Thank you.

All right, good morning.

Today is Monday, October the 20th 2025.

This committee of finance, diversity, equity, and inclusion is called to uh order.

Uh this is a special hearing.

So we are not starting to hear the legislation today.

I will give us the uh what our goals and objectives are today in one second.

So we are not beginning to hear the legislation yet.

But uh Inez could you just call the role of all of the council members that are here?

Here.

Present.

Present.

Present.

Thank you so much and uh welcome.

We're um glad to have the mayor and administration here today.

Um I'll just basically um put together the goals of what we're trying to accomplish today.

Today, the goal of this hearing is to set the framework for the discussion around the uh proposal uh that the mayor and the Haslam group uh gave to council last week, and uh we are going to set the framework and have a discussion about uh a few things regarding this deal.

The other thing that we think is very important that this is extremely important because this is the first time that the public will have an opportunity to uh understand the merits of the deal, understand um other um other things associated with the deal.

Uh we are not making a vote today.

This is really for us to do our due diligence to start the public engagement process uh to really understand uh is this a good deal for the city of Cleveland and why is this a good deal for the city of Cleveland?

So a couple of things that we want to accomplish, and I will tell you that I'm gonna be very strict about keeping us within these parameters uh because this will not be the last hearing.

This is actually the first of many conversations that we're gonna have with the administration about this.

But first and foremost, is we're going to establish council's role.

Uh council believes that our role is to deal with anything regarding real estate or anything regarding accepting or expending uh cash, and we want to make sure that we outline and completely demonstrate uh council's council's role in this process.

Uh council strongly believes that we uh have a responsibility to either approve the agreement in order for the settlement of the cases.

And those are the things that we want to make sure that we discuss the mechanics of that.

Number two, we want to understand timeline.

We want to understand how did we get here.

We want to understand uh how things uh how the mayor anticipates things to move.

Uh, we want to understand who was part of the negotiating team and uh how the negotiations took place.

And then last but not least, we'll just start the discussion, even though once again uh we're gonna probably kick this to Chairman Harrison's committee to do a deep dive in this.

Uh, but we want to understand how is the city of Cleveland going to be made whole.

How is uh the taxpayer dollars and really understanding the amount that were that was utilized in order to negotiate this settlement in order for the mayor and the Haslam group as well as the rest of the uh uh city of Cleveland and Council uh to have confidence that this deal will help make Clevelanders whole and uh and really that Clevelanders at the end of the day could benefit.

Um I'm asking everybody and everybody knows how I operate, please use decorum.

I know that there's uh a lot of uh frustration amongst the members, but I do want everybody to recognize that I want everybody to uh make sure that we ask questions, that we really get the answers that we're looking for, uh, but that everybody has the quorum and professionalism as we have this conversation.

Uh I'm going to give the mayor an opportunity to start out with any comments.

Once the mayor makes any comments, uh then we would have uh a couple of questions that we would be able to propose to the mayor as well as any members of his team.

Uh once again, council is really excited that we have an opportunity to make this the first time that the public and the listening public has an opportunity to really understand um you know how this is shaping up and how this has shaped up.

So, mayor, the floor is yours, and thank you so much.

Thank you, uh Council President.

Uh, first I want to just send uh my condolences to to this body uh and to the family of Alan Dreyer.

I know he was a dedicated public servant to the city and served the city well for years.

Um and then and then secondly, I want to just thank uh this body for their partnership.

I know over the last three years we've been in this fight together, uh fighting to keep uh Cleveland Browns fight playing football on our lake front.

Unfortunately, um that is not the case right now, but I know all of you on this body recognize the importance of this asset.

We've all fought really hard in this battle, uh, and now we're talking about what the next chapter, Cleveland story is gonna be with them now going to the city of Brook Park.

I want to just set the context on of how we got here because I think it's important to lay the foundation in terms of what led to this moment right now.

Um Council President, I wish we were here to talk about our efforts to renovate the lake front.

Um I wish we were here to talk about how the state and the county were gonna support our nearly half a billion dollar offer we gave to the Browns.

Um I wish the state didn't undermine our proposal uh and give the Hasm $600 million to go to Brick Park.

I wish the state legislature didn't gut the model law, which undermined our ability to fight the good fight in a court of law.

Um, but unfortunately that is not our current reality.

And this time last year, heard loud and clear from this body, number one, fight hard in court.

Number two, protect the hardworking taxpayers of this great city, and lastly, don't leave the city of Cleveland empty-handed.

Don't leave the city of Cleveland empty-handed.

So, what do we do?

We hired the best law firm in the country in Jones Day, and they've been fighting really hard to get us to this moment because there was nothing for us to get.

And what I was not going to do was risk outsourcing our ability to get resources and have predictability about what we're gonna do with that asset.

I wasn't gonna outsource that leadership to the State House or the State Supreme Court.

I wanted to make sure we secured real investment, had real certainty for our our city.

So we fought hard to get a pragmatic deal that protects the taxpayers, that gives us funding to tear down the stadium, and mind you, if you look at the lease, we were obligated after 2029 to maintain that asset.

There is nothing in the lease that says the Browns were responsible for demoing the stadium.

So when they left to go to Brook Park, we would have had to find 30, 40, whatever it was, millions of dollars to demo that stadium.

Which, given this economic environment, I was not gonna make that risk or take that risk on behalf of the city.

And so I strongly believe, I strongly believe that this settlement is the best path to secure meaningful value for the city, protect the taxpayers that we fight for every single day, and transform our lakefront, which we have done a fantastic job of with your partnership, your investment, and your support to lay a strong foundation for the next chapter of Cleveland's lakefront.

I'm also not gonna gamble with 100 million dollars because we have fought too hard to make sure we finally see real transformation of Cleveland's waterfronts.

And I know all of us around this table share that same passion and that same vision.

And I believe that this settlement is once again a pragmatic pathway forward that preserves local control, it ensures we can control our own destiny as a city, and it gives us real tangible immediate investment to write the next chapter of Cleveland's story.

It ensures we can control our own destiny as a city, and it gives us real tangible immediate investment to write the next chapter of Cleveland's story.

And my team is here to answer any questions you may have.

And thanks for allowing me to come to the meeting today, Councilman.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you so much.

If we could begin just a very brief moment, because I um want to make sure that if we have any brief questions uh for the mayor and uh and his team, just a couple of things that I want to make sure that I understand is who handled the negotiating process.

Was it the firm that the city hired or was it the law director or Brad, you want to talk about the negotiations agreement and our strategy?

Uh council president, members of council, thanks for having us today.

Uh councilman, as you as you know, uh negotiations for the Cleveland Browns uh started a long time ago.

Uh when we first uh came to City Hall, uh we were having conversations about what a renovated stadium would look like.

Uh and so p over the period of time that team has changed and the topics uh and the things that we were discussing have evolved.

Um but at its core, the mayor has led this negotiation.

I have supported him along with uh Mark, Jessica.

Uh we also brought in members um of outside council, the mayor outlined Jones Day being a critical part of this.

And so uh there were moments where we needed our COO and our airport involved.

There were moments where we needed our law department involved.

We had to think about things like what the future of downtown businesses would look like, uh and so economic development was involved.

Um so please know that this was an all-of-government approach, but over the last couple of months, um it has it is focused on a legal strategy um that had been led by Jones Day with um the support of and the internal capacity of Mark and the law department.

Okay.

Um Mayor, I'm not sure how long you planned on staying, but okay.

The other thing that I want to make sure that I understand is uh who negotiated the community benefits agreement, and um I have a follow-up on that once anybody would want to answer that.

Yeah.

I'll take that and have other members of my team chime in.

Um, you know, as we started to see um the litigation proceed, um I saw a window where there was an opportunity to find a deal.

Um and knowing how important community benefits is to this body, um uh HSG put forth a a long-term commitment to continue to invest in the core of the city, um, even though they intend to go to Brook Park.

Uh and so myself, along with Mark Griffin and our uh attorney at Joan State, Justin Herman, really wanted to make sure we we pencil that part of of that deal uh to ensure that there was on paper a long-term community benefits um investment uh that city council um, if they want, can have input on in terms of how that money is spent, where it goes, and what's the focus?

Mark, you want to add in or Jessica?

Sure.

Uh again, thanks for thanks for having us.

I might just give a high level of what's in the settlement uh because the community benefits are one piece.

Uh the first is a 25 million dollar uh you know cash donation to the city of Cleveland for the benefit of the lake front.

The second is HSG will handle the demolition and getting the site pad ready.

So that's something that they will handle at their cost.

Uh, we estimate that it's gonna be 30 million if it costs more.

That is up to HSG to swallow, not the city of the Cleveland, not the city of Cleveland.

Uh the third is another 25 million dollars paid in five million dollar increments that will also be towards the lakefront.

And then as the mayor said, we really made sure that there was a substantial amount of dollars set aside for community benefits.

That's 20 million dollars for projects to be determined.

So uh I think your question is who has negotiated the community benefits projects.

Those projects have not been defined yet in the settlement with HSG.

Okay, just as uh um director, if you want to follow up.

If I could just add, um, this was a package, so everyone whole government approach uh was involved in parts of it.

So it's not as though there was one section for one person, but this was a a whole of government where everyone who had an interest uh was involved.

And I would also say this, which is it's a package deal, it's not a single piece here or single piece there, it's an entire package.

But and and that all sounds great.

I just guess what I want to double down on is at the end of the day, someone had the authority and was it the mayor?

Just want to make sure I asked the director.

I had the authority.

The authority, so you you negotiated the deal directly.

Yes.

Okay.

With the support of my team.

Okay, so um that's cleared up.

I just want to make sure that I double back on the community benefits as we were developing the community benefits, and we're not discussing or debating the legislation today.

As we are developing the community benefits, and we're not discussing or debating the legislation today.

Uh but why and didn't we have a conversation because eventually was the Haslam Sports Group and everybody made aware that council would have to approve any agreement which would include the community benefit side of it before we uh made that announcement.

Given the nature of the settlement, uh, in order for this thing to happen efficiently and effectively, um it is of my thought that the community benefits will be outlined after the settlement agreement, which gives City of Cleveland, which includes obviously city council and HSG the ability to negotiate where that money goes.

Okay.

All right.

Um you mentioned a little bit more about the uh pad ready.

I want to make sure that, and I do have others that want to talk.

The pad ready uh conversation, does that mean that they're actually going to remove everything to make it um you know shovel ready because a pad is still a pad.

I mean it's like leaving a foundation when you demolish the house.

Or is all of that going to be um taken up or is that just going to be pad?

Yeah, to to the council president, the definition of pad ready is kind of spelled out a little bit more in the ordinance that I know we're not talking about, but it includes everything that we would need to do to be able to start work to develop that site.

So it is not just demoing, it's also clearing everything, it's making sure that any utility work that's done, any environmental remediation, all of that is part of the pad ready state.

Okay.

And uh for the law director, just to make sure that I clarify this, the settlement agreement, and the mayor, if you would like to uh chime in, the settlement agreement is contingent upon council passing legislation, right?

Parts of it.

Parts of it.

Could you clarify that what you mean when you say parts of it?

Sure.

First of all, um there are no kings in America uh except for LeBron.

Um so we don't have the authority with a stroke of the pen to settle everything, but there are parts where the law director has uh authority to settle, and then there are parts that are required for city council to approve.

So uh parts of the settlement agreement could go without city council approval, but it is a package deal.

And so I think as you said in your opening, uh council has authority with respect to real estate and with the acceptance of donations.

Okay, so but you said that the entire deal is going to be committed sent to council.

Am I hearing you correctly, or are you saying only parts of it is going to be sent to council?

Well, I believe that the legislation includes everything.

So the legislation uh and the term settlement, which is or the settlement term sheet, which is part of that, uh, is being submitted for council approval.

Okay.

Well, one of the reasons that I really wanted us to get here is because there's been a lot of legal minds calling me over the weekend.

I'm not an attorney, but a lot of legal minds, some have said that council does not have the authority to approve the settlement, and I'm telling them that we do, especially with major components of it.

So um just want to make sure that we have clear guidelines and that we're making sure that we know what role we have to do, which is just saying the real estate side and to accept and expand authority with cash.

Correct.

The law director is not a king.

Okay.

All right.

Um the other thing that I want to make sure that I asked.

Council President.

Council President, could I ask you?

The other thing that I want to make sure that I ask is on that point, yes, Councilwoman House Jones on that point.

Uh through the chair, uh, to the law director, and you said points of council uh parts uh of the deal, uh council will have an opportunity to weigh in on.

Can you explicitly lay out what parts of the deal does the law department have uh control over versus council?

Thank you.

Uh Director, trying to get the microphone on.

Um the law director has broad authority to settle all claims and lawsuits involving the city.

But there are also parts of the charter that uh create limits to that.

So basically everything other than uh the uh two one-year options, uh the um the demolition of the uh stadium itself, making it pad ready, uh, and then also uh the uh acceptance of the donations.

Uh but then in terms of uh actually dismissing the cases in a court of law, that's the law director.

Um in terms of accepting money that isn't a donation, uh that would be the law director.

So everything other than the three that I just outlined uh is not within council's purview, but it is part of this legislation that we're putting uh for your consideration.

Just as a follow-up to that, and and this is something that we're gonna probably get some uh legal opinions on because it's our understanding that council would have to approve the entire settlement agreement, which is one of the asks that I was going to have of the administration is that we need to see the entire settlement agreement and not just the term sheet.

Um so right now in the legislation that's being prepared, even though I know that we have not we don't um we're not deliberating on that today, but all we have is the term sheet.

We need to see the full agreement so that our team could um be able to look through it as well.

Let me just say this.

The substantive terms uh are all there.

There are always whenever you draft a term a final settlement agreement.

You have questions about uh, you know, where is the venue?

Um, you know, what are who is who gets uh notice of different things?

So there's a lot of um extra legalese, which is important to lawyers, but you have in front of you every substantive term uh of the settlement.

So we're gonna get the full agreement.

Uh I believe the way it is structured is that we are asking for your approval to enter into that finalized agreement.

So, for example, we will have discussions about defining what a pad looks like uh for more detail, but what we're asking for in terms of the ordinance is the authority to go uh negotiate and enter into those agreements.

Consistent with the term sheet.

We would need to see an agreement.

We would need to at least make some.

I mean, this council will want to do our due diligence and understand and see the agreement.

That I think that is very uh critical for us to be able to make a um an informed decision.

Uh so that's something that I want to be on record that we're doing that.

Councilman Conwell on that point.

On this point, can you request for the notes also?

Because you have to build up to the 100 million and you got 25 million here or there.

