BY LISA DONOVAN
The Cincinnati Enquirer
Members of an entertainment and sports coalition, along with city officials, are quietly collecting signatures for a ballot initiative that would require voter approval to raise the Cincinnati ticket tax. A local event producer said there is no need to publicize the petition drive, which he calls a "backup plan" if city council passes a proposal to boost the ticket or admissions tax.
"If they vote for this, we would basically have an insurance policy," said Chip Hart, with Hart Productions. His company produces consumer trade shows at the Albert B. Sabin Convention Center and his events are subject to the ticket tax.
Entertainers balk?
The tax applies to a range of venues, including movie theaters; private golf courses; and Bengals, Reds and University of Cincinnati sports events.
Members of the coalition, who began circulating the petitions last week, must obtain at least 8,331 valid signatures, verified by the Hamilton County Board of Elections, to put its proposed charter amendment on the November ballot. The measure calls for capping the tax at 3 percent, unless it is put to a vote of the people.
Council is required to put something before the voters if petition organizers collect enough signatures.
The measure would take the power to raise the tax out of the hands of council, which has twice tried to raise the tax in the last year to meet its $100 million commitment to build and repair Cincinnati's crumbling school buildings.
The proposal council is considering calls for raising the 3 percent admissions tax to 4.25 percent for 11 years, starting in 1999, before gradually returning it to 3 percent in 2020.
Out-of-town entertainers -- from musicians to visiting athletes -- also would be subject to the city's 2.1 percent earnings tax, according to the same council proposal.
Proponents of the tax increase argue that it would provide a steady funding stream and that the burden on those affected is minimal. The sports and entertainment industry doesn't like the proposal, saying it will force athletes and performers to go to other cities where the tickets are cheaper and they aren't taxed.
Several members of council opposing the ticket tax increase have proposed a different school funding plan, which relies largely on increases in ticket tax revenues that are expected with new stadiums for the Reds and Bengals.
The petition drive could be leverage in negotiations with city council, where a tentative majority favors the plan to boost the ticket tax. Council could make a decision as soon as its next meeting, Aug. 5.
"We hope to have enough signatures by Aug. 5 to let them (council members) know loud and clear if they pass this tax, it's going on the ballot in November," said Councilman Phil Heimlich, a supporter of the petition drive.
This week, Councilman Todd Portune criticized the petition drive and ballot initiative. He had vowed to support a ballot initiative to repeal a tax increase, if necessary, but only if it included language that would allow the citizens to say how they wanted to see the city meet its school funding commitment.
"I think it's unnecessary to have a charter amendment to cap the admissions tax -- this has nothing to do with school funding commitments," Mr. Portune said.
Meanwhile, negotiations are under way between the coalition of entertainment and sports executives and at least one member of council -- Mayor Roxanne Qualls -- who has supported the tax increase to fund the schools.
Those negotiations delayed a final vote on the measure last month, when council was expected to pass the proposed school funding formula.
In addition to Ms. Qualls, council members Minette Cooper, Bobbie Sterne, Dwight Tillery and Tyrone Yates gave first-round approval of the measure. Mr. Yates said his support remains "solid"; and while Mrs. Sterne has resigned, her replacement, Jim Tarbell, said he would endorse the plan. Efforts to reach Ms. Qualls and Mr. Tillery were unsuccessful, and Mrs. Cooper was out of town Friday.
Should council pass the ticket tax increase, the text of the proposed charter amendment calls for reversing that: "Any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy enacted prior to the adoption of this amendment that violates or is otherwise inconsistent with the prohibition set forth in this . . . shall be null and void and of no force or effect."
