Speaker 1: By Billy Cunningham. The Great America. Of course, Reds Baseball
Speaker 1: kicks off about five point forty tonight. The Reds are
Speaker 1: unbeatable and right now they're game and a half out
Speaker 1: of first. They have a winning record for the first
Speaker 1: time in about a year. That's good stuff. But the
Speaker 1: last few days we've been dealing with what's going to
Speaker 1: happen to the Bengal funding, the Browns funding, and also more.
Speaker 1: The governor was with us yesterday. Mike Dwine have on
Speaker 1: Adam Byrd, We've had on a Senator Blessing or Scott
Speaker 1: Sloan dead. Now we're going to go to the top.
Speaker 1: The guy in charge of the House of Representatives and
Speaker 1: Columbus is Representative Matt Huffman. He's got deep connections to Cincinnati,
Speaker 1: went to UC law school. He is also was a
Speaker 1: good friend of Leonard Rush before Leonard passed away. I
Speaker 1: have deep connections to Lineman Senior. Spoke to the boys
Speaker 1: up there, boughtom some QBI Burgers, and right now we're
Speaker 1: gonna get the answers. Some say he's the most powerful
Speaker 1: man in state government because when the governor does something
Speaker 1: he didn't like, he can overrule the Governor's veto and
Speaker 1: the Speaker of the House, Matt Huffman. Welcome again to
Speaker 1: the Bill Cunningham Show and Speaker. First of all, let's talk.
Speaker 1: Time is always limited. Some in Cincinnati were concerned that
Speaker 1: you were giving significant money to the Cleveland Browns and
Speaker 1: not to the Cincinnati Bengals. The Governor yesterday and also
Speaker 1: Adam Burgh laid out the differences. Can you tell from
Speaker 1: the Speaker's office the differential between the Browns deal and
Speaker 1: the Bengals deal? Will one be funded and one not funded?
Speaker 2: Well, the Browns actually came to me two years ago
Speaker 2: with a request for cash for the stadium. I said, no,
Speaker 2: I didn't think that was appropriate. I said, come back
Speaker 2: with a plan where the taxpayers will be held harmless.
Speaker 2: And the plan basically that they have laid out. This
Speaker 2: is a three point six billion dollar economic development plan.
Speaker 2: But the plan is they have it laid out with
Speaker 2: new taxes subtracting what would have already been there, and
Speaker 2: the cost of the bond is actually over twenty five years,
Speaker 2: about a one point three billion dollar money maker for
Speaker 2: the now. Everybody needs to go and look at the
Speaker 2: information and be convinced to that themselfs. So that's a
Speaker 2: lot different than putting up money, which is as I
Speaker 2: understand it. And I did meet with the Bengals and
Speaker 2: Commissioner Dridhouse a few months ago or weeks ago, and
Speaker 2: basically they're talking about a three hundred and fifty million
Speaker 2: dollars cash upfront money, which is similar to what the
Speaker 2: Browns were trying to do a couple of years ago.
Speaker 2: And I don't support that. I don't think the public
Speaker 2: supports it. I do support, you know, it's something similar
Speaker 2: that if the Bengals and the City of Cincinnati and
Speaker 2: the county and you know, can can come together with
Speaker 2: a similar kind of plan, we ought to consider doing
Speaker 2: that where the taxpayers are held harmless or in the
Speaker 2: case of the Browns, they can actually make money.
Speaker 1: So, mister speaker, you're saying, as we said here about
Speaker 1: two twelve pm on Wednesday afternoon, April the sixteenth, you
Speaker 1: don't have in your hands a written deal between the
Speaker 1: Bengals and the county where the state would fill in
Speaker 1: a piece, unlike the Browns deal that Jimmy Haslim and
Speaker 1: his family. I understand it's putting up fifty million bucks
Speaker 1: off of the side. Anyway, just as a security deposit
Speaker 1: fifty million, and right now there's no revenue coming out
Speaker 1: of that one to two hundred acres in southern Calliahoo County.
Speaker 1: And but when this deal is done, the taxpayer will
Speaker 1: make one point three billion according to the plan, and
Speaker 1: that the plan. There's no plan for you to think
Speaker 1: about at this point. Am I correct in saying that
Speaker 1: from Cincinnati?
Speaker 2: Right? I mean I met with them. I think it's
Speaker 2: all people, smart, people of goodwill, and I think they're
Speaker 2: trying to come up with something. I think, you know,
Speaker 2: to the again the extent that the state can help
Speaker 2: participate in that. I mean, it's a different kind of plan.