They had a project team, so I know that they they had notes that they work together to move up to those points.

Chief, did you want to try to answer that?

Council President, I I I believe the spirit of what uh the law director is suggesting is that we did not want to be presumptuous here.

You have the details of the agreement to the degree that they exist now, and with approval on those, we will begin to pencil a legal document that of course you will see before it goes final.

I have a little concern about that because that would seem like it's a little rushed and that it wasn't thought out, and that's be, you know, we'll be voting on something and making decisions on something that really we haven't seen the details of.

So that's something that's a little bit concerning, and uh just want to make sure that uh I want to go on record that we probably would need the entire agreement when we do deliberate the uh legislation.

Council President, uh understood it, accepted.

Uh all I'm suggesting is what you see now is is the complete and final term.

Thank you.

We'll make sure you see the okay, thank you.

Uh thank you so much, Councilman.

Uh last but not least, and then I'll turn it over to a couple of my colleagues, and then I have a few more questions that uh will go on the back of the agenda, but I want to give my colleagues an opportunity, uh, especially the majority leader or the dean if uh if we uh have questions.

Uh but what numbers were used to make sure that we determine how the city was made whole?

Um our estimates say that it's been approximately 700 to 750 million when you look at everything from original construction, uh interests on the debt.

When you look at the uh you know, the capital repairs that we put in place almost every year we're putting money in the capital repairs, infrastructure to support the um area around the stadium, operations, the amount of police that we put in, and and and all of those different things.

How did we have a baseline to actually demonstrate um how the citizens of the city of Cleveland are made over?

To the Council President, I want to be unequivocally clear about this.

In no world would I ever try to leave money on the table.

Now, if I could have got $700 million, don't you think I would have got $700 million?

Right.

So in this negotiation, they weren't offering that much money.

And we had no idea how the courts were going to come out on this.

Let's say we won on our partial summary judgment on breach of contract.

Let's say we won that hypothetically.

They appeal it.

Where does it go?

State Supreme Court.

Who controls the State Supreme Court?

Not us.

Or the legislature.

So there was not a lot out there for us to get.

And this administration, with your support and partnership, fought like hell to get 100 million dollars.

Of course I want more.

We all want more.

But at the end of the day, you don't get everything you want in a business deal.

And I believe the deal we've structured is a pragmatic deal, a pragmatic settlement that gives us an immediate cash infusion and gives the City of Cleveland the ability to control our own destiny.

Predictability on what's happening on that lake front.

We don't absorb the sunk cost of demoing that stadium.

But 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.

Mark, you want to add to that?

If I could get my microphone on.

Through the chair.

First of all, my law department, I run a law department that is aggressive.

I think we are difficult.

I think people have a we have a reputation of being driving hard, and whether that's the uh lawsuit that we just won against Brook Park with respect to the third runway project that went on for eight years.

Uh we don't give up and we don't take uh settlements um that are uh against the taxpayer interest.

We fight for every penny.

One of the reasons we brought in Jones Day and others.

And as understanding that, I I do want to make clear kind of what the baseline is in terms of the legal piece, which is uh we had two claims.

We had a claim under the model law, and we had a claim for the breach of the lease.

Neither of those could result in a court order that the Browns would have to continue to play in the City of Cleveland.

There was no legal argument that we had that after the lease ended that they were required to stay.

So what we were looking at is a possibility and a likelihood that after 2029, uh our baseline would be zero.

So let me let me talk a little bit about both of those claims.

The first is the model law.

Uh and the model law, even under its original uh um phrasing, said if the city wins, the most that it could get would be a six-month window for local investors to come in and make an offer to the Browns.

There was never a requirement that the Haslems would have to take that.

So that first claim didn't give us the ability to keep the Browns here.

Our lease claim said this.

Uh you, the Browns are violating the lease because you're negotiating already.

You have to wait until the end of 2029.

So for that, we could have delayed until after 2029, but then we had nothing left.

So, in terms of risk to the city and about planning for what happens, we knew that we couldn't keep the Browns forever.

There's no uh you know, buzz light year where they have to stay here for infinity and beyond.

So uh our issue is what is the risk?

Um, and the risk is that we would be left with nothing and a stadium that we would have to continue to pay money on.

So uh, you know, I think this is a good deal for 100 million.

And if the question is, what is the baseline?

Uh the baseline is that after this, uh there's a risk of not just actually nothing, but an ongoing liability.

So I think this is a good deal that protects taxpayer dollars.

Once again, I want to make sure that I understand it had to be some to Councilman Conwell's point that it had to be some baseline for the negotiations that actually gave us kind of where we started at, where we ended up at.

Um, have anybody on the administration side ever calculated all of those costs and actually looked at all of those costs?

Because once again, I'm giving a rough estimate, but our rough estimates come up to about between 700 to 750 million.

I understand the rationale is that we could have ended up with any nothing.

Um other people have called me over the weekend and said, you know, we could have ended up with nothing.

Totally understand that.

But what was the number that we used to try to create the negotiation?

It had to be some kind of baseline.

Count Council, Council President, I I will continue to evoke uh King James and say that nothing given everything earned.

The baseline was zero, because that is what the lease and the current deal offered us.

Zero.

Uh and so the goal was more.

Uh it was always more.

Uh and so really focused on trying to drive outcomes and that the things that this body said was important, right?

So 17 council members, not everyone is going to feel great about this deal, but there is absolutely one thing that we heard from the body, which is protect the general revenue fund and ensure that the City of Cleveland was not left empty-handed.

And so with a baseline of zero and a goal of more, um, we have accelerated lakefront development.

Um, we have created a pad ready site, we have brought in current value dollars to the City of Cleveland, uh, and we are on a better course uh for our lakefront's future.

And so um the baseline number was zero.

Uh we do have calculations for how much the stadium has cost us, certainly.

We know how much we've put into it, we know how much it costs to operate in a game day, we know how much it costs to keep us and the people going to those games safe.

Um, but when it comes to how we engaged on this negotiation, we took this body's commitment first, protect the general revenue fund and do not leave the City of Cleveland empty-handed.

And I think that the mayor and our team have accomplished that goal that you set for us.

So let me reiterate and just um state this.

So that's where I'm trying to understand the how are the taxpayers going to be made whole, because at the end of the day, that's um an important number for council to understand you know as we deliberate and as we determine how it goes.

I'll be honest with you.

I know a lot of members on this body believe that 100 million dollars is not enough.

When I've been asked, I don't know.

I don't know.

And the reason I don't know is because I just want to understand the baseline.

I want to understand how we got to that point.

I understand that you're saying it started out with zero, uh, but at the end of the day, you know, the taxpayers of this city have ponied up a lot of money to support this business and this corporation.

And um, I want to know if we're going to come out of this net positive or net negative.

That's what I'm trying to understand.

So if at some point in time we can have Jessica to try to work with us on that, that'd be great.

Sure.

And and I can I'm happy to respond, you know, to further questions, but I do want to emphasize that the impacts that you're talking about are the impacts of the Browns leaving Cleveland, not impacts of the settlement.

So as we said, the Browns have made it very clear that they were going to Brook Park, that there was a lot of um ways that we tried to stand in the way of that.

But as uh our law director said, there is no way for us to force them to stay in Cleveland beyond 2029.

So all of the impacts that you're talking about are impacts regardless of whether we have the settlement or not.

The benefit of the settlement is that we now have a hundred million dollars in hand to help us mitigate all of those impacts.

So happy to talk about impacts to syntax or admission or parking or you know, any of those, but um it might be better to do that in writing as opposed to going through all the big numbers here.

If our policy team can work with you, like I said, I'm not trying to boil the ocean in a boil Lake Erie today.

What we're trying to do is start to frame the conversation so that this is the first time that the public gets a chance to really understand um you know the merits of the deal, which is going to take some time for us to fare it out.

Uh but right now we're gonna stay focused on uh process timeline and also making sure that we understand uh you know um how this negotiation took place.

Okay.

I'm gonna I do have some questions about the lease, but I'm gonna put myself back on the list and I'm gonna go to my colleagues right now.

I have Councilman Michael Palency, Councilman Brian Casey, Councilman Richard Starr.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, um, Mr.

President and my honorable colleagues, and I'm glad that the the mayor came home.

Glad to see you today.

Um part of the challenge, and I think the council president outlined it is trying to understand the whole process of what took place here.

And part of my frustration is that the council collectively, we have not been briefed for God knows how long.

We have not been briefed for God knows how long about where negotiations are and what's been taking place.

So we're picking up watching TV, picking up um articles in the paper.

Um that's how we're getting our information, which to me I take a different approach.

I want to I want to be aware.

I didn't get elected to just ignore what's going on around me.

I got elected to represent it to serve.

And I also want to say this.

I appreciate Jimmy Haslin calling me on Saturday.

Um we talked at length.

It was a good frank discussion.

I expressed to him my concerns and my issues, and I heard his concerns and issues as well.

Um it was a very cordial discussion, took some time, but regardless, I want to thank him publicly for him reaching out to me to talk about this.

Here's here's the issue that I have.

Um I'm looking at it, the deal that's proposed.

And first of all, I want to ask the law director, Mr.

Chairman, if I may.

Is the lawsuit still in place?

Through the chair.

Yes, it is.

Okay.

There are three of them.

Three of them.

So all three of them are still in place.

Yes.

Okay.

Clarification.

I thought there were four.

There is if you count the taxpayer lawsuit filed by former Mayor K-Kinich, then there would be four.

But that's a taxpayer not correct.

Okay.

Okay.

So we we know we still have the lawsuit in place.

So here's here's my issue.

And I looked at it, and um hundred million dollars, and 30 million for demo.

And see, I'm not so I'm not convinced yet that the stadium needs to come down.

Okay, I'm not convinced yet.

And a lot of people are not convinced yet the stadium needs to come down.

I've heard all kind of, I've had inquiries, I've had people call me about could it be retrofitted for an open-air concert uh menu, venue there on the on the lakefront.

I don't know.

I think that would be something for architects and other people to be involved in planners, et cetera.

So that we went, then we're down to 70 million.

So I'm gonna take the demolition.

Then we're down to 70.

We still owe 32,945,000.

Again, 30, well, we'll round it out.

33 million we still owe on the stadium.

A lot of people thought it was paid off.

No, it is not.

Now we have debt service on top of that, which is somewhere, I don't know, I'm estimating somewhere between 25 and 30 additional debt service, which will be will be we'll be dealing with debt services we get our budget.

Then we have got the legal fees, which are estimated at 1 million, right at this point?

Over 1 million at 1 million.

Okay.

So now that we're down to $6,55,000.

If I take out the capital repairs we just passed, $2.6, now we're down to $3.4 million.

And the estimated capital repairs over the next three years are estimated to be at least six million, if not more.

Now we're in the red for $2.5 million, right out of the gate.

Right out of the gate.

You know, when I came in his body, I thought I learned I knew how to count, but when I came in his body, I really learned how to count.

So now we are at $2.5.

The Council President just estimated, mentioned that in the court findings, estimated the Browns brought in their impact was $30 million plus another million on $11 million on top of that.

So I am trying to justify this in my own brain.

At the end of this deal, we wind up with nothing.

We wind up with nothing.

The math, the math is there.

I'm taking the numbers that I received from the Administration.

We wind up with nothing.

So again, I'm trying to I'm trying to balance everything, because Jimmy told me on the phone, Councilman, I didn't have to give you anything.

Yeah, that's his comment was we didn't have to give you anything.

But at the end of the day, my brothers and sisters to the Honorable Mayor and his team.

Um people of the City of Cleveland sacrificed greatly for the Cleveland Browns.

When I say greatly, we sacrifice greatly.

We wound up being the number one poorest city in America.

We wound up number two in childhood poverty.

I could go down the list of every negative list list where we're at and every positive list we're at the bottom.

We did that because the NFL extorted us, extorted us to build the stadium where it is and in the time frame in which it was.

So I said to Jimmy on Saturday, I believe the NFL owes us a great debt.

And he indicated me that you are not going to get any money out of the NFL.

I don't even know if we tried or not to get any money out of the NFL.

I don't know if there was any discussions with Roger Goodell.

I would have took a sleeping bag and been on his doorstep, okay.

Um at the end of the day, so I'm just looking at the numbers.

So this is how I put it.

I put it in and let me just say this.

On the community benefits, Mr.

Chairman, the 2 million over 10 years.

You know what that comes out to?

$133,000 per ward.

The cost of a luxury car.

That's what we get.

$133,000 per ward.

And then the Browns have to agree to that.

So at the end, this I put this in football terms.

You're on the goal line.

Beautiful sunny day at Lakefront Stadium.

Weather is perfect, sun is shining.

You're on the you're on the goal line.

You're down six points to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

You got 15 seconds left on the clock.

Junkins is behind the quarterback and he is ready to go.

Stefanski sends in a play, and the play is take a knee.

Take a knee.

If we give up the lawsuit, we take a knee.

That's what my concern is.

We take a knee.

I appreciate what the mayor has said.

And I agree with a lot of things over these past three years that the mayor's has done is implemented, is implemented.

And my vote reflects that.

I just don't get this deal.

I don't get the deal.

We had leverage.

Why would you give up leverage?

And then you're going to give them a possible lease extension for the same terms.

He pays only $250,000 a year on the lakefront.

That's what he pays us.

And we're going to give him the same terms.

Councilman, can I do this, Ken?

Because I think the chief wants to answer, and I still want to make sure we have time, but let the chair and the chief.

One, um out of respect for this body, I want to be clear.

Um, whenever there was a material change or movement in this negotiation, briefed the council president.

Okay.

And we talk often about where this was.

Okay.

Um but as you know, I can we cannot negotiate a settlement or a lawsuit of this magnitude in the public in the press.

I understand the mayor.

Business doesn't work that way.

No, I agree.

Right.

And so it was not my intention to pull the rug over council and and just you know, you know, uh not be transparent.

Immediately when you pass the ordinance to say in bolt the model law, what did uh what do we do?

We hired the best damn law firm in the country to protect the taxpayers.

And we've been fighting, fighting, fighting.

And and and Councilman Um Polinzik, you told me specifically we need to get a lot of money from them, protect the taxpayers, and not be left empty handed.

And I believe this settlement does that.

Does it is it the perfect settlement?

Absolutely not.

But in this case, we you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And I want to make sure I clarify that I did not know the specifics of the terms, only that that they were that you did not feel that they offered enough and that you were still negotiating.

So I don't want to make sure this body is clear that Blaine Griffin didn't know the details of all of that.

So I want to make sure that we clarify that.

Make sure this is clear, okay?

Mr.

Davy, and then uh on the point.

On that point, Councilman Jones, just on that point.

