CLEVELAND — Cleveland City Council members are still feeling out whether – and how much – they can put their fingerprints on a roughly $100 million exit deal with the Browns.
On Monday, council held its third marathon hearing about a proposed agreement to end a court fight over the team’s looming move to Brook Park. The discussion lasted almost three hours and ended without a vote, even as advocates for Downtown, the lakefront and the business community urged council to move forward – and focus on the future.
“In my view, the settlement is appropriate. The dollar amount … is appropriate. And it is a good way to basically make lemonade out of lemons,” said Ken Silliman, a retired city official who has played a role in negotiating agreements with professional sports teams.
Council could vote on the Browns deal on Dec 1, during the body’s last scheduled meeting of the year. Otherwise, they’ll have to call a special meeting – or delay a decision until early 2026, after a new council gets sworn in.
Mayor Justin Bibb’s team originally hoped council would sign off this week, enabling the city to get an initial $25 million payment from the Browns by Dec. 1.
The mayor and team owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam announced a truce on Oct. 13. They paused their lawsuits while working to finalize the deal and waiting on council’s OK.
RELATED: Browns, Cleveland reach $100 million settlement, paving the way for Brook Park stadium move
On Monday, Bibb administration officials said they can’t guarantee that team owner Haslam Sports Group will agree to amendments from council members.
But Council President Blaine Griffin said he and his colleagues still might propose some tweaks, including potential changes to how and where settlement money gets spent.
“When we’re asking for more, it’s not because we’re being greedy,” Griffin said near the end of the joint committee meeting. “Because quite frankly ladies and gentlemen, none of us get anything out of this. Matter of fact, I’m gonna get a headache either way, whether we vote for it or against it.”
Under the proposal, Cleveland will get $50 million for the lakefront over time, with the first $25 million right away; $20 million for unspecified “community benefits projects” after the Browns move; and a commitment from Haslam Sports Group to raze the existing, city-owned stadium and prepare the land underneath it for new uses.
Scott Skinner, who leads a nonprofit tasked with realizing the city’s lakefront plans, knows that developers won’t want to open restaurants, apartments and hotels right next to a huge stadium that’s set to be demolished – or that’s actively being torn down.
Losing the Browns to Brook Park means private development on the lakefront will be delayed by a few years, he said. But $50 million from the Browns will blunt the blow, making it possible to build permanent public spaces and invest in better infrastructure, from roads and utilities to bulkheads, over the next few years.
"Those are two enormous pieces of this development puzzle,” Skinner said during an interview Monday morning. “And we are not in a … market where we can rely on our private developers to facilitate a lot of public space and infrastructure costs.”
Skinner is the executive director of the North Coast Waterfront Development Corp. Working with the city, the nonprofit recently solicited pitches from developers interested in remaking part of 50 acres of the waterfront, including the current stadium site.
RELATED: Cleveland seeks developers for 50-acre lakefront site, including Browns stadium
On Monday, Skinner said a selection committee is vetting 18 responses, in hopes of picking a team of developers soon. He said those proposals span everything from housing to hospitality to recreation and entertainment, to a mix of all those uses.
Construction on new public spaces could start in 2027, around the same time that the city plans to start work on a land bridge to link the lakefront to the center of Downtown.
In remarks to council Monday afternoon, Skinner acknowledged that developing the lakefront won’t solve all of Cleveland’s problems. But he said a better lakefront can boost growth and improve the city’s tax base, while making publicly owned land more accessible.
Michael Deemer, president and CEO of Downtown Cleveland Inc., has been a vocal opponent of a Browns move to the suburbs. But on Monday, he encouraged council members to take the settlement deal – and use the money to invest in the lakefront at a pivotal time.
“The stadium concept in Brook Park is built around hotels, new office, new retail that this region cannot support and doesn’t need. Can’t support without cannibalizing it from Downtown,” Deemer said. “But the best protection Cleveland has from overbuilding on the outskirts is by strengthening the core and making Downtown a place that people choose first. … This settlement helps clear the path to advance that vision now, when that timing matters most. That three- to five-year runway that we have to really improve our competitiveness.”
The Browns aim to start playing in Brook Park in 2029. But the proposed settlement will give them the ability to extend their existing lease in Cleveland by up to two years, from early 2029 to early 2031, if construction in Brook Park runs behind schedule.
Silliman, Deemer and Skinner were joined at the council meeting by David Ebersole, vice president of development finance for the Greater Cleveland Partnership, the chamber of commerce.
The chamber has been a cheerleader for lakefront development. But in May, during negotiations over make-or-break state funding in Columbus, GCP’s executive board threw its weight behind the Browns’ Brook Park stadium district plans.
RELATED: Greater Cleveland Partnership's executive board endorses Brook Park stadium plan
Civic leaders are still divided over the suburban project.
But on Monday, the presenters at the council meeting seemed united on two things: Cleveland could only delay – not block – a Browns move. And getting cash, and a lakefront site primed for redevelopment, is better than being left with a stadium-shaped liability.
“I have a lot of sentimental attachment to that facility,” said Silliman, who was a Browns season ticketholder for decades. “But I think once the Browns stop playing there, the demolition is really your only realistic option.”
Council members, meanwhile, are still divided, too.
“I know this is a tough decision,” Griffin said, closing out a meeting where he urged his colleagues to focus on business, not emotions. “I know people don’t care about what I think or how I feel. … I don’t envy the position that each councilmember is in. But this is really big-boy, big-girl stuff right now. This is really a sobering moment.”
Michelle Jarboe is the business growth and development reporter at News 5 Cleveland. Follow her on X @MJarboe or email her at Michelle.Jarboe@wews.com.