Speaker 2: This is this is of the three point six billion,
Speaker 2: two point four billion of it is private money. The
Speaker 2: state money is six hundred million through the sale of
Speaker 2: bonds and paid back over twenty five years. So it's
Speaker 2: a completely different thing. So, you know, I think if
Speaker 2: the folks in southwestern Ohio can get invented, but it
Speaker 2: doesn't just happen in a meeting. Everybody has to sort
Speaker 2: of say here's what we're willing to do and piece
Speaker 2: it all over. And I think if they're willing to
Speaker 2: do that, I'm certainly willing to sit down and talk
Speaker 2: with them. I'm sure Governor of the Wine is too.
Speaker 1: The governor said yesterday that on air that well, indition
Speaker 1: to those two, we have the Guardians, we have the Reds,
Speaker 1: we have minor league baseball, we have some horse racing track,
Speaker 1: we have Ohio State University. He made it look as if, well,
Speaker 1: if we raised taxes, will be able to do it.
Speaker 1: He said yesterday that he supported raising He called them fees,
Speaker 1: someone might call them taxes on gaming, on marijuana, and
Speaker 1: on cigarettes. Do you support an increase in fee slash
Speaker 1: taxes on any of those three items?
Speaker 2: I do not. We took those out of the Governor's
Speaker 2: proposed budget. Increase, especially on the sports gambling, would pretty
Speaker 2: much end the sports gambling and income to the state
Speaker 2: as far as I'm concerned. We lost actually a lot
Speaker 2: of folks participating that when we went from ten percent
Speaker 2: to twenty percent, some of the smaller book level B
Speaker 2: book making places did not happen. If we go to
Speaker 2: forty percent, the public finds its way around that and
Speaker 2: our revenue would start to drop. And don't forget El
Speaker 2: Door Speedway in Dark County. It's also a larger sports
Speaker 2: facility too.
Speaker 1: As far as marijuana, I was told by those in
Speaker 1: the business that the governor's plan to increase from ten
Speaker 1: percent to twenty percent would drive the marijuana consumer, of
Speaker 1: which I'm not one, into the dark market. And this
Speaker 1: year there's going to be about a billion dollars in
Speaker 1: total revenues in marijuana that's out of the pockets of
Speaker 1: drug dealers, which I like greatly. I don't think marijuana
Speaker 1: is a real healthy pursuit for someone, but nonetheless, I'd
Speaker 1: rather have the state and legitimate thousands of employees work
Speaker 1: than kill the business. Is there a sense that, you know,
Speaker 1: pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered, and that if
Speaker 1: the governor has his way and he goes from ten
Speaker 1: to twenty percent, marijuana suddenly gets slaughtered, the drug dealers
Speaker 1: make more money and the state doesn't get its cut.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think. You know, Ronald Reagan said, the more
Speaker 2: you tax something, the less you get of it, and
Speaker 2: the higher the rate. And that's what's happened. That's why
Speaker 2: we took the House, took all of the taxes, all
Speaker 2: three that you mentioned, out of the budget, and people
Speaker 2: will avoid paying the tax where they can. And you know,
Speaker 2: there are probably some people in Cincinnati, Ohio who go
Speaker 2: to Kentucky to buy their at tobacco, right yep. But
Speaker 2: other people will find other places to buy to buy
Speaker 2: marijuana or tobacco, and at some point the tax is
Speaker 2: so high that these other whether it's a black market,
Speaker 2: but it's even things more benign. I mean with sports gambling,
Speaker 2: you can have buddies all over the country and they
Speaker 2: throw their five thousand bucks in for the year and
Speaker 2: they all bet based on what whoever's got the best
Speaker 2: line in their state. So it's not something where you
Speaker 2: can control it. It's not a closed market.
Speaker 1: So if these stadiums moneies, the governor's plan is to
Speaker 1: have the stadium moneys come out of the out of
Speaker 1: the gaming, and out of marijuana and cigarettes. To the
Speaker 1: man in charge of the legislature, that is not going
Speaker 1: to happen, not.