And Councilman Palency, would you allow Councilman Jones?

Yes, I would just on that point, Councilman.

Please uh be brief.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um to the mayor.

Um just listening to I'm quite sure all of us and Clevelanders are sad this morning uh about the loss of the Browns and the City of Cleveland, what it fundamentally means for us.

My question is, and then a lot of us sitting here at the table, uh we're not briefed about the negotiations when they started.

We hadn't had any ideal or any understandings of what was going on.

Can you kind of give us an enlightenment at some point?

It doesn't have to be now.

But see how those negotiations worked.

Councilman, and why we're here because you're in the way in which we are here right now.

I got you on the list.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And I want to make sure that Councilman Policik asked some specific questions.

I'll make sure that you get your on your time on the list.

But that is um different than what Councilman Politic's specific questions is.

Council uh Chief Davy, please, you had the floor.

Um Council President, through the Council President to Councilman Palencic.

Um first, maybe the most appropriate way to respond to your question is first just to acknowledge um the scrutiny of accounting as an important endeavor and an important thing for this body to be doing.

So welcome the need for us to be factual and specific, particularly about the numbers.

Um the the council president previously asked for detailed information related to the overall cost of the stadium uh and everything around it, and that would be the most full and complete way to respond to your question.

And so I think our answer back to you is like let us get you the documents that outline how much this would have cost.

There were a few things that I think are important to enumerate.

Um there's a lot of cameras here, and so I would hate to give an incomplete picture.

Right.

Um there is $32 million of outstanding uh debt and principal um, but that will be paid off uh before the end of the lease term, and so you know we would be pulling that out of the back end of the equation that you outlined.

Um there's also a number of missing line items, right?

That include things like health and safety.

Uh there's a lot of police overtime that go to ensuring that folks who are going to the game residents and non residents are are kept safe.

There's a lot of police overtime that go to ensuring that folks who are going to the game residents and non-residents are kept safe.

A lot of those weren't in your calculations, right?

Brown's non-traffic is somewhere around $99,000 a game and traffic alone is $46,000 a game.

And so you get a much more complete picture of what the overall uh stadium economics are.

And so before we talk about what the full value of this deal is, I want to make sure that you're including all of the line items and variables in that calculations before you judge it.

Thank you.

And keep in mind, Councilman, as I give you the floor back, we are going to have more hearings and dig more into the details of this.

Today is the public's first opportunity.

So we're going to have multiple conversations when we get that information, but please proceed.

And Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate that because that's exactly we need to understand the total picture of because we still have debt service.

So I I'll wrap it up at this point, Mr.

Chairman.

Had the Browns agreed, the Haslam group, to cover the remain our remaining cost, the $32 million, and cover the capital repairs on the stadium, which again are going to be estimated at least six million, if not more, over the next three years.

Had they agreed to cover that outstanding that debt service, cover our legal fees, then I think we've got a basement or a plateau to work off.

Of course, you know what?

Okay, now this might be worth our while at this point.

But as it presently stands, we are still going to pay and pay and pay through the end of the lease, and you have to subtract all that from what we're getting.

Common sense would tell you that.

So, Mr.

Chairman, again, I appreciate the mayor being here.

Again, I'll I say publicly, I appreciate the discussion, lengthy discussion I had with Jimmy Haslin on Saturday.

He knows where I'm at.

I know where he's at.

Um, at the end of the day, as it's structured right now, as it's structured right now, I don't believe it's a good deal for the people of Cleveland.

And I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Councilman Pilesi.

And once again, we will be having more conversations and look forward to getting some of those numbers.

Councilman Brian Casey, Councilman Starr, Councilman Joe Jones, Councilman Conwell, Councilman Sly.

Did I miss anybody?

Councilman Harsh.

Take me off uh on Mr.

President.

Okay.

Councilman, can I ask some questions I was going to uh I was going to ask some of the funding if you want to put back on, I'll put you back on the seat.

And Councilman Harsh was on the list, too.

So I make sure that Councilman Brian Casey, then Councilman Star.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um again, I would also like to uh thank Jimmy Haslam for uh his phone calls over the weekend.

Um since I've been asked not to use the term dog or fleas, I want to say, Mr.

Mayor, that unfortunately yourself, this council, and the residents of the city of Cleveland had to dance with the devil.

We should have seen this coming.

We should have seen this coming long before anybody even thought about the lease expiring.

In 2013, the first that was the first sign.

And in 2013, when this city helped pay for new scoreboards, and the scoreboards that were placed in Cleveland Brown Stadium were in the shape of Tennessee.

We should have known that his heart wasn't in Cleveland.

In 2023, when he purchased 25 percent of the Milwaukee Bucks that were in direct competition with the Cleveland Cavaliers at the time until his ownership, and we see what happened to the Bucks after that.

We should have known that he didn't want to be here.

He may want to be in Northeast Ohio because he's got a money grab.

He has the absolute best lease of any owner in the NFL.

In his 12 years of owning that team, he has only paid the city $2.5 million in rent.

Now that sounds like a lot of money to average people.

But in reality, when you're renting something like that on Prime Lakefront property, and that's to no fault of anybody sitting at this table, um, because our hands were tied back in 1996.

Um I ask you, Mr.

Mr.

Chairman, to um to the mayor, whatever happened to the two million dollar plan that the Haslems came up with that redeveloped uh that stadium on the lakefront and the BERK?

Yeah.

Uh through the council president to Councilman Casey.

Um as I've said, uh I said last year and I've said repeatedly in my first quarter in office in the first quarter of 2022, uh, we sat at Thompson High and we were briefed on their um 1.2 billion dollar renovation of the existing stadium.

Um as I said uh previously, I asked them a question.

This looks great, really willing to work with you as we get you know um settled in office on how to you know get this project complete and get it done.

I asked them very specifically, do you want a dome?

They told me then no.

Here's what they asked for.

Number one, uh work with us to get Federal and State support for Lakefront Development.

Uh number two, um pursue some kind of public-private partnership entity like the Waterfront Development Corporation, which collectively we have done and it's off to a fantastic start because of your investment and your support.

And thirdly, um really make the case uh to to the Federal government for investment in our lakefront.

Unfortunately, uh the economics of their business change.

Uh they made a business decision not to go with that plan.

And I don't know where that plan sits.

Uh but as you know, we picked our um own designer uh and did our own master plan for uh the lake front.

Um and you know, we're off to the races to make sure that development occurs now without the Cleveland Browns.

But I I will say this to our credit as a city and because of your partnership and support.

We did everything humanly possible to keep them there.

And I want the people of the city to know that.

Number one, we offered 461 million dollars over 30 years without risking our general revenue fund.

Number two, myself and the county executive went downstate to try to give money to support our initial offer.

But again, them getting $600 million, I never could have anticipated that level of investment from the State, because historically, they've never given any sports franchise in this state that much public money.

Um then they get the money, uh, and the legislature undermines our attempts with the Model Law.

So we should not feel sorry for ourselves, because we have fought the good fight, we put together a competitive deal, we work with the county, we got Federal investment for lakefront development, we got State investment for Lake Defront Development, but it was not in the cards for us.

The cars were stacked against us, and now we have to deal with reality that we currently live in right now, and that's what we're talking about.

This historic settlement.

So I just want to make sure, because once again, this is the public's first opportunity to really understand process, timeline, and mirror.

Are you saying that the Haslam Sports Group spent a few million dollars on putting a plan that they themselves scuttled that they themselves said that they would not want to move forward?

And they announced that plan before I took office, and our our thought at that time was to take the baton and move forward.

And as you know, we've moved forward now without that vision of a stadium being on that site.

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Chairman to the mayor, is anybody from Jones Day here?

To the council president, to the Councilman Casey, no.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Chairman, to uh the law director.

Um the Cleveland Browns currently in violation of their lease with the City of Cleveland right now.

Yes.

Okay.

And on May 6, 2024, City Council passed 391 2024.

Do you believe that you have met the obligation of that that piece of legislation?

Absolutely.

You have asked us to aggressively enforce the model law.

Uh we have done that.

Uh I would note, of course, that the General Assembly pulled that uh rug out from under us by changing that law.

Okay.

And then before I get into the specifics of my questions on the on the lease agreement, uh Cleveland Brown Stadium is worth approximately $500,000 a year to Cleveland Public Power.

They're they're always within a top 10 customer.

Um Mr.

Chairman, to the mayor, throughout the negotiations, was there any talk of uh Cleveland Public Power or an investment into into other city-owned utility?

I'm gonna have Bonnie discuss that.

So thank thank you for that question.

Thank you for having me here.

To that specific question, we have all sorts of opportunities now to uh increase uh customer service customers through C CPP.

That they are one of our customers, one of our larger customers.

However, um we also have to take into consideration the potential of the the uh development that's going to happen at the North Coast.

Um, you know, the increase um uh the increased power request, that the the um improvements to the rock and roll hall of fame, um the electrification at the port that's happening, um, and even the recent agreement that we have with Bedrock.

Um, you know, these are all new customers, and we are aggressively pursuing new customers time and time again.

Um we look at the development at the North Coast to be another opportunity um for CPP.

Thank you.

All right, if we can move into the Can I get a point on that?

Just a point.

Councilman Casey, would you allow Cosmic Conwell a point specifically on that?

I'm being very rigorous on the case.

I'm always on that point.

Let's not lose that $500,000 that's on the table, go after them.

You didn't really answer his question.

Did he ask you about that uh half a million dollars?

Let's still go at them.

You don't lose any money whatsoever.

You go at them aggressively, you go back at them, and forget that zero base stuff.

Get that $500,000 to be in addition to what you just narrated, Chief.

We still can go after them, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Cosmic Casey.

All right, and then Mr.

Chairman, to the mayor or the law director or director, uh, in the lease agreement that we that we see in the term sheet that we're seeing, section one is what the Hasham Sports Group or the Browns agree to.

Section two is what you are saying that the City of Cleveland is agreeing to, correct?

Is it correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So if if I could just ask you a couple of questions, uh under Section 1 F, cooperate with and assist the city ensuring the interests of public health or safety with regards to any effects of the operating Hopkins Airport or the Browns New Stadium in Brook Park, Ohio, how what is their role in in helping that?

Well, well, listen, um again, uh we've been trying to be pragmatic in how we operate in this new reality we are living in now with them going to Brook Park.

I've already had initial conversations with the mayor at Brook Park on are there some opportunity us opportunities for us to collaborate, whether it be on revenue sharing, if we're doing infrastructure for the airport, how do we coordinate with the Browns project and Brooke Park with that development going on in Brook Park adjacent to our nearly two billion dollar modernization of our airport?

Is there an opportunity to create some kind of business district or innovation district that can create more jobs that we can get uh on city land adjacent to the Brook Park land?

So again, it's all about you know trying to make the best of the situation, finding some new revenue opportunities for the city uh to make sure that as this development takes place, we are trying to optimize revenue and investment to the city of Cleveland, especially as we pursue uh the largest modernization of our airport that we have had in 25 years.

All right.

And then uh Section 1G, right?

Use ever efforts to assist the city regarding infrastructure plans related to road and air travel with respect to the Brook Park Stadium mixed use and the airport.

Thank you.

So there's there's still work to be done on on the infrastructure.

Um uh it it's good that we have partners that we can work with now in in uh Brook Park and uh the Haslums.

Um the council the council president knows the work that was done on Friday with Nowaka as far as the traffic study goes.

Um so we know that there's there needs to be more work on that.

So um they have assured us that they will work hand in hand with us to um ensure that that um the outcomes for both airport um uh travelers to the airport and travelers in and around um uh Cleveland and Burke Park um will um have minimal disruptions.

Okay, and then um H, if Brooke Park Stadium mixed use project is prevented from being completed or otherwise becoming operational as a result of any action, event, or circumstances not caused by the Browns, which means that it could be a tornado, right?

I mean, it could be it could just just about be anything.

Um the Browns continue to play the majority of their home games in Cleveland after the scheduled termination of the lease, inclusive of any agreed upon lease extension, then the Browns shall have no obligation to set forth one B, C or D of this settlement or the term sheet.

So we can't control some of that stuff.

But this is saying that if they're not up and running by the time they want to be up and running, they are not they don't have to be obligated to anything in B or C or D, correct?

To the councilman through the chair, uh sort of.

Uh what it says is if at the expiration of their lease, they are still playing games in the City of Cleveland, meaning presumably we have entered into a new lease or we have extended beyond what's in this settlement agreement, then we will be renegotiating that lease, and so we will revisit what's in B, C and D, the demo, the funding, because all of the impacts that we have talked about today would no longer be as relevant.

So we would renegotiate that lease and capture those benefits in that renegotiation.

All right.

If I can move on to section two, we'll go to subsection C, which is the Dennis Kucinich lawsuit.

How are we supposed to prevent an individual from going forward with their own lawsuit?

Sure, because uh a taxpayer lawsuit is brought on behalf of the City of Cleveland.

So we've already uh moved to dismiss that that case.

Um we believe that he doesn't have appropriate standing.

But the other piece is that once it's settled, uh there's no there's no lawsuit to continue as a taxpayer action.

It essentially asks um the city to do something that the city is not doing.

Well, we're already suing the Browns.

We are in litigation.

Uh we have three cases already pending.

Uh and if and when we uh settle the case, uh then there will no longer be uh viability for a taxpayer action on the same topic.

Okay.

Um under F, it says use best efforts to assist the Browns with public safety planning and utilities in connection with operations at the Brook Park Stadium mixed use project.

I want to ask if that has anything to do with uh a potential agreement between the cities of Brook Park and Cleveland for game day operations in regards to providing any type of public safety efforts.

To the councilman through the chair, that's not currently contemplated, no.

Okay.

And then G, it's the termination of the lease, including any extension of the lease, terminate the agreement between the City of Cleveland and the city and the City of Berea concerning the allocation of income taxes paid by employees of the Browns.

Mr.

Chairman, to whomever would like to explain that one through the chair to the councilman.

So we entered into an agreement with Berea several years ago regarding uh where is the home of the Browns, what taxing district should have it when the Browns play their home games here in the city, but their practice operations are in Berea.

And so because there was a split between where people work, we entered into agreement with Berea based upon the fact that the Browns uh were conducting their business in the city.

Uh once the Browns are no longer uh conducting business in the City of Cleveland, that agreement becomes uh moot.

To the councilman, I will also add that accounts for 0.3 percent of the income tax collected by the city.

Okay.

And then the last one you I don't know if this is the city or if this is city council, right?

Use best efforts to see Cleveland City Council's approval of the party's formal settlement agreement as needed.

I think today's conversation is that first step, sir.

