrasts with earlier proposals by DeWine to raise funds via sports betting or establish a dedicated fund for future stadium projects.
While Republican leaders view the deal favorably, citing anticipated tax revenues exceeding borrowing costs, most Democrats opposed the budget measure. Nevertheless, the bill passed narrowly thanks to limited Democratic support, and now awaits review by the state Senate. With the final budget deadline approaching at the end of June, stakeholders continue discussions on achieving a balanced solution beneficial to both the team and the community.
Governor DeWine’s administration remains committed to fostering constructive dialogue with all parties involved. By addressing outstanding issues and ensuring transparency, there is optimism about reaching a consensus that upholds fiscal responsibility while supporting regional development initiatives. As negotiations progress, the focus will remain on crafting a plan that maximizes public benefit and minimizes taxpayer risk.