Speaker 2: Through raising taxes. Now, if somebody looked at us and said,
Speaker 2: let's dedicate a portion of the current gambling revenue, which
Speaker 2: is up to close to a billion dollars a year,
Speaker 2: we have some other suggestions about additional gambling in our
Speaker 2: budget that the Senate is going to review when it
Speaker 2: goes over. Now, I don't think it can be just
Speaker 2: about sports stadiums. There's other cultural facilities. You've got, you know,
Speaker 2: a symphony orchestra hall in Columbus River Bend. There may
Speaker 2: be a whole additional other things. But I do think
Speaker 2: that there has to be significant local buy in. I
Speaker 2: think if you can design a plan like the Browns have,
Speaker 2: where the state taxpayers are not only held harmless, but
Speaker 2: we make money off of the deal. And you know,
Speaker 2: the reason we're making money is we're acting like the bank.
Speaker 2: We have great credit rating and we're making money from
Speaker 2: them using our credit rating. It's cheaper for them to
Speaker 2: going into the private market. This is an Ohio business, right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: And so we're making money because we're the prepoel who
Speaker 2: are issuing the bonds. And that's and of course the
Speaker 2: taxes that are created as a result of the.
Speaker 1: Effort, mister Speaker is time of the essence. The Bengals
Speaker 1: won a deal by June thirtieth. Of course, the state
Speaker 1: budget it's a two year by a him, it's two
Speaker 1: years June thirtieth, we're ten weeks out. I have a
Speaker 1: sense the Bengals and the county aren't close. I have
Speaker 1: a sense that they're still going back and forth because
Speaker 1: each party doesn't trust the other. The Brown family doesn't
Speaker 1: trust the county and the county doesn't trust the Browns,
Speaker 1: so they got a third party involved. They're going back
Speaker 1: and forth, back and forth. Is time of the essence
Speaker 1: must have been a deal by June thirtieth. Do you
Speaker 1: have the state participate?
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean to have the state participate as
Speaker 2: part of this budget. But I guess if there's a plan,
Speaker 2: you know, as we'd like to say, I'd love to
Speaker 2: see the plan, right, but I don't know what that is.
Speaker 2: I'm it's you know, it took the Browns two or
Speaker 2: three years to get to the point where they are now,
Speaker 2: with people like me saying no, I'm not going to
Speaker 2: give you six hundred million dollars for a stadium. So
Speaker 2: if the Bengals are that far along, and and by
Speaker 2: the way, other folks have shown up and said I
Speaker 2: want you gave money to Browns, and I told them
Speaker 2: the same thing. You know, if you can develop a
Speaker 2: plan where the taxpayers are held harmless or make money,
Speaker 2: you know I would participate or and I'd support that.
Speaker 1: The issue of the county corner. I speak to doctor Somarco,
Speaker 1: I think some fabulous person. And there was a part
Speaker 1: of your bill that eliminated the county corner's offices in
Speaker 1: the various counties. Can you address yourself to that? And
Speaker 1: that just begins the process of not electing the sheriff,
Speaker 1: not electing the honor the treasure coming out the old
Speaker 1: patronage system. Where do you stand on eliminading county corners.
Speaker 2: So in December there was a lot of press to
Speaker 2: push the increase in local elected pay, and those things,
Speaker 2: unfortunately sometimes happened in the dead of night, you know,
Speaker 2: the last session of the year. And when that came
Speaker 2: to us, a lot of folks are saying, how about
Speaker 2: some local government reform. There's actually the statute says some
Speaker 2: of our local officials only have to be in office
Speaker 2: one out of ninety days, believe it or not. And
Speaker 2: so some would say, how about we have some local reform.
Speaker 2: And one of those was the concern that in many
Speaker 2: counties there is no doctor who's running for corner, or
Speaker 2: sometimes a doctor runs for corner. They're paid as a coroner,
Speaker 2: but all the work is done by someone a pathologist
Speaker 2: who's hired from another county. So there were a number
Speaker 2: of things that we actually wanted in terms of local
Speaker 2: government reforms. Some got in, some didn't. And you know,
Speaker 2: I certainly think the other jobs that you mentioned does
Speaker 2: all need to be elected as well as judges. You
Speaker 2: might ask, really, why does a coroner need to be
Speaker 2: elected in the first place. Why isn't this someone that
Speaker 2: the county commissioners would hire. So I don't think it's
Speaker 2: that big of a deal from the standpoint of the House.
Speaker 2: It was just one of the few surviving local government
Speaker 2: reforms that were part of our tax pay or our
Speaker 2: local pay official package.
Speaker 1: I have a text here from a noted county official
Speaker 1: who says the following to me. County officials have the
Speaker 1: ability now to appoint corners and counties that don't have
Speaker 1: a corner, and that's according to the High Revice Code.