Okay.

So I won't go into the other ones.

I'll leave some some of this to my to my colleagues.

Um I kind of look at this like dating a girl that doesn't want to be with you anymore.

You've all been there.

Right?

And if in regards to that relationship, right, common sense tells you let her go.

And never never never think about her again and move on.

But your heart tells you, right, that that team belongs in the City of Cleveland, that that is a Cleveland thing, and I don't want to hear from anybody, it's 15 minutes south of here, right?

It's only, you know, we're still going to benefit because we're not going to benefit like having that that team here in the City of Cleveland.

And we're all in campaign mode right now.

And let me tell you, the number one things at the door that people want to talk about this past week was that move of the of the team.

We can we can put lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig.

We can say that we're going to redevelop the lake front.

That is all glitz and glamour.

But those individuals who were sitting on in Old Brooklyn, West Park, Glenville, Collinwood, Huff, who cannot afford to go down here, and they're all sitting around enjoying a team that has brought us nothing but absolute misery with the 7514 and one record under the current ownership.

Anybody who wants to get in bed with an individual like that, I hope your heart doesn't lead you down the wrong path.

There's plenty of jobs in the City of Cleveland.

Whether that is redeveloped on the lakefront or it goes to Brooke Park, people are gonna work.

But when that team left before, and I understand that it's there's a difference between Baltimore and Brook Park.

But if you're a true Clevelander, somebody who was born and raised in the City of Cleveland, and as a kid ran the streets of the City of Cleveland, you always knew you were going to do one thing.

You were gonna either go to that stadium, whether it was an old municipal stadium, or if it's what I'll always call Cleveland Brown Stadium, or you were gonna sit in front of that TV with your father and you were gonna watch that, you were gonna watch that football team.

That is one thing that was for sure.

And the one thing that you always had was it it was Cleveland.

And don't be surprised, and it'll be me when I introduce a resolution telling him to leave our number our our name and our colors.

He won't do it.

We know that.

He'll snub us.

But I'm gonna tell you when that moves to Brook Park, that team is no longer a Cleveland team.

I don't care that it's right across the street from a street that I represent.

It's not gonna be the same.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh I'm going to go to Councilman Starr, Joseph Jones, Harsh Slife Moore.

And once again, please remember what we are here for to talk about the process, timeline, and then also make sure that we deal with um any merits.

I know that the mayor is here, um, so want to make sure we're respectful of everybody's time.

Councilman Starr Jones, harsh slife more.

Thank you, Council President.

I do read the rules all the time.

Um, but I definitely want to talk about more so on what are the solutions with this deal currently right here in front of us.

And one thing I definitely want to ask to the chair to Mayor Bibb, um, I understand that you've been having you and your administration and your team been having negotiations on what the Hassel Sports Groups to be able to get us here.

Can you explain when these negotiations possibly first started with your motion?

I mean with your administration through the chair, Mayor, or like a time frame, year, a month or whatever.

Honestly, uh, I'd say in earnest after we got that presentation in the first quarter of 2022, the negotiation started.

Yes.

Um and but the tenor of that change obviously when last year during this time and they announced their intention to go to Brooke Park.

Um, and immediately that that week or the following week, we hired Jones Day and began to invoke the Modell law.

Um so the contours and the tenor have changed.

Uh, but in earnest, we have been negotiating with HSG for the last three years.

All right, and through the standpoint through that negotiations since 2022, um, I know I never received a call from um the Haslem Sports Group, and I can attest to here I'm the only one with a sports management degree.

So I know sports and I know contracts, but I know Haslem didn't call me.

And he probably called some of my colleagues, I guess.

When you're a new council person or maybe the youngest, you don't get the respect nowadays.

But through your standpoint, due to negotiation, what was your briefing like with council members and your administration through the chair?

Because I serve on municipal services and properties committee, and I don't recall hearing that much information or updates.

Is there anything your team was doing to communicate to council through the chair?

Uh through the council presidents of the councilman, I believe through our negotiations team, um we have been trying to brief council every step of the way.

I know HSG had separate conversations with this body.

Uh, I believe last year in the spring on the contours of our initial 461 million dollar uh offer.

Um, but again, uh whenever there was a material change in the tenor of the negotiations, I tried to update the council president um every step of the way.

Now, obviously, I didn't go through deal terms and red line legal agreements, but it was just high level, hey Prez, this is popping off.

I want to I want to let you know before it pops off.

Hey, Prez, this is what's going on.

So again, um the aspects of some of this obviously happen um between our various uh legal uh teams from the City of Cleveland and HSG.

Uh but again, when we have been consistent in following this body's mandate, invoking the Mellell Law, protecting taxpayers, and making sure the City of Cleveland was not left empty-handed through this entire time.

Okay, so thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Bibb.

Um based off that you've done your part to, I guess a brief our our council president and possible council leadership.

I just don't know if the message always got down to everything.

So that I can make sure that I'm clear again.

The only conversations that I've had with the mayor around this, and I had a staffer that would go to every meeting, was that they were still negotiating.

I did not have specifics about any deal.

I'm gonna make that clear.

I know I got I just want to make sure because them allegations, I want to make sure that we make it clear what the conversations were.

They were very high level, we're still negotiating, we're still trying to get more out of the deal.

That was the extent of the conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure I have some clarity to make sure I understand that it's not seeming as if certain people get some information and certain ones don't.

And that that does hit me um a little bit because I want to make sure I bring my my skills to the table when it comes to negotiations as well.

But I I hear you, Council President, I hear you, mayor be I got a clear understanding on that.

And from this from this negotiations, um, as far as this overall deal, and I see that we roughly have the estimate of 30 million dollars for possible demolition of the stadium um when this lease or this agreement is actually finalized.

Um, through the standpoint of that, have we did a cost estimate analysis of what it's actually going to take to demolish in this stadium?

The reason why I asked that question is because in 2010, the cost of demolition to demolish the Yankee Stadium was 25 million dollars.

So you telling me within inflation, time has passed, as well as where we are at in the climate today, in three or four more years, it's still gonna cost roughly around the same amount.

And if so, how did you come up with that number for an agreement of 30 million through the chair?

To the councilman through the chair, uh, I will just say that one we have done some initial estimating and anywhere between 25 and 40 million, depending on what the site work is.

But just to clarify, that demolition and site work will be undertaken by HSG.

So any costs that will go up, because let's face it, costs aren't going down, they're going up, will be handled by HSG and not the city.

So 30 million is an estimate of that value, but it's frankly probably a low estimate of that value.

All right, because I wanted to make sure, and through the through the chair, based on this agreement, it does states that they will cover all costs.

And right, see it right here, making sure we all on the same page.

Because I've seen that um a rough estimate has shown that any large facility, modern stadiums, can range from that 25 million up to about 2 billion dollars.

So I don't want us getting into an agreement where we say, hey, if it's if it's 50 million dollars, and then next you know the city is on the hook with paying additional costs, but I'm glad that we have some type of legal boundary that they will also cover any additional costs to the stadium.

Um in addition to that, I definitely want to make sure uh we just got some clarity.

Why do we have a November 25th hard deadline for this settlement date to pass to council?

Um, given the amount of time that we have left on the calendar for council to actually vetted in each department, including municipal services committee, um DPS committee, as well as finance committee, why this hard stoppage when there's things that we want to legislate for our community that we can't pass that fast.

So why do we have to pass this so soon?

Uh and what's the time frame or why through the chair?

To the councilman through the through the chair, the term says that the Browns have agreed to pay the city 25 million dollars on December 1st of this year, or if later the date that all of the settlement negotiations are approved by this body.

So November 24th is a deadline in order for us to have that fund, those funds in hand on December 1st.

If council does not want to or is unable to take action by November 24th, it simply delays when we would get that 25 million dollar check for the city of Cleveland.

So through this ordinance or this agreement, if we don't pass about 20 the 25th, 24th of 2025, and we somehow look at vetting this probably sooner in the first quarter of next year to council, um, that mean that 25 million dollars is still on the table for option for us to be able to receive that gift or that donation through the chair?

To the councilman through the chair, we it would still be 25 million dollars.

It would just delay when that funding would come to the city.

And thank you.

And throughout this whole negotiation, um when the Cleveland Brook Park Browns move to Brook Park, who will be the owner of that new stadium and that facility through the chair?

To the councilman uh through the chairman, I'm not sure, but I know it's not going to be the city of Cleveland, but I don't know who's going to own that new stadium.

Okay.

So we don't know who's going to own it.

All right.

Through that, when you talk about community investments, um, do we have enough community investments that the Browns can make as a part of this agreement, such as um funding for education, infrastructure, or polity safety initiative through this agreement that we currently have in front of us?

Sure, to the councilman through the chair, there's 20 million dollars set aside in this agreement for community benefits to be defined by this council.

And that's through 10 year durations increments of two million each year through the chair?

Okay, and within that, within that agreement, um, what about job opportunities?

How can this agreement ensure job opportunities for Cleveland residents both during the construction phase and the long term fact with this agreement?

Yeah, to to the councilman through the chair, I think there's a couple different ways, and I think that's a great question.

Um, one is I think in this collaboration with HSG, what we've heard from them is a shared commitment to wanting to continue to do right by the you know residents of Cleveland, and so I would anticipate a CBA tied to the demolition and the site work in addition to CBAs that we'll have for all of the lakefront development to come.

So not only will there be jobs and community benefits tied to you know community benefit benchmarks tied to the demolition and site work, but also for ongoing lakefront development for this 50 acres that we'll be redeveloping.

And under that understanding of the job opportunities and creation, can I put a point out there, um council president, that we should have a C VA in place before we accept any agreement to ensure that we have um protocols and ways to make sure our taxpayers, our residents receive some type of support.

And what I mean by that is we've always seen these promises of um millions and billions of dollars that's going to come back in the neighborhood, job opportunities for our residents.

But after these deals get done, you look at it and see only certain groups get a chance to participate in these contracts.

And that is something that is very important to the residents in the city of Cleveland.

And what I mean by that is making sure we had diversity and a representation of individuals throughout the city that can actually participate on this contract, not just the ones who got the large name and got the relationships, but I need to see uh people from the central neighborhood, people from the Huff neighborhood, people from the Northeast, Collinwood, St.

Clair, uh Westside, everybody, downtown, people from the city should be able to have some type of plan to do that.

Because we also do have the Ohio Means Jobs Initiative where we gave 10 million dollars to make sure we are building and scaling up to have people participate in construction, HVAC, all the demolition, all these different opportunities.

I want to make sure we have that not just somebody saying it's their company name this, but it's not the reflection of the residents in the city of Cleveland.

So before we look to pass that, I think the CBA needs to be something that we finalize before we legislate anything to the council president.

Councilman, I think that's a great idea, and I know that our team is noting that, and um, we're looking at the mayor.

The mayor said that looks like something that we um definitely work on.

That was definitely on my list as well.

So thank you.

Yes, and I would like to volunteer my services to participate in those groups as well, because it's very important.

Um as well as I know we got a lot of infrastructure, a lot of different things, you know, like we all heard from from Councilman Casey as well as other council members, um, the transportation, you know, being able to get straight downtown and just get a drop-off downtown and you figure your way back at home is something that is different.

And I know from this council administration, we've had some partnerships where we're being able to um give tickets to different nonprofit organizations to be able to take their kids to the games.

Um when when this new Brown stadium or this new stadium that is going out in Brook Park happened, do we have any clue or understanding what the transportation infrastructure improvements to the facility will actually look like based on this deal?

Do we have any renderings, any thoughts, or is it just we're gonna figure it out once we get there?

Chief Chairman.

Yes, thank you.

That's a great question.

Um you know, depending on um the group that that's supporting that giveaway, um, you know, we often use our vans from the rec center to transport kids to and from different events.

I would look at um possibly that would be something similar to that that we could accommodate that.

Okay.

And then also with the changes that is currently happening, do dealing with environmental concerns, are there any potential environmental impacts of the move and how can we work to make sure the Browns address those issues?

Yes, they can say they're gonna tear down, yes, they're gonna demolish it, but what about the brown field cleanup and all those different things that is needed on this lake for us to be able to be prepared for new development to possibly come if they leave through the chair?

To the councilman through the chair, we have due diligence um preliminarily done on the site, and it's remarkably clean.

I mean, it's clean enough to have a stadium with 60,000 people there, so we don't anticipate any major environmental remediation necessary for the site.

But you know, and if anything that would be required, such as studies, I anticipate that would be part of the site work that HSG would take on.

So make sure I hear that.

So through the chair, you're going to make sure you do the site work, site readiness to make sure we have all that in place.

And if the anything costs associated with that, would that be something that the Haslem Sports Group would also pay for?

To the councilman through the chair, I anticipate that'll be part of what we when we're talking about site work, yes, it would be part of that.

Can we have that included and added to the agreement as well to the chair?

To the council to the councilman, yes.

It's also in the legislation.

It says environmental work.

Okay, thank you.

And then um I definitely want to bring up community input.

Um, how do we as a council, how do we, as the council and the administration um work to ensure that make sure all the voices of residents are heard and considered throughout this process?

You know, we we there's been a lot of negotiations since 2022.

There's been some talks amongst council leadership as well as the mayor to figure out where that we are at.

Then we also understand that we are now here with this first hearing um discussing what is happening with this agreement.

But how can we make sure that we have our residents' voices heard so as we create this actual layout for community benefits agreement?

We can ensure that they understand what is in the best interest of the city as well as the residents.

Do we have any type of plan, layout, upgrades?

What does it look like for us to make sure we include everyone in the city as residents to the chair?

Through the council presidents, the councilman.

Um I think today is a first step in making sure we have open dialogue between this body and our residents, and uh my administration is open to any ideas council may have to make sure we can work in lockstep to communicate what's happening, what this deal means, and what's our path forward as a city.

Yep, and thank you, Mayor Ribb, as well as administration for coming here.

I definitely want to just lean on my colleagues to make sure you understand that council plays a significant role in the Browns Stadium negotiations.

The council must approve certain aspects of the agreement for it to move forward.

Specifically, the council is required to authorize elements of the settlement, such as demolition of a citywide owned property and extensions of the Browns lease at the current Lake Front Stadium if needed.

Meaning council members, we have to do our due diligence to make sure we have the good deal in place to help support this initiative without leaving any crumbs on the table, um anything.

Me personally, I have not met a girlfriend that don't still want to be with me.

So, you know, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, it is it is only best suited that we just work together to make sure uh we can get what we can get, uh, which makes sense for the residents as we as we work through this, and I say thank you everybody.

Thank you.

And once again, councilman, um, to reiterate, this is the first opportunity for the public to really understand the details.

