CLEVELAND — Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb said his administration “fought like hell” to strike a $100 million exit deal with the Browns.
The mayor and his team defended that deal during a marathon City Council committee meeting Monday – the first public hearing about an agreement that would end court battles between the city and Haslam Sports Group over the team’s plans for a new, enclosed stadium in Brook Park.
The Bibb administration is asking council to approve aspects of the settlement, with hopes of finalizing the deal by Nov. 24 and getting an initial, $25 million payment by Dec. 1.
“We’ve all fought really hard ... and now we’re talking about what the next chapter of the Cleveland story’s gonna be,” Bibb told council members.
The deal calls for Haslam Sports Group to give Cleveland $50 million for the Downtown lakefront and put $20 million into unidentified “community benefits projects.” The Browns also would be responsible for tearing down the existing, city-owned stadium and preparing the underlying land for redevelopment. The estimated cost of that demolition project is $30 million – though it could be higher, Bibb administration officials said.
In exchange, the Browns would get the option to extend their lease in Cleveland by up to two years – from early 2029 to early 2031 – if they need more time to finish the Brook Park project.
RELATED: Proposed settlement gives Browns option to stay put at Cleveland stadium for 2 more years
The city of Cleveland and Haslam Sports Group have agreed to drop their lawsuits over the move and pay their own legal fees. And they’re willing to work together to ensure that the new stadium district and nearby Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, where the city is embarking on a huge makeover, can coexist.
Bibb described the proposal as a practical solution "that gives us an immediate cash infusion and gives the city of Cleveland the ability to control our own destiny.”
He said the city ultimately didn’t have much leverage with the Haslams – and could have continued a costly legal brawl with no assurance of a meaningful payment at the end.
“I did not trust or believe or want to put our future at risk with the courts, the state Supreme Court and, given the political environment, this legislature,” he said.
The Republican-dominated General Assembly approved a $600 million grant for the Brook Park stadium in June, as part of the two-year state budget bill.
RELATED: Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signs budget that includes $600 million grant for a new Browns stadium
State lawmakers also changed Ohio’s so-called Modell law, which is at the center of two lawsuits between Cleveland and the Browns. The law was passed in the 1990s to make it harder for pro sports teams to leave publicly subsidized facilities. The updated language makes it clear that the law only applies to teams that plan to leave the state.
RELATED: State lawmakers add change to Modell law into budget, aiding Browns move to Brook Park
Then, in September, the Ohio Department of Transportation changed its stance and signed off on a permit and a height waiver for the stadium - after initially rejecting the project based on pushback from officials at Hopkins.
RELATED: ODOT approves Browns' Brook Park stadium plans, ending dispute over airspace
Bibb said those moves made Cleveland’s fight to keep the Browns much harder.
“We did everything humanly possible to keep them there,” he said. “And I want the people of the city to know that.”
Council members are still digesting the settlement proposal – and what it means. They’re also feeling out how much power they have to challenge or change the agreement.
“You can put lipstick on a pig, and it’s still a pig,” said Councilman Brian Kazy, who urged the city to go after the Browns using the Modell law last year, when it became clear that Haslam Sports Group was seriously considering a move to the suburbs.
Kazy’s West Side ward abuts Brook Park, just north of the future stadium site. But he describes the proposed location as being a world away. “It’s gonna be a sad day when that team is no longer playing on this lakefront,” he said.
Council President Blaine Griffin said many members don’t believe that $100 million is enough. He’s unsure – and seeking more context about how the Bibb administration and the Haslams arrived at that number.
Griffin said council will hold several more hearings.
He and other members said they want to see a full draft of the settlement proposal and not just the four-page term sheet that the city released on Friday afternoon.
“The Haslams, they could give more than $100 million. They could. They don’t want to,” said Councilman Charles Slife, who also questioned whether the bulk of that money should go toward lakefront development in a city with so many urgent needs.
Councilman Anthony Hairston said the deck was stacked against the city. Still, he believes there might be a chance to get a little more money from the Haslams.
“I look at today as a starting point,” Hairston said.
Bibb said he would have pushed for more money if he thought it was realistic.
“Of course I want more,” he said. “I always want more for our people. They work too damn hard. They deserve more.”
But he and law director Mark Griffin said the city could have been left with nothing – and a huge bill to demolish an empty lakefront stadium.
The council committee meeting lasted more than three hours. The audience included union labor leaders and waterfront stakeholders, including Rock & Roll Hall of Fame CEO Greg Harris; Great Lakes Science Center CEO Kirsten Ellenbogen; and Scott Skinner, executive director of the nonprofit North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation, which is responsible for carrying out the city's lakefront plans.
Bibb recapped his team's attempts to keep the Browns.
He said the city worked with Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne on a late-in-the-game proposal last year to build a domed stadium on the western end of the Burke Lakefront Airport property. The funding scheme for the Burke project involved tapping city admissions-tax and income-tax revenues; extending and raising the county’s so-called “sin tax” on cigarettes and alcohol; and hiking the bed tax at Downtown hotels.
When Haslam Sports Group rejected that proposal, the city and county offered to provide $500 million up-front for renovating the Downtown stadium by issuing bonds, Bibb said.
But the Browns didn’t bite.
“I’m pissed,” Bibb said, commiserating with council members. “I’m sad. I have a lot of amazing memories of going to a football game with my dad when he was alive.”
But, he said, “we were dealt a bad hand. And now we have to pick ourselves up.”
He said he’s already talked to Brook Park Mayor Edward Orcutt about opportunities to collaborate on bringing more jobs and investment to the area around Hopkins and the future stadium site. Brook Park is still hashing out its deal with the Browns.
At least two Cleveland council members said they received phone calls from Jimmy Haslam over the weekend to discuss the proposed settlement.
The call didn’t change Kazy’s position. He characterized any business deal with the Haslams as a “dance with the devil.”
Councilman Mike Polensek said he had a “cordial” conversation with Haslam. But the longtime representative isn’t a fan of the settlement. “I just don’t get this deal,” he said.
Bibb administration officials said they’ll provide council with more details about the remaining debt on the stadium, anticipated maintenance expenses and the other costs of hosting Browns games, from managing traffic to public safety.
“There’s a lot of police overtime that goes to ensuring that folks who are going to the game, residents and non-residents, are kept safe,” said Bradford Davy, the mayor’s chief of staff.
Ultimately, Bibb urged everyone at the table to move forward – and move on.
“This is a pragmatic deal that sets us up for a better future and a new story and a new chapter for our waterfront and our lakefront that our residents can use 365 days out of the year,” he said. “Not just for eight to 10 games. But 365 days a year. So we can be better than Chicago. Better than Seattle. Better than Boston. Better than New York. That’s what we’re fighting here for, folks.”