Speaker 1: So if you're in a large county like Ohio maybe
Speaker 1: you know, or like Hamilton County Franklin, KYO, would you
Speaker 1: split off from those counties that don't have a corner
Speaker 1: and let the current law stand, which is you're can
Speaker 1: elect the corner. But then each county still has the
Speaker 1: ability to appoint corners from other counties that that can
Speaker 1: serve as more or less the acting corner. You know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. Are you saying, how do you stand
Speaker 1: on that issue?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm aware of what the law is. The point
Speaker 2: is that someone gets appointed because they don't run. In
Speaker 2: one county, we actually have a chiropractor who is the
Speaker 2: county corner because they ran, they're qualified to do that.
Speaker 2: I think under the new rule they wouldn't be qualified.
Speaker 2: But the point is whether they're elected or appointed. Because
Speaker 2: no one will run, you now have a county corner
Speaker 2: who's getting paid to be the county corner, who may
Speaker 2: or may not be actually doing the job of the
Speaker 2: county corner. Right, So do we want someone where nobody runs?
Speaker 2: Somebody gets appointed, they get paid. But we got to
Speaker 2: go to Cincinnati every time we got to do an
Speaker 2: autopsy because that's where the pathologist is. So there should
Speaker 2: be at some point we look at some of these
Speaker 2: local elected offices and say, really, you only have to
Speaker 2: show up one out of ninety days. It didn't be
Speaker 2: one out of thirty or something like that. So really
Speaker 2: all this is, and you know, obviously in many counties
Speaker 2: there's a long time elected, serving coroner who does a
Speaker 2: wonderful job who probably would get hired by the commissioners
Speaker 2: under the current law. So could you have That's really
Speaker 2: what it is.
Speaker 1: Are you saying this is going to stay in and
Speaker 1: that what's going to happen? Like doctor LASMI so Marco
Speaker 1: as a world class facility built and she runs unopposed,
Speaker 1: and she wants to keep the elective system. And as
Speaker 1: a voter every now and then, I like to say,
Speaker 1: you know what, I like to vote for this. There
Speaker 1: might be an issue in the future where you throw
Speaker 1: the bombs out or keep the bums in. What do
Speaker 1: you say to those counties that are happy with the
Speaker 1: president system and don't want.
Speaker 2: To change, Well, I think I think they should call
Speaker 2: Senator Bill Blessing is a really smart guy and asking
Speaker 2: what he thinks about it. But the point is that,
Speaker 2: you know, under that thinking, we could have a lot
Speaker 2: of more elected officials at the county level, not just
Speaker 2: the ones that we have now. And but yeah, I
Speaker 2: mean I think in some counties with you know, obviously
Speaker 2: they have somebody's elected that is important to them. It's
Speaker 2: one of these things that's probably and what I think
Speaker 2: is an extraordinarily ambitious budget bill that we just passed
Speaker 2: not a big issue that I'm willing to die on
Speaker 2: the hill for. And we'll see what the Senate says.
Speaker 1: Is it going to change? Because the way it works,
Speaker 1: you and the House put your deal. The governor sends
Speaker 1: you a thick proposal, you go through it, you pass something.
Speaker 1: Then you give it to the Senate, they go through it,
Speaker 1: they pass something. Then you have a committee together, get together,
Speaker 1: and you talk to the governor. All that's going to
Speaker 1: be done next seven or eight weeks. And one thing
Speaker 1: about electing the corners, that the corners beholding the people,
Speaker 1: not the appointing commissioner. And when I have on doctor
Speaker 1: some markers, you'll say for now, and then I get
Speaker 1: pressure to do certain things. And I can tell individuals
Speaker 1: I'm not appointed by some person. I work for the
Speaker 1: state of Ohio. And that's the way it ought to be,
Speaker 1: and that sometimes sometimes that the system works. Is this
Speaker 1: a problem looking for a solution or is this a
Speaker 1: solution looking for a problem.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think it's a fair argument. I
Speaker 2: don't know that. And there are some odd things in
Speaker 2: the code about the coroner's the only person in the
Speaker 2: county who can arrest the sheriff. It kind of reminds
Speaker 2: me of old Star Trek episode and I'm a doctor,
Speaker 2: one guy who can remove the Captain Kirk, right, But
Speaker 2: I just I think what it is is again, in
Speaker 2: many counties they don't have a doctor who's even doing this.