This is us bringing it to the like, and that's what we're looking forward to doing.

And I do want to make sure I clarify something that we um that we that we have stated earlier that we need, we believe we need to approve the entire settlement.

And we'll look at those, and that's the conversation that we'll be having that conversation at not points.

That's the reason why we asked for the entire agreement as opposed to just the term sheet.

Okay, councilman Joseph Jones and then Councilman Christopher Harsh.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm uh be as brief as I possibly can.

Um a lot of the questions um that would were asked of the mayor earlier uh by some of my colleagues.

Um I was able to take diligent notes.

Um certainly uh Mr.

Chairman, thank you, and thank you to the mayor of the city of Cleveland.

Um this is a sad moment for our city, and um I heard one of my colleagues talk about the fact that he was here in 1996.

I was also here at 1996.

I wasn't serving on the council, but I was sitting in the audience when then Mayor Mike White had lost the team, and um and it was a fight.

He rolled his sleeves up.

Art Model had made the deal.

He left the city, took the city away, took the Browns away from our city, and our city fought back.

And we were able to bring that team back here to the city of Cleveland and start anew.

Uh, when Haslam took over as the owner of the team, I was excited about the new ownership.

I felt that we had a new breath of fresh air.

We had a owner who would keep his commitment to be in the City of Cleveland.

And he even talked about and highlighted economic benefits to having the Browns in Cleveland, including job creation and the influx of visitors during the game days.

He talked about that and how it would contribute to the local economy.

He went on as far as to uh even help and raise funds and resources for local causes and issues.

Sitting here and getting to this point is uh where my colleague Richard Starr brought up the issue of communications, of what went wrong, what happened, um I think there were some other discussions about who was sitting at the negotiation tables.

Um at one point I remember or recall that the state was going to and had committed funding to creating an overpath to the stadium.

And it seemed to me that during that period of time, uh all the way up until uh a certain point that Jimmy Haslam had decided to stay here in the City of Cleveland.

Um Mr.

Chairman, um to the mayor, um I appreciate what you had to say because $600 million uh coming from the state uh uh to move that team to another location is a really hard obstacle to um overcome.

Can you give us an idea of how uh timeline on what happened and where we were?

Because many of us here don't even know what happened, don't have any information, wasn't given any privy to any communications about negotiations until um all of a sudden we're sitting here at the table talking about the 100 million dollar deal.

Yeah, as I uh said earlier, and I'll have uh Chief Davy chime in.

Um again, you know, uh in our first quarter in office of 2022, uh we saw the renderings of the initial 1.2 billion dollar innovation plan.

Uh we got to work on the asks around number one, uh getting Federal and State support to address the ingress-egress issues around the infrastructure.

Hence, we secured 20 million from the state and 130 million from the Federal Government.

Secondly, the ask was to create a separate waterfront development corporation to accelerate development on said lakefront with your support and your investment.

We did just that.

And over the last two years, the North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation, led by Scott Skinner, um has been off to a fantastic start to accelerate that master plan with or without and now without the Cleveland Browns.

And then uh August of last year, um, as you all know, and you were briefed on this as well.

Uh we uh submitted uh to the Hasms family a 461 million dollar uh uh plan to keep them in the City of Cleveland.

Uh that offer was rejected, and they announced subsequently in October they were going to Brook Park.

Hence, um I think at that council meeting immediately after I made that announcement, um uh we took your mandate seriously, invoked the Mill Dell law, hired Jones Day, and now we're here.

So again, number one, um, the State Legislature decided to give them $600 million.

Um I didn't have a vote in that.

None of us in this table hadn't voted in that.

Uh number two, the State Legislature decided to gut the Moldell law.

I didn't vote for that.

None of y'all voted for that.

These were the real headwinds we faced.

And so my mandate then from you was number one, make sure you protect our taxpayers.

Number two, make sure you don't leave us empty-handed, and number three, make sure you continue the fight.

And we did just that, and that's how we got to this pragmatic settlement to set up the city for its important next chapter.

Thank you.

Um there was the talk about the 100 million.

How did we get to that number?

Uh through the chair to the councilman.

We got to that number through a lot of hard work.

Over the three years of negotiations, there were times when the discussions were friendly, and there were times when the discussions were not so friendly.

There were uh periods of time where one party or the other walked out and we didn't talk for months.

So in terms of how we got to the final discussion or the final number, we had to look at what our options were and what the results were of no deal at all.

And one of those would be that we get nothing after 2029.

And so we had to evaluate what had been there.

We also understand that we can't get the money back that was spent.

And I think some of the discussion today has been that maybe that deal that we did 30 years ago was a bad deal.

And maybe it costs us a continuing cost for a city to keep an NFL team where it is every single year requests for more money out of taxpayer dollars.

And so when we looked at ending our obligation to pay anything further, when we looked at the 100 million that was going to come to us instead of us paying that money out, we decided that that was a a good result.

And the other piece that I would say is that in any piece of litigation there is risk.

And there is always risk that you end up with nothing.

So at the end of the day, we thought it was better for us to be receiving money than paying money, and to accelerate the ability for lakefront development.

And let me just say this.

Some will say Mayor Bibbs sold us out.

Some will say Mayor Bibbs should have got us $300 million or $700 million.

Those are all great what-ifs.

If I saw a path to get us $700 million, I would have fought like hell to get it.

But I was what I was not going to accept, let me be clear about this.

I was not going to accept the hit of leaving our destiny and our taxpayers at risk to the courts and a State Supreme Court and a legislature that continues to undermine what we are trying to do in the City of Cleveland.

Now imagine this conversation if we would have kept fighting and we would have got zero.

Zero.

This body would have said, Mayor Bibb, why did you leave was empty-handed?

Right?

And so we were in a rock and a hard place, folks.

And the material headwinds we saw coming from them getting $600 million coming from them gutting the Modell Law are real, are real.

This isn't make believe.

These are the facts.

And so I don't have the luxury to operate in the make-believe.

We work like hell with Mark, Jones Day, our team, to get us a hundred million dollars.

Of course I want more.

I always want more for our people.

They work too damn hard.

They deserve more.

But in my opinion, I believe 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.

Not just for eight to ten 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 are fighting here for, folks.

So it's a hard day.

I'm pissed.

I'm sad.

I have a lot of amazing memories of going in a football game with my dad when he was alive.

But unfortunately, we were dealt a bad hand.

And now we have to pick ourselves up and fight for a new chapter for our city because our residents deserve it.

Councilman?

Any last thing?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, to um the mayor of the City of Cleveland.

And it follows right on into the next question.

We have three lawsuits that are in place, and we have one lawsuit on the outside.

Can you explain to the Council what these three lawsuits are?

Through the through the Chair to the Councilman.

The first lawsuit that was filed was a lawsuit filed by uh Haslam Sports Group against the City asking for a declaratory judgment on the model law.

This was a Federal claim that argued that the Model law was illegal because it violated something called the dormant commerce clause.

Pretty esoteric.

That complaint was improperly filed, so the Browns had to file a second claim where they said that their constitutional rights were being violated.

That one was also mistakenly articulated.

So then they had to add the law director as a formal defendant to that case.

So in the Federal litigation, um there have been three complaints filed regarding whether the old model law was uh constitutional or not.

Uh the second lawsuit that was filed was filed by us, the city, uh alleging a violation of the lease and asking for enforcement of the model law as it stands.

And we asked for the court to render partial summary judgment that the model law still applies.

And then secondly, that the Browns are in violation of their lease.

But we believe that if we had prevailed, the most we could have gotten was a six-month opportunity for people to look at it and an injunction during the course of the lease that would expire in 2029.

None of those lawsuits would let us keep the Browns here forever.

The third lawsuit that we filed is an appeal for uh with respect to the decision by the Ohio Department of Transportation to permit the Browns Stadium to go forward uh in Brook Park.

Uh because we believe that there are concerns that we could work out, um, and then I think we are satisfied that we can work out uh with the cooperation of the Browns.

The fourth lawsuit uh was filed by former um mayor Dennis Kucinich uh that alleged that we have Mr.

Chairman, can I ask if the director could just pause for a quick second on the vial because just want to make sure that I am on the same page.

The violation of the lease permit by the Browns and then working with them to allow them to leave is a part of the third lawsuit.

Can you explain that?

No, I think you're I think you are mixing two of them.

So the second lawsuit involves uh a claim that the Browns were violating the current lease by negotiating with Brook Park and the State of Ohio and other were uh and other parties in advance uh of moving um the stadium.

We believe that the lease requires them not to do anything until the end of it.

So the best that we could have gotten was to slow down their negotiations or to postpone them until the end of 2029.

The third uh lawsuit deals with an appeal of the decision by the Ohio Department of Transportation.

Explain that again.

Sure.

Uh the Browns Stadium is in the vicinity of Cleveland Hopkins Airport, and we just want to make sure that we do everything we can to protect the efficiency and the safety of uh the traveling public.

Um I think there are ways to make that site work.

Um and we wanted to make sure that we have a a uh voice at the table.

And go ahead.

You were this the last one was with Dennis Kucinich, Mr.

Chairman, to um Mr.

Mark Griffin.

Uh through the chair to the councilman.

Uh the fourth uh lawsuit is a what is called a taxpayer lawsuit, where a taxpayer says, um, hey, uh you, the City of Cleveland, should be doing something that you are not doing.

And in this uh particular lawsuit, former Mayor Kucinich was arguing that uh that he didn't like the way that we were suing the Browns.

Um I will simply say uh, you know, Jones Day is put together not just an all-star team of lawyers, but truly a Hall of Fame team of lawyers from uh the former chief uh law enforcement for all of Northern Ohio for the Federal Government, Justin Herdman, to uh to incredibly talented attorneys.

So we believe that that lawsuit uh is inappropriate as it stands, and if and when we enter a settlement, it will become moot.

And then, Mr.

Chairman.

Just let you know this is uh the final question.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um the final question, Mr.

Chairman, um, is we have a deadline on the 25th of November.

And just for clarification, as one of my colleagues eloquently stated earlier, a number of us are out in our neighborhoods, all of us actually, um, working, campaigning, and we have this deadline to make a decision on a deal, I presume.

Can you elaborate why we have a deadline on November 25th and why is it so important to uh uh have a deal done at this deadline time?

Chief.

Yeah.

Uh through the through the council president.

I uh this I think this question was more precisely answered previously, but what I want to make sure that we we pull out of this is this body has correctly identified the time value of money, right?

That as time goes on, the value of money decreases uh or increases.

Uh that can work against us in developing um the stadium site.

It can also work against us in how we receive cash.

And so what we would say uh is right now there is a package in front of us that uh offers the delivery of the money up front on December 1st.

Um so the sooner we can get that cash delivered, uh the sooner we can put that money to work for us on the lakefront.

And so that is that is one of the driving factors here.

Um certainty uh getting the money in the account uh and getting that money working for us, not against us.

Mr.

Chairman, I have no further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have Councilman Hars, Councilman's life, Mara, House Jones, Kelly.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President, for holding this uh meeting here this morning.

Um I agree with you, it's really important that the voters we lose the mayor.

Okay.

Um that we uh that we uh give the taxpayers and the voters of Cleveland full transparency on this issue, and I was about to thank the mayor for being here because I wasn't expecting him to be present, but uh hopefully he comes back.

Um wonderful.

Because I was about to say thank you, Mr.

Mayor, for being here this morning.

Um I think it's hard to distill 75 years of tradition history and betrayal into uh uh a Monday morning meeting.

Um but I think we can all agree that billionaires are having quite their their day in America.

Uh from the White House to Lake Erie, billionaires are pretty much running the show and deciding what happens at all levels of government, and I think it's discouraging.

Um I think that the biggest loser in this whole thing is the working class in Cleveland, because I don't think blue-collar people will ever go to another Browns game again.

I remember my first game was 20 bucks.

Uh and now tickets are going to be 200, according to Jimmy Hasm.

That's a tenfold increase.

To put that in perspective, movies used to be $5 and now they're $15.

That's a three-fold increase.

Um, but with a $200 ticket and $150 parking, a family of three is going to spend $1,000 before they even get to their seats.

And that is not a blue-collar working class experience.

Um I really feel for the Browns fans who have spent money for generations to support this team, who are now going to be priced out of ever and join this team in person again.

I think that's what really bothers me the most about this whole move.

Um with that said, I do want to remain focused on the burden and the risk to Cleveland taxpayers uh as we move forward.

And I want to go to something through uh uh the council president to Chief Griffin that you said earlier to um that you were seeking permission to enter into a final agreement.

And my question is without us knowing what that final agreement could be, are you asking us for preemptive approval of a final agreement without us having the benefit of seeing it?

Through the chair to the councilman?

No.

Uh everything that is of substance is here uh uh in the term sheet.

I don't think either the Browns nor uh the city would agree to anything that strays from the bedrock of the term settlement agreement.

But any time that you talk about a settlement agreement, uh there's there's a lot of the uh what I would call legalese um that is not substantive.

So it's it's a question of uh choice of law.

Are we going to apply Ohio choice of law?

Almost certainly.

Uh you know, is there notice provisions?

Who gets the notice provisions?

So there's a lot where uh these things um are procedural in nature, but everything that is uh that we are going to agree to that is substantive is before you.

Okay.

And the reason I'm I'm curious about this uh is going into some of the terms that uh Mr.

Vassano pointed out at the beginning of this meeting.

Um, the value of a dollar goes down over time.

Uh the 25 million up front through the chair that's supposed to be paid to Cleveland doesn't even cover the remaining bond debt uh that we have, as as Dean Palencick pointed out.

Um so through the chair to the mayor, whoever wants to answer.

The 25 million being paid up front, what is that uh earmarked for?

It's certainly not uh money that's gonna last uh five years till demolition.

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, the 25 million is earmarked for advancing all of the work on the lakefront.

So Haslem Sports Group has been very clear that if they were to leave Cleveland, they are committed to helping us see through the transformation of the lakefront.

That will help us mitigate some of the economic factors that we've talked about today.

So that $25 million will be to advance the work on the lakefront.

So through the Chair, the $25 million will not be to mitigate the remaining costs that we have on the bond debt.

We'll just continue to pay that as normally scheduled in the budget.

To the councilman through the chair, and I think that's what was contemplated in that initial 30-year lease, that it would be a 30-year debt tied to that lease.

Okay.

Um because, Mr.

Chair, as as everybody knows and uh at the risk of beating a dead horse, a hundred million agreed to today is worth less in five years.

Uh whereas the economic benefit of the Browns, estimated at $30 million a year grows over time.

Um the revenue created and captured by the City of Cleveland uh is is an increasing number uh in five years.

