Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
I'm a little confused here. First it was that they Team asked the city for bunch of money, then the team (nance) says no, we'll front the cash, then the council approves the money.

I really don't know the truth

Quote:

Cleveland City Council OKs $5.8 million for stadium repairs
Published: Monday, February 06, 2012, 10:00 PM Updated: Tuesday, February 07, 2012, 7:36 AM
By Thomas Ott, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer


Scott Shaw. Plain Dealer fileThe city will give the Cleveland Browns $5.8 million for repairs to the city-owned football stadium, shown at its opening in 1999.
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The city has agreed to give the Cleveland Browns a $5.8 million lump sum for stadium repairs, but public officials worry about the source of such payments after a countywide tax for maintaining the building runs out in 2015.

City Council voted 16-2 Monday to let the team take the money from a city-administered tax on alcohol and tobacco sales. Cleveland, which leases the stadium to the football team, is required to provide only $850,000 a year for major improvements.

Browns general counsel Fred Nance, who represented the city when the lease was negotiated, said $850,000 was a compromise at the time the agreement was drawn up. He said the amount, equal to less than 1 percent of the building's $300 million construction cost, is not nearly enough to cover what he termed routine work.

The Browns want to use the nearly $6 million to refurbish seats and replace, repair and waterproof concrete inside and outside the 12-year-old building. Osborn Engineering's Jack Krebs, hired by the team, blamed Northeast Ohio's often severe winters for the damage.

"It's the climate we're in," he told the council during an afternoon hearing. "What I see here is not uncommon."

The Browns, sensitive to criticism of the team's deal with the city, came to the hearing armed with a breakdown of money it has invested in the stadium and the community.

Included were $74 million contributed to the construction, another $50 million paid for features such as escalators, a restaurant and team shop and more than $30 million spent on cleaning and other everyday maintenance. The team also detailed more than $2.9 million donated to community programs and sports facilities.

Ken Silliman, chief of staff to Mayor Frank Jackson, said the city reviewed the repair plans and confirmed the need. The agreement approved Monday is supposed to free the city from its repair obligations for seven years, but Silliman would not rule out tapping sin-tax money again during that time if necessary.

"We own Cleveland Browns Stadium," he told the council. "When you own a building and a few years go by, it starts to develop needs. It's just like when you own a home."

The so-called sin tax took effect in 1990. Voters initially approved the tax to finance Progressive Field and The Q, then extended it for 10 years, starting in 2005, to build and repair Cleveland Browns Stadium.

The ballot issue required that the first $87 million from the extension pay a portion of the stadium construction costs.

After the cap is reached this year, the next $29 million must be applied to repairs previously paid for out of the city's general fund. Silliman estimates that the sin tax will raise about $31 million through 2014.

Cleveland's obligations for stadium repairs will spike from $850,000 to $5.9 million a year in 2021. The amount will continue to rise annually, reaching $7.1 million before the lease runs out in 2025.

City Council members called for working with Cuyahoga County leaders to renew the sin tax for a second time. The discussion may be complicated because there's been talk of renewing the tax for fixing The Q and Progressive Field, which opened in 1994.

"We have to go back to voters for a conversation to extend that sin tax." Councilman Zack Reed said. "There's no other way around it,"

Silliman said Jackson is determined not to use more money from the city's general fund for stadium repairs. The chief of staff would not commit to a specific source of revenue to fund the work but said the sin tax is among the options.

Follow Thomas Ott on Twitter @thomasott1.


© 2012 cleveland.com. All rights reserved





Ooops,, forgot the link

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/02/cleveland_city_council_oks_58.html

Last edited by Damanshot; 02/07/12 09:46 AM.

#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Less than the Browns paid Gocong in the first year of his extension.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
N
Legend
Offline
Legend
N
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
nance said they needed city council to approve the repairs earmarked and that the Browns were fronting the money. nothing in the article specifically states anything different though it's worded strangely.

approving the "lump sum" does not necessarily mean they are giving all that money to the Browns now. it could be the expense has been approved and they will continue to give $850K/year as scheduled.

but, the focus quickly shifts to how they will continue to pay that after 2015 despite the fact the city was taking in $13mil/year on the sin tax and giving out $850K to the Browns. Ummm, you wouldn't need to extend it if you saved enough to cover the lease term.


#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
A lot of money for a Gocong, not so much on M&R for a $300 million stadium.

It's funny. It almost seems like stadiums are throw away items after 25 years. The reality is there is no reason the Browns can't be playing in that place for 50 years...as long as a reasonable amount of cash is spent along the way for upkeep.

No doubt after 25 or so years, some major renovation will need to take place, but it is still cheaper than building a new stadium.

New doesn't have to mean better.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,961
I'm one of those guys that are willing to pay for a quality product (let's say a car).. and I understand the value of keeping it up. (my 98 blazer has 170k miles on it and still runs great)

Spending 300 million on a stadium then not keeping it up seems kinda stupid

I'm all in favor of maintaining and repair the facility as needed.

I'm even in favor of retrofitting some kinda dome on the thing.


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
I just was disappointed in the fact that its so easy to shell out that kind of cash for an average player's salary for one year, but they need to go to the cash-strapped city to get that same money for stadium repairs when the city doesn't know where the money will come from.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
N
Legend
Offline
Legend
N
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Quote:

I just was disappointed in the fact that its so easy to shell out that kind of cash for an average player's salary for one year, but they need to go to the cash-strapped city to get that same money for stadium repairs when the city doesn't know where the money will come from.




3 things:

1. the city has the money for the currrent $5.8mil. they are getting it from the sin tax and are not concerned about having that money (from the article)

2. the city is worried about getting the $850K/year after this 6yr stint because the sin tax is scheduled to end in 2015.

3. the city has been making ~$13mil off the sin tax that was passed for the purpose of paying for stadium related items and they have apparently not looked at saving the money for something that is contractually obligated.


#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
It's not the Browns responsibility to repair the stadium.

It's kind of like a renter paying for a broken water heater because he feels the landlord is cash strapped.

I think as illustrated, the Browns and Lerner have spent considerable money on stadium upgrades. Time for the landlord to step up.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Page 2 of 2 1 2
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Browns ask City for Repair money

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5