Speaker 2: So why are we appointing someone who's not doing any
Speaker 2: work because we can. And of course that doesn't mean
Speaker 2: because they're pointed that's doing a lot of work, right,
Speaker 2: But it is an issue.
Speaker 1: And lastly, I'll encourage you to talk to doctor Somarco
Speaker 1: and others before you change the law to see how
Speaker 1: it applies on the ground. And lastly, you have about
Speaker 1: a minute remaining. There's an our article in the inquire
Speaker 1: about one hundred million dollar cut on public education. CPS
Speaker 1: is concerned, Love when schools are concerned, Derek Park, schools
Speaker 1: are concerned. You're the guy in charge of the budget.
Speaker 1: Is there going to be a cut to public education?
Speaker 2: The number one, Every school district in the state of
Speaker 2: Ohio received an increase in funding from the state. That's first. Secondly,
Speaker 2: there are many school districts that have in excess of
Speaker 2: twenty five percent operating fund that they are carrying over
Speaker 2: from year to year. Some of them are forty, some
Speaker 2: of them are fifty, some of them are one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: And what we actually said is, look, you can carry
Speaker 2: over thirty percent of your operating funds. The rest will
Speaker 2: be applied to a tax, real estate property tax cut
Speaker 2: to the folks who are in your district, those real
Speaker 2: estate tax payers. And to me, it's the number one
Speaker 2: issue that people have talked to us about is skyrocketing
Speaker 2: real estate taxes. Correct, now, those are And the simple
Speaker 2: issue is that money, if it's not being used, should
Speaker 2: be in the hands of the taxpayers, and they're checking account,
Speaker 2: not the school districts checking account. Now, wats of folks say, well,
Speaker 2: see we're going to build a build, Okay, well, then
Speaker 2: put all that out of your operating fund, which, by
Speaker 2: the way, the employees won't like because they like to
Speaker 2: collectively bargain for that money. But put it all the way,
Speaker 2: make a plan so the public understands. But you know,
Speaker 2: the City of Columbus school district, for example, they're carrying
Speaker 2: over four hundred million dollars forty six percent of their
Speaker 2: I mean, And we had somebody come down testify from
Speaker 2: one of the districts and she said, look, you know
Speaker 2: we've taken this extra money and we've invested it, and
Speaker 2: we've made eight million dollars for the school district. Well
Speaker 2: don't you think the people who gave you the money
Speaker 2: they'd like to make the eight million dollars instead of
Speaker 2: you making the eight million dollars. So that's all it is. Now,
Speaker 2: if collectively people can add up numbers and say one
Speaker 2: hundred million dollars, look at every school district. My guess
Speaker 2: is the City of Cincinnati school district isn't carrying over
Speaker 2: more than thirty percent. Vivit. They are, and look and see,
Speaker 2: and most of the high tax districts like this are
Speaker 2: the ones that are growing. We're property values. So the
Speaker 2: school districts in Butler County evaluations have shot up, lots
Speaker 2: more money coming in. The state has made record increases
Speaker 2: under the Cuff Patterson Plan the last two budgets and
Speaker 2: five hundred and fifty million dollars to school districts this year.
Speaker 2: So it's not going down. These these operating carryovers are
Speaker 2: going to continue to go up. All we're saying is
Speaker 2: let's let the people who are paying the taxes of
Speaker 2: some of their money back, at least temporarily, while we
Speaker 2: try to figure out the property tax system.
Speaker 1: Are you willing to meet with doctor Samarco to get
Speaker 1: her perspective on why this idea might not be a
Speaker 1: good one about getting rid of the.
Speaker 2: Corner, I'd be I'd be delighted.
Speaker 1: I'll send you, I'll send you her number to your staff,
Speaker 1: and let's see if you can work it out. You'll
Speaker 1: be impressed with her. Well, Speaker, Matt Hoffman, thank you,
Speaker 1: and made Leonard Russia rest in peace. I bought many
Speaker 1: a QBI Burger when they an elder in the state
Speaker 1: football game. And I'm glad you're more or less of Cincinnatian.
Speaker 1: But keep us in mind whatever you do. Just think
Speaker 1: it's Cincinnati the most important city in the state of Ohio,
Speaker 1: wouldn't you agree?
Speaker 2: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Speaker, thank you very much. We'll do it again. God
Speaker 1: bless you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We'll keep you aye. Bye.
Speaker 1: All right, let's continue with more. Bill Cunningham News Radio
Speaker 1: seven hundred WLW