It will be more than 30 million dollars through through inflation.

Um, whereas their upfront contribution is worth less.

Um so it seems to me like what we're actually getting around to is accepting really just sort of a two-year uh replacement of the revenue that we would have captured from their economic activity in the first place, which leads me into a question sort of getting back to the ones about the existing plans for renovating the current stadium through the chair.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, did we uh did you and your team have discussions with the Hasman Sports Group about the Burke location as an alternative to Brook Park that could do far more for our region and for uh sports entertainment in Northeast?

Through the Council President to Councilman Harsh, uh yes.

So um when we got word that um they were looking to go to Brook Park, um myself and the county executive asked for a four to six week window uh to put together a plan for Burke.

Uh we worked together on that.

That contemplated um obviously the city um revenue stream, so income tax, emissions tax, um, the syntax from the county, and we were assuming that um if we pitched a dome downtown, we would also work to increase this in tax.

Uh we also contemplated um an increase in the uh bed tax as well uh for a dome downtown at Burke.

We presented that plan uh to the Hasms.

Um again, that plan was rejected because uh of their thought that number one um they wanted to you know be in a new stadium by 2029.

Number two, they didn't believe we could close Burke that fast.

And third, they had some environmental concerns, which I I think we addressed and Bonic and speak to that.

So let me just be very frank with you.

Once they rejected that, uh myself and the county offered, you know, a half a billion of bond proceeds up front for the 1.2 billion dollar renovation for the lakefront.

They said no to that.

So again, we we we moved every mountain, um we we tried to deploy every kind of proposal or strategy to keep them there, but at the end of the day, HSG made a business decision to go to Brook Park.

And and I'm through the chair, Mr.

Mayor, I'm glad you brought up the bed tax and syntax because it seems like it would be an easier path for Haslam Sports Group to move forward with the county support um at Burke than it is to move against county support and Brook Park.

Um, through the chair that Mr.

Mayor, how would you feel about uh it was I think uh it was said in the in the plan deal over the weekend how insulting it would be to ask downtown hotels to raise bed tax to drive business away from downtown?

Um how would you feel if if uh a bed tax or syntax uh were to come your way?

I know that it's not a uh city issue, but uh it is a political issue.

I'm gonna leave that for the county executive and the county and this board's teams to figure that out at this stage.

Okay.

Um so having sort of dismissed a truly visionary proposal at Burke with more land, more room to move, the potential to do something bigger than just uh a covered stadium.

Um getting back to the risk of taxpayers in Cleveland, I I want to sort of drill down if we can on this notion of demolition.

Um as you pointed out through the chair, Mr.

Mayor, um, you didn't have a lot of faith in the Supreme Court, uh, the State Supreme Court to uphold any potential wins that the law department could have.

I am wondering, what if the Hasma Sports Group decided they just wanted to default on an agreement to tear down the stadium?

Because we're not talking about demolition until 2030, 31, 32, if they're going to have to stay for a couple of years, talking about demolition in six, seven years.

What if they decide there's a argument that they shouldn't have to pay that?

You know, billionaires get what billionaires want.

Um and they won't even tear it down after we even have a uh a sensible agreement.

Uh would the Supreme Court uphold you know us in that respect?

Through the Chair.

Through the Chair uh to the councilman.

Um that will be one of the pieces in the final uh settlement agreement, which is enforcement.

And you know, we expect to have um an accelerated uh resolution system so that we may not have to go through the courts uh and we can we can move more quickly uh on that.

But but the other piece that I would say is this is a different um type of lawsuit, uh if it's simply a breach of contract suit that I think uh you know we are confident that we could prevail on.

One of the uh the reasons I'm uh it came up in my in my head was because when we when I first saw the $30 million number, I knew that that was well below estimates.

And my concern is that we hold them to a $30 million number and they say, you know what, in seven years it's $55 million, but we only said $30, so $25 back on you.

We did give you $25 up front.

Yeah.

So through the Chair to uh uh the councilman, of course, their obligation is to um do the demolition and make it pad ready regardless of the cost.

So and I think as as you raised it, uh council a week ago, it could easily be more than 30 million.

And they have agreed that they will bear those risks and bear those costs.

Okay.

On that point, does that risk, if that is those costs are more than 30 eat into that 100, or is that on top of the 100?

So if it goes over by 5 million, does that mean we get 105 million as opposed to through the chair um and to the councilman?

Yes, if it goes over, that is on the Browns.

So if it's an extra five million, it goes the benefits could be 105 million.

Uh if it is 50 million that it costs, uh, then it would be you know that extra 25 million or or 20 million, I guess.

But one of the beauties in the gateway deal was that any overages, the Rocket Mortgage Group were going to cover anything that was under if they didn't have to spend the 30 million or whatever they were going to do would actually still go to the city for some other use.

Is that still the case with this as well?

No.

They they have complete responsibility for demolition and clearance.

All right, thank you, Councilman.

Thank you for appointing.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

President.

I just have two more questions then.

So as it regards the Brook Park proposal, um it sounds like we're entertaining investing public dollars and infrastructure that facilitates that.

And and it this is let me be clear what I'm doing.

Sorry, let me catch you up.

To the Council President, to the Councilman Harsh.

The only thing we are focused on is making sure that as they build this dome, it is not impact our modernization of Hopkins Airport.

That requires some level of collaboration, right?

Um so we have to make sure that that project is not interfere with our nearly two billion dollar modernization of the airport.

Now, if the city of Brook Park says, hey, um City of Cleveland, we want to entertain some kind of revenue share, uh joint economic development district or something to that effect.

Uh happy for us to have those conversations.

No, those conversations have not been contemplated yet.

But as it stands right now, our main concern is ensuring that as we go and get Federal and State funds for our airport, that it is aligned and integrated and it's not undermined by the stadium in Brook Park.

Yeah, Mr.

President, I think this is where we get into boiling the ocean because if the Hasm Sports Group starts moving forward with Brook Park and then says, well, what we really need is a little ODOT money uh and cooperation from the City of Cleveland to make sure that we get some ramps redone.

And what we really need is a little bit of RTA money to get uh a shuttle running back and forth to Brook Park.

And what we really need is a little bit of Neo RSD money because we're gonna pump sewage 80 feet from uh they're gonna build this thing eighty feet in the ground, so we need to pump a lot of sewage uphill.

Uh so we're gonna need a little bit of neo RSD money.

And in order to make that work, we're gonna need a little what water pollution control is going to have to do upgrade.

My my concern is that we do start boiling the ocean here, and before you know it, we have a lot of public tax money, a lot of Cleveland residents who are chipping into these regional government structures that are now putting their money into facilitating an econom an economic loss for downtown Cleveland, which has been the concern of my constituents that have reached out to me and said, Councilman, are we going to spend a single penny to help them take away from us?

And I said the City of Cleveland cannot hold the residents, the taxpayers of this city responsible for paying to watch us lose revenue from from the team leaving.

And I I worry about some of these overlapping governmental layers that the Cleveland taxpayers also spend money on being used to facilitate what is ultimately and uniformly an economic negative for downtown Cleveland.

So I'm not sure how we approach that uh, Mr.

President or Mr.

Mayor, without telling the residents that yes, on some level, you are paying to lose the Browns.

Chief.

I would I would just say certainly uh the the sad reality is is that the situation that you are describing is what we could describe for any of the sprawl projects that have happened across Northeast Ohio, right?

Sprawl has hurt the City of Cleveland, and it has certainly uh costed uh our region and our state more money than uh thoughtful concentrated planning.

And so um it's it's worth just meditating for a second on the the reality that that is likely true for any project that takes um work outside of the core um and moves it to the suburbs.

But what I think is also important to think about is the opportunity um and what alignment can do, because the truth is is our um airport modernization project, while is going to be substantial, um still doesn't go far enough.

It never will, right?

The the the point is to continuously uh improve our union, right?

And so the hope here will be that these infrastructure projects and uh investments can be complements uh to the work that we're doing at the airport, but certainly point well taken, sir.

Yeah, uh and m Mr.

Uh President, I I'll wrap up here.

But um every economic development professional in Northeast Ohio has pretty much come out to say that this is a terrible idea, that uh moving away from the core uh downtown Cleveland's uh economic hub for Northeast Ohio is bad.

Uh I as a kid used to drive past Richfield College uh stadium to get up here, and I remember all the conversations about what a waste it was to lose all that money uh and how we should move Cleveland sports teams into downtown Cleveland, and we finally got all three.

Um, and I still believe that in 20 years people are going to be scratching their heads and wondering how we let this happen.

Uh if they build this in Brook Park, and it is not the economic revival that people claim it to be.

It is not the advantage to the people of that region.

It is not the advan uh to the advantage of downtown Cleveland.

And I still think that this will go down as the most expensive I told you so in the history of Ohio.

Um, because this plan will not be good for us long haul.

And it seems shameful that we have to sit here and have a conversation about how to help it.

Um it's an unhappy day.

Uh but uh I look forward to having more conversations about how to mitigate the impact.

Uh and I would like to think that there is still a path forward where the Haslums can think about the benefit of all people in Northeast Ohio, can look at that Burke airport sitting out there and think about how to work cooperatively with the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County to do something that's actually transformative for the region and not just the Hasm Sports Group.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh now I have uh Councilman Charles Sleif, then Councilwoman Moore, Councilwoman House Jones, Councilman Kelly Hairston Wilch.

Thank you.

And um Councilman Harsh to your point that this could go down as the most expensive project of this kind.

I I I certainly hope that's the case, but the truth is we already have the Bengals chomping at the bit uh to replicate this down.

I mean, let's uh pause and zoom out of the city of Cleveland and this region for a second.

I hope people in Marietta are happy that their streets aren't going to get paved and that there are other services that they rely on from the state of Ohio aren't going to happen because the state is just pumping money into sports teams that aren't even anywhere near where they live.

So this is really uh uh a concerning precedent in my opinion.

Um Mayor Bibb, you you said you kind of uh uh alluded to or or um you know stated that you don't always get what you want in negotiations, and I think that we can all agree that there's a give and take, but uh you kind of end up with what you get.

Um but uh uh you know it I'm kind of compelled to say the Haslem, they could give more than 100 million dollars.

They could.

They don't want to.

And some of the greatest assets we have in this city are from the civic minded forefathers that we have Severance Hall, the Rockefellers, the Carnegie libraries.

We just don't live in an environment where people with this kind of money are civic minded.

And and I, you know, there's these jokes online of like it's kind of goes something like things that are trashy if you're poor but classy if you're rich, and it's like moving to a foreign country, speaking another language, uh having someone else raise your kids.

This is welfare in a top hat.

You know, they don't need six hundred million dollars from the state.

They didn't need the 461 million dollars from the city.

This is this is their business model, and and let's just call that out, because that's what it is.

Um it's also I think uh I gotta point out the folly of moving to Brook Park and you're gonna have an entertainment district.

Get out of here.

I mean, look, the Meadowlands in New Jersey is surrounded by a giant parking lot.

Two teams play there in in New York City area.

The Washington commanders are surrounded by a giant parking lot in one of the hottest real estate markets in the entire country, and they're moving from Maryland back into the district.

You see it in Phoenix too.

So this idea that this is gonna be somehow magically in Northeast Ohio, anything other than a giant parking lot, the likelihood of that turning into the next Pinecrest or Crocker Park is about as likely that I'm gonna be playing for the Cleveland Browns guys.

So let's just it's the fact that the fact that we all haven't come to that um uh universally sort of astounds me.

Um the last level setting, because I do want to focus on sort of next steps as they're being proposed to us.

100 million dollars is the negotiated amount.

However, say that the uh through the chair, if the demolition were to uh cost 31 million dollars, it's now 101, correct?

So that's it's it's minimum of 100 million dollars, correct?

Um Chief Davy alluded to the point that the present value of of m money money cost money is less valuable over time.

Has there been a present value analysis of the 100 million dollars and what is that number?

I believe Ms.

Travisano is going to answer that.

Yeah, to the councilman, uh 87 million is present value.

87 million.

And can we can we receive because I we've been trying to do it on our side, and we've had a couple numbers come down as low as as a 56.

Um so I think it's under it's important for us to understand what this this is not this is not a hundred million dollars.

This is much less than a hundred million dollars, given that the structure is that a large amount of it will be paid out over time.

And Ms.

Travisano, just if I could, on Councilman's point, is that depreciation based on five percent, or what was that depreciation based on the case?

To the council um and to the committee, it's based on a four percent discount rate.

And I will say four percent.

That's right.

Um 87 million is the present value.

Although we when you think about how these funds are going to be spent, you know, we're going to be able to capitalize on this 25 million dollars as soon as December 1st on this year, and that is really important for us to be able to accelerate our lakefront development.

And then when we look at these funds that are um given to the city over increments in time, we'll be able to sort of right size that amount with the projects that are going to have the most impact there.

So I'm not I have no um you know hesitation to say that we're going to feel 100 million dollars worth of impact, even if the dollars are 87 million in net present value to that.

Sure.

Are we discounting the 30 million because the demolition won't take place for a number of years?

Yes.

Okay.

But I can send.

Yes, I would.

Spreadsheet, formulas live.

Thank you.

Um I do want, you know, that was said earlier, I think, by Director Griffin that there are there there's no kings in America.

A frustration of mine when the when the negotiating team was laid out, I just personally don't understand why Council President Griffin wasn't directly involved in the negotiation.

I can understand why not 17.

That would become maybe unwieldy.

Uh but my concern at this juncture is we are being presented with a settlement that includes basically $50 million for the lakefront development, $20 million for something else, and let's put a pin in that for a second.

And a a rush deadline or an aspirational deadline of getting money as soon as December 1st, which would require legislation in November, and this is why I think it would be value for valuable for us to pump the brakes on that component of it.

Because I do think there should be a conversation about do we do we want, given all of the needs in Cleveland, given lead, do we need 20, do we need $50 million going into the lakefront?

That's not what I'm hearing from my residents.

My residents don't come downtown many of them very often, not because there's their they don't want to, but because it's just not their lived day-to-day life.

That's not how we pass through town.

And is the lakefront the only thing that we can possibly try to benefit from having an in an influx of money.

I I I throw that out for us to discuss.

That's a big topic to have.

But my my other my more narrow question: the $20 million community benefits agreement, to what degree do the Cleveland Browns or the Hasm Sports Group have an ability to agree or disagree on how we believe that $20 million should be spent.

Mayor Tame, Yuhua.

Jessica.

Yeah, I can start.

So I'll start, I'll start with the first $20 million.

Um the first that that $20 million needs to be more thoroughly defined in the settlement agreement, and I'm hoping that through these conversations, we can talk about how we want to define those $20 million and the piece of legislation that's before counselor that was introduced being introduced today, it does not say how that $20 million would be spent, knowing that we need to have additional conversations about that $20 million.

On the point of the lakefront, I mean I will uh I'll let the mayor speak to this, but developing the lakefront has been an unfulfilled dream for the city of Cleveland for over a hundred mil over a hundred years, and fifty million dollars is necessary and required for us to see through the lakefront development, and in fact, isn't enough.

We still need to look at debt through the TIFF.

We still need to look at other ways for us to finance uh the lakefront development so that we can see an impact that's going to affect Clevelanders all 365 days a year and really transform the way that our city looks and feels and how we attract people and investments to the city of Cleveland.

So I know the lakefront is something that we'll continue talking about, but the impact isn't just the lakefront, it's the entire city.

Listen, um what I want to commend uh council for is I think we've done something that no other city in the country has done, especially when we received the $512 million uh from ARPA funds uh in 2022, um, was the fact that we have really focused our ARPA dollars on making sure we put our residents and people first from the medical debt investment you guys made, from uh the hundreds of millions of dollars in housing we've deployed, from the work that we've done with CMS D and CS to put health care clinics in our in our uh schools.

Um there is much more work to do.

But I will also say this, folks.

We are in a war for population, a war for investment, and a war for talent.

Number one, um I'm really grateful that you guys partner with us to do the cyberedness fund because but for that, we would not have a pipeline of companies looking to expand or come to Cleveland without that fund.

Now we're going to have nearly a thousand acres of shovel ready job sites to retract and retain good paying, high-wage jobs back to the urban core, right?

And so we have done a whole lot together to make sure we put people and neighborhoods first.

But I'll also say this.

If we want to get talent from our peer cities across the country, whether it be Chicago, Seattle, New York, DC, Atlanta, Detroit, and grow our population, grow our tax base so we can invest more, we have to make strategic investments and strategic bets.

And I believe this waterfront investment from the shore to the core to the shore will be that critical investment that allows us to turn turn the page, including all the other great things we have done together as a government.

So in this case, I believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and it's important we not keep our not let our foot off the gas in terms of the great progress and momentum we have on the lakefront.

Yeah.

So and thank you, Mayor.

And respectfully, I think we we agree on the diagnosis of what the challenge is.

It's it's a difference in how to resolve it.

The neighborhood I represent does not have the level of vacancy that other parts of Cleveland have.

Still, the population of wards, current Ward 17, there were 15,000 more people living in it in 1970 because people don't have six kids anymore.

So if we're going to attract people back into neighborhoods like West Park or elsewhere, we need we need more housing.

Like we just don't have enough housing.

And I'm not convinced that the lakefront is going to solve that.

I feel we're putting a lot of energy into the lakefront, but we're not putting I I want us to see a more collaborative back and forth, us coming to your office, meeting about local projects and figuring out how we can do all of these things.

I worry that the lakefront becomes this distraction when there's a lot of work to do alongside the lakefront.

I will wrap up.

I have one final question.

The conversations between the administration and the Haslam Sports Group have been ongoing, obviously.

When when was when did talks of a settlement begin?

And which party offered up the 100 million dollar figure?

Director Griffin.

Okay.

Yeah.

So the answer is that the conversation for the settlement or resolution started uh three years ago.

And then as um uh as uh litigation started, then there were different conversations as well.

And so some of those were uh lawyer to lawyer, some of those were through the context of a mediation.

Uh and uh many of them were frankly hostile and adversarial.

Um but uh I will tell you that there was never a hundred million on the table uh until this very last minute.

And so I I can't get into the exact negotiations because we're in what is called a mediation privilege, but I will tell you that that um I don't think there's a penny more that's there.

There was never there was never more than a hundred million um that was even reasonable.

Okay.

Are you able to share if the Haslam's off what I really want to know is did the city do its due diligence and kind of understand the amount of money that we have spent and come to 100 million dollars based on that information or some other information, or did the other party say, we'll give you 100 million dollars, and that's it's sort of a take it or leave it deal.

I I don't know how to describe that because negotiations are often a back and forth with with uh there was never a time when there was screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth that didn't happen.

I think both sides uh behaved professionally.

Uh but I will tell you that there was a huge gap in time uh where there were no discussions because we were so far apart.

So uh when we finally got to a number of a hundred million, uh I think we decided that um you know there's a saying that that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.

Um, and the risk is that there was nothing there at all.

Our risk was at zero, and I think we we jointly came to a number that was not perfect for either side, but was beneficial for both sides.

Uh all I will say uh to the council president to the councilman.

Uh I I am I am not a lawyer, but one of the consequences of of the job is having to hang out with them a lot.

Uh and I think most would say that you know cases are only settled two ways, right?

Either settlements or judgments.

And so your question of when did when did the negotiations start?

But they they started really the moment we understood that the Cleveland Browns were uninterested in playing football on the lakefront anymore.

They continued a bit when we tried to think about what Burke would look like.

But when we invoked the Modell law, that really is the moment in which negotiations started to take place, and certainly can affirm, right?

Uh as as we stated earlier with Councilman Polensick's comments, is is zero dollars is what was guaranteed.

And so uh never uh until this agreement, uh potential agreement, um, have we seen that hundred million dollar figure?

Point of clarification.

What do the chairman's life on that point, Councilwoman Welch would like to um have an appointment?

Yes, Councilman.

Through the chair uh also uh just the methodology and what that it was based on.

Do you have that around the 100 million or the president that set the 100 million?

Is that on the record somewhere or to understand how the breakdown happened?

Yeah, I understand that that it was based upon what we thought the risks are and what a baseline of zero was.

Um there was not an analysis of sunk costs that were already gone, but it was um does this fairly represent uh something that is fair to the taxpayers where uh we don't leave them with nothing, we don't leave us with nothing, where we avoid uh future costs and where we accelerate like front development.

So uh again, if you're asking for a baseline, the baseline again was zero.

Councilman.

Thank you.

Just a couple of points on the councilman's uh point.

The bedrock was a classic example of how council was able through direct negotiations to work directly with bedroph, to your point.

And we were able to come up to some agreements about community benefits.

Uh once again, the chair, uh Anthony Harrison was very involved, as well as the leadership team, former Councilman McCormick and Councilwoman Santana.

And what made this a little bit different is that there was a lawsuit trying to be settled.

And the agreement is the agreement will be what is needed in order to move the legislation forward.

So now we're kind of behind the A-ball, and there's some things that we're gonna have to discuss about how the money is being losed.

But to your point, one of the things, and I don't want to get delve into the legislation, it really gives the Browns a lot of authority, and what we're gonna have to ferret out is how council has more authority because it is our fiscal responsibility to make sure how those dollars are expended and accepted.

So those are things that we'll have a discussion, and that's one of the reasons why I'm focused on process and how we'll do that.

So you brought up some very good questions.

The other thing I do want to acknowledge if he cut uh Scott Skinner, Scott Skinner is uh with um the North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation.

At some point in time, I do want Scott and his team, which I've had conversations over the weekend, uh as well as uh Chairman Harrison, who's on that committee to really discuss with us what this could potentially mean for the lakefront um outcome.

And that's why I'm trying to take my time and look at this from a thorough process with the councilman starr's point.

Um really um we're up against a tight timeline.

And that's what's a little bit concerning about some of this.

Um lot of people don't want to hear this, but two-thirds of council are in competitive races right now.

And um, I don't like to inject politics in a lot of things, but it's gonna be hard to try to get any of them here at the table to really roll up their sleeves when they're two weeks away from being in a very contested hot races.

So that's why we're gonna have to do a lot of juggling and have a lot of conversation on that whole thing.

So and I know be and I don't want them to leave yet.

Um, and I want to acknowledge, I see uh Mr.

Wandelowski and all the men and women of labor, if they could please stand, I want to acknowledge them.

They're here today.

All the men and women of labor want to acknowledge them today.

So thank you so much for being here today.

I know this is very important to you.

Once again, um, I hope you watch all of these uh deliberations because at the end of the day, um council is just trying to do what's right for Cleveland, and we're just trying to do our job.

Just like you guys are advocating uh for whatever you need to for your members, we have a lot of constituents that want us to make sure that we do our due diligence.

So thank you for being here.

We value your uh opinion, we value what you guys bring to the table.

Thank you so much.

I'll now move to Councilwoman Rebecca Moore and then Councilwoman House Jones and then Councilman Kelly.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Um thank you to everyone here today.

I have never had to give this caveat at the beginning of a statement, but I've been running ragged, and uh, this is the worst I've ever felt at the council table.

So I just I don't feel a hundred percent, and I hope you'll patient with me if it just takes me a minute to find my words sometimes.

But um I I also uh part of why I'm here today, I've also never been in a position where I've been wearing a t-shirt underneath my blazer, and uh the t-shirt is one of my guiding principles.

As we face down a difficult deal, you have to have your North Stars, you have to know why you're here.

And uh, for those of you who can read it, it says, Comrade Haslam, socialism for NFL owners, rugged capitalism for the rest of us.

And it's a line from an op ed that was published last year in Cleveland scene about the 600 million dollar deal that uh the state offered to the Haslums.

And what I want to emphasize about it is that the billionaire class in this country wants part of what happened today in this meeting, which is all of us looking side to side, left to right at each other.

The the billionaire class doesn't want us looking up and down, seeing the wide gaps that they have created in our society.

And let's be real here.

I I appreciate the mayor's statements about the position that the $600 million of the state put us in.

This city actually held the line.

This council held the line, the mayor held the line about making sure we didn't make a bad deal of jeopardizing our general fund to billionaire NFL owner teams who have frankly offered a terrible product to the city.

The other option I was thinking of this morning was my factory of sadness t-shirt that I've purchased out in front of the Brown Stadium when I went and watched them lose.

I want to preface my questions in that sense of up and down.

I don't want to be, I'm not here to fight with the administration.

I'm here to find the very best deal for the residents of the city of Cleveland.

I'm here to make sure that this council does its job.

I am here to make sure that we do the very best we can when the state has set up hurdles that fuel and encourage the billionaire class to pull money away.

Let's remember that the Republicans at the State House who approved this $600 million have been unconstitutionally funding our schools for decades, and they would never ever consider putting that $600 million into something like CMSD.

In that spirit of looking side to side, I do know when we talked about the building trades that were here, almost every visitor in the room stood up.

And I want to offer a side-to-side comment and uh a comment about us making sure that we look up and down, that we issue these critiques up and down.

With the building of the new stadium, the the building trades are here because they have an incredible opportunity for their members to provide high-paying family sustaining jobs for years, but not a long time, just a couple of years as this building is being done.

We should absolutely be supportive and make sure that we hold the line that high-quality union trades build this stadium.

But to the building trades that are here today, I am also asking you that you use your leverage.

Use your leverage, Mr.

Wondolowski, to make sure that the jobs in this stadium that will go on for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years are also union.

We've already seen the Haslam Sports Group enter into deals with groups like Legends that are non-unionized.

We're we're gonna have concessions workers.

We are gonna have people who are running these games day to day who are currently unionized in the stadium back here.

And the Haslam Sports Group is setting it up so that those jobs are not unionized at this new stadium.

And in the spirit of looking up and down, Mr.

Wandelowski, you have an incredible opportunity with your men and women to make sure that you use your leverage to make sure it's not just union high-quality jobs for you all, but it's union high-quality jobs for all of us.

So I'm asking you to keep that in mind.

I also want to make sure that I understand the leverage that we had in this deal.

In the spirit of looking up and down, making sure that we hold the billionaires accountable.

It's it's just been nagging at me that we didn't have we haven't understood the terms of the lease extension.

There's there's parentheticals in the term sheet saying we're gonna start getting this community benefits money.

We're gonna start getting this community benefits money once the lease ends at the airport.

But there was reporting on Friday that the Haslums are gonna need an extension on the lakefront.

But I note that this extension is not built into this deal.

My question through the chair to the mayor and to the team, why isn't an extension agreement, if it's needed by the Haslums, if it is on the table, why are we executing a deal before we finalize one of our key pieces of leverage, which is an extension of their use of the existing stadium?

Ms.

Trevor Bisano, director.

Yeah, to the councilwoman through the chair.

Uh there is an option for a lease extension that is within the term sheet, and it's it's spelled out to say that they have two one-year options to extend under the current terms of the lease.

Although HSG has been unequivocal, that they do not anticipate needing that extension.

It is built in there as a piece of insurance, but they do not believe that they're going to need that extension.

The the two the three pieces that kind of come on after the lease terminates are the pieces that you know are are intended to mitigate the economic harm of the Browns leaving.

So if they were to extend the lease, you know, from 29 to 2030, and then if they choose again 30 to 31, that's when we anticipate those additional five million dollars per year for the lakefront would be more necessary so that we could do site work.

So if they were to extend the lease, you know, from 29 to 2030, and then if they choose again 30 to 31, that's when we anticipate those additional five million dollars per year for the lakefront would be more necessary so that we could do site work, but we can't do that until the demolition is done.

So it makes sense, I think, for how we see these funds being used that they would come in after the lease is over.

But the the term sheet does specifically say when those options could be extended.

Thank you.

I think your press releases did not speak to it, but the term sheets uh do include two one-year extensions to be clear.

So we did negotiate over the extension options as part of this settlement.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um and did we discuss at all um uh ongoing maintenance in those two-year periods?

What we know is that with the um stadium kind of at the end of its lifespan, currently the city is on the hook for all of the maintenance.

Uh was there any discussion about Haslam sports groups taking on the maintenance cost over that additional extension through the chair?

To the council person through the chair, that is not incorporated in the term sheet.

Okay, thank you.

I I think that uh it seems important to make sure to include that, because frankly, it's gonna be millions of dollars to get us a couple more years out of this stadium.

At least that's the uh the line that the Haslam sports groups held out when they um were were trying to negotiate in earlier iterations.

Um I'd also like to talk a little bit um just because uh uh personally I I think I'll end up being a member of this uh class action about the unclaimed funds at um the state level being so if if for those who haven't followed at home, the 600 million dollars that the Haslums are taking uh is largely being pulled from unclaimed funds.

Uh uh average everyday Ohioans who had $10 here, $20 there, $100 here, uh, that had ended up not being claimed uh and ending up in this sort of uh pool of money called the unclaimed funds pool.

Um and of all things, I I've got a claim in there that I can't get my money back.

I've got an a mortgage with Huntington Bank, which is on the stadium.

Uh I pay my uh uh my home insurance through uh my monthly mortgage payments.

Uh there was an overage in the insurance cost when I then switched home insurance providers because we know that it takes a lot these days to get home insurance in Cleveland.

Uh and Huntington claims they sent me a cashier's check.

They cannot find a copy of that cashier's check uh but uh or any record of it, but they claim I didn't I didn't get it, and then they have now sent it to the state, and I can't get that money back.

Um and there is a class action that is pending for people in my position who might have money in that unclaimed funds.

And that is a critical piece of the puzzle.

And I'll tell you why I'm heading here.

I have this spidey sense.

I have this spite, or I actually what I want to say first is the mayor is correct that we would be in a much worse position if we were here talking about getting zero dollars.

And we would be in an even worse position than that if we were here talking about the Browns leaving the region.

If we weren't talking about a Brook Park again, we were talking about a Baltimore.

And I have this spidey sense in the back of my mind that if we take the current stadium off the table before the new stadium is a done deal, we could end up in a position where we get checkmated as a city, and the Haslam Sports Group says, actually, neither of these are gonna work, we gotta leave town.

And the ways that I see that happening is if the 600 million dollars from the state disappears.

Comrade Haslum wants that 600 million dollars.

He wants that funding from the state to make his deal work.

And if he doesn't get that 600 million, suddenly the Brook Park Stadium is off the table.

But now we will have entered into a settlement agreement to remove our claims to the lakefront stadium.

And so through the chair to the mayor and his staff, I want to hear your understanding of the validity of uh your understanding and analysis of the $600 million fund that is going to the Haslums and whether you believe that is in any way at risk because of the lawsuit over unclaimed funds at the state level.

Director.

Through the chair to uh the councilwoman.

Uh let me just say there is always risk.

And so um I don't want to comment on someone else's lawsuit.

My understanding that uh former Ohio Attorney General Mark Dan, I believe, is is handling that lawsuit or one similar to that.

So I think until that is resolved, um, I think I think that there is uncertainty.

Uh I think what we know, I think which is good is that we would have a guaranteed 25 million dollars.

And so if they come back to the lakefront, we would have the 25 million and we'd have the Browns.

So that's one of the ways that the uh that this settlement protects taxpayers uh for the city.

Uh with respect to the outcome of any lawsuit, I I can't give you a judgment on that.

I I might say one clarification, which is 25 million dollars and then the other pieces, the demolition, the additional 25, then the 20 million community benefits, those if they left Cleveland, those would still come to the city.

So those are only in question, you know, if they end up staying in Cleveland, playing in Cleveland.

And and what I want to clarify is would you accept this deal if what was really happening was that the Haslums were taking the Browns away from Northeast Ohio in total?

Would a hundred billion dollars be worth it if the Browns were leaving in total through the chair?

I mean it's a hypothetical, but uh we I mean it'd be a different conversation.

Yeah, and and and I think that's fair, right?

I I I and what I want to get at is that this settlement agreement does not include a term that the Brooke Park deal will happen.

It can't, because it there the on Brooke Park deal still has unsettled terms, correct?

Through the Chair?

Please understand, we don't want to be contingent on the Brook Park deal.

Yeah.

We we want to protect our taxpayers and not have it depend on what they do in Brook Park.

And let me just add one more addendum.

Um there were conversations where the only money we would get would have been if the county financed Brook Park.

And so I was very clear in making sure that any money coming to the city of Cleveland was not contingent on the county supporting the Brook Park deal.

Can I read between the lines here?

We said no a lot.

The mayor said no a lot.

And we are here today at yes, only after a lot of no's thank you.

I I think that's fair.

I I think what I would counter that with is if there were a lot of no's and then the yes came very suddenly over one weekend.

I think something materially changed for the Haslums that we might not fully understand.

I don't I don't want to.

If we could, could everybody please run up through the chair could be a little bit more.

Council president uh to the councilwoman.

Um let me be very frank.

This was uh a moving target over the last year in terms of how we were getting to some kind of optimal solution once we enacted the model law.

Um let me tell you what kept me up at night.

They got the 600 million, which none of us could have anticipated.

Then they gutted the Model law.

Then when we articulated our claims at ODOT uh due to safety concerns with the height of the proposed stadium, they were able to reverse ODOT and get ODAT to go in their favor.

So again, I'm looking at all the headwinds and how the political cards were stacked against us.

And let's say a year from now, once they secured all the financing for Brook Park and the lease was up, we could have been in court absolutely, and we would have been paying a million and two million more a year in legal fees.

But then, and come 2029 without some kind of settlement, guess what?

Zero.

Yeah.

Zero, zero, zero.

And I could not look this body in the eye.

I could not look our residents in the eye, and not have pragmatic, thoughtful leadership and making sure we weren't left empty-handed.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And again, in uh my uh line of sights is on the Haslums.

Um my line of sights is on what this NFL team has taken from the city versus what it's given to the city, and what is best for the residents and what uh upholds the values of this body.

Uh I only have one uh further line of questioning, uh, which is is just more informative.

Uh there's a line in the uh term sheet.

Well, actually, there's a line in the um uh press release, but I I couldn't find it in the term sheet around Burke Lakefront Airport.

Um and I wanted to just get a little bit of an explanation about this idea of the Haslums agreeing to the re or participating in the redevelopment of Burke Lakefront and what that meant uh for you all and what it meant in terms of the term sheet through the chair.

Just little fine on that.

Yeah, um, to the councilman through the chair.

Um, section one subsection G uh says the the parties will use best effort or the Browns will use best effort to assist the city regarding its infrastructure plans related to road and air travel with respect to both the Brooke Park Stadium, mixed use project and the development of the Cleveland Lakefront, including redevelopment of Burke Lakefront Airport property.

That's what's in the term sheet.

Uh really it's intended to just capture this collaboration that we've talked about with this willingness to start to work together on you know things that are both important to the city and important to HSG, including the future closure of Burke that we hope to see uh in order to facilitate development there.

There's nothing around sort of develop a commitment to develop Burke.

It's really just a commitment to collaborate on that shared goal.

Thank you.

And and I guess if this settlement is an agreement towards sort of closing out HSG's relationship on the lake front, why is Burke at play?

Uh is the time is the idea that they would be involved in the future years before the demo happens, or is this a commitment or is this and does this include anything after the site becomes pad ready for HSG to be involved on the lake front through the chair?

Uh through the chair to the councilwoman.

Through the chair to the councilwoman, I I would say that it is in the same spirit of this conversation today, which is it's centered on the residents and the long-term vitality of the city of Cleveland.

What we know and have come to understand about uh the Hasm Sports Groups is that they're adept at navigating Columbus and they're adept at navigating the federal administration.

And so if uh one of our North Stars, one of our goals as a community is to rethink Burke and rethink the lakefront, um, having a partner, one that is collaborative that can think through um how uh to work with federal partners, we should we should be doing that.

And so it is this is not so much a statement about um what development rights look like or real estate investments, um, but more uh to their commitment to um a future lakefront that is is viable for all.

And I think you you don't just see that expressed in the particular deal point that uh Jessica was just describing.

Uh you see it in their commitment for upfront capital investment.

And so, you know, what what we as two parties are saying is uh if this uh departure no longer having the economic activity at Brown Stadium uh is not there, how do we think about new and future economic activity?

And we want all sorts of partners.

I think that's demonstrated by some of them who are sitting behind us who who sit on the lakefront right now.

Uh we want we want more City of Cleveland stakeholders uh invested in this America's North Coast.

Uh thank you.

So just a clear yes or no, Chief.

Um this settlement deal contemplates HSG's involvement at Burke Lakefront after the site is pad ready.

That is that is not correct.

This this deal contemplates, I think the specific language is cooperation on the the future of the of the site.

So uh this deal contemplates cooperation on Berkeley with Burke Lakefront and the lake uh on on Berkeley Front Airport and the lakefront in general with HSG after the site is pad ready.

As would be opposed to opposition, correct?

To the chair, there's a there's a world where any stakeholder could also oppose uh through a number of means, right?

That could be communication, that could be legal, that could be through investment.

There's a lot of ways that we could think about them not being a partner uh uh or uh collaborator.

And so I would say that rather than expressing anything specific, uh it is expressing their commitment uh to collaboration and not opposition.

Councilwoman is uh you got any closing questions.

No, I think that uh this issue of HSG's involvement in the lakefront post the site being pad ready seems critical to me, and I'd like to understand exactly how it's spelled out.

If uh it given that this is essentially their removal from the area, I don't understand why we're holding the door open for them, uh, but I will leave it there given the length of time I've taken.

Thank you, Chairman.

And we are going to have further conversations, so thank you so much because I think you have some great questions on that.

Uh Councilwoman House Jones, Councilman Danny Kelly, Councilman Harrison Wilch, and then Casey acts to be put back on.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Uh through the chair to the team that's here this afternoon now.

Um so can you uh just speak to the timeline?

When was the council president notified of this settlement term sheet?

What day was he notified before you all had the press conference last Monday?

And it was debriefed about read today.

Um two things.

One, uh I believe two weeks ago I had a very personal conversation with the council president saying we're still in the throes of this thing, they're they're not offering enough money, we're gonna keep fighting.

Then um when we got to a high-level framework uh before the press conference, I called the council president.

You said be just clarification.

Before the council president, before the day of, so that was last Monday?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, appreciate it.

Um through the chair uh to the team here, as we are looking at there were two things that were um discussed, we were talking about point one G, which says use best efforts to assist, but then the previous one F says cooperate with I you know I'm not going to even get into that.

Just grab that out the way.

Um so I guess is the understanding and just listening to this conversation, is the understanding how long is the intention for us to cooperate and have um best efforts to assist with the lakefront development plan and Hopkins Airport and our participation uh yeah, how what is the anticipated timeline for how long that's gonna these cooperation and best efforts?

Through the council president to the councilwoman, I would say through completion.

Um we're on target to hopefully um on our Chief Twin's leadership and director of Francis' leadership, um, complete the airport modernization project by 2032.

Um and we have some immediate things we want to accomplish on the lakefront over the next four to six years.

And so uh I'm assuming over the next you know four to eight years we're gonna need to be working with all of our key stakeholders in the region to execute these projects.

Okay.

And through the through the chair uh to the team here, um, have we identified the how many businesses will be impacted from the move of the what is it called?

The Brook Park mixed use project.

How many businesses in the city of Cleveland will be impacted?

Running the economic models.

I don't have that specific data, but some of that is outlined in the economic impact report we released with city council.

And and to the councilman's or the chair, I mean, I think on economic impact, this is one of the places where we really have to think about the lease ends in 2029, and we don't have tools to force the Browns to stay past 2029.

And so this hundred million dollars that we're able to secure, I think is essential for us to be able to accelerate all of the good work that we need to do on the lakefront to make sure that we're activating that lakefront 365 days a year to do everything that we can to support the businesses who are downtown, because I think your point is well taken that this is going to be something that's impactful, and we have a responsibility to think about how to mitigate that impact, which is why we have an entire short or quarter shore strategy with bedrock with the lake front in the core to try to build up our downtown so that we're not beholden to one big stakeholder on the lake front.

Okay, thank you.

Just following up to the team here.

So especially where could I find that of how many businesses will actually be impacted based on your economic modeling?

Where can I find it?

Yeah, to have you know the page number.

I mean, I'm just sorry, I might be a little busy right now, but if in in in short order, uh, if you can actually uh share that with me, yes, appreciate that.

And then um I guess uh hmm, as we talked about um through the chair to the team here, uh this cooperate with best efforts to assist with um as we look at not just the um the development of this mixed use project to understand many times the long-term ramifications when it comes to investment in infrastructure.

So um is this cooperate and best efforts to assist uh be utilized in partnerships as individuals are going for infrastructure money.

So currently, right now um the Hasm Sports Group has put in, and I know it's other ones, but this one speaks to who cooperates with each other and don't uh the current track application that's with the Ohio Department of Transportation, that's the Transportation Review Advisory Council, where there's a 70 million dollar application in um to support the development in comparison to the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authorities, I believe they have a $16 million of uh uh application in to the Ohio Track Project, which I know uh RTA has significantly been working years upon years upon years to try to improve the actual infrastructure, um which is again many of everyday hardworking Clevelanders utilize this, and many times because we don't have friends who will work on the people's behalf, um, and it will be a good exercise, I would say Clevelanders to actually look at the two applications um that were put into the Ohio Department of Transportation, look at the individuals who actually supported the project, look at the difference.

Look at the difference of who is actually trying to support and advocate for everyday working peep people versus don't.

Is that the type of leverage we're going to get moving forward to help us with some of our other infrastructure projects over the next four to eight years?

That's the goal.

That's the goal.

Okay.

I'm gonna run the clock.

I'm gonna see what them support letters look like uh between now and 2032.

But uh if if if if history um proves what it is, we we already know the answer to this.

And I will just say this, because we talked about this, um, and like I said, that application in of itself speaks to what is going on throughout this country with these billionaire billies buying their way to everything, to everything, and expect everyday working people to have to pay for it and smile and be glad at it.

Be very clear.

I I'm not it is much better to be in a position to be charitable than be charitaby, and that's what people it looks like we should just be glad that that they're doing something, and that's really really really unfortunate when you look around, even in this room, like I'm I come in this space always as a black woman, right?

And even right now, when you look around in this room, there are very few people that give a darn about black women's flight in this city, right?

Even when we talk about this built environment collaborative, about these working real family sustering wages, when we talk about our trades in our unions, how many black women who are increasingly heads of households in Cleveland, how many black women are working in our trades?

We have this devastation and rainbow tears that's going on.

How many how many of those families who have been their lives been transcended?

How many of them have been connected to these labor guild labor jobs?

How many?

Zero.

How many?

But then people want me to with a straight face to be like this is okay.

We want hard working people.

No, I want to see black women hard workers being benefiting for these billion dollar deals.

And if they are not benefiting from it, we are causing ourselves a grave disservice.

And if you feel some way about what I'm saying, check yourself about why you feel that way.

But that's all I have to say, Mr.

President.

All right.

Next we have Councilman Danny Kelly, then Councilman Harrison Welch, and then Casey.

Um through the chairman to the mayor and the team, thank you for all being here.

There's been a lot of things that are brought up that probably a lot of us would have asked that's already been there.

Um I would just say one of the things that I'm looking at right now is the community benefits agreement and making sure that we get uh my residents and Cleveland residents uh an opportunity uh, especially be part of the work down there, the building trades.

We have a great need right now in the in the trades, and I've talked to President Griffin about it, uh, where we have to get young people or more people in.

And I think this is an opportunity to do that.

I I will say this to my fellow colleagues that uh when you're in a union, union book, you it doesn't matter where you live, what color your skin are, what religion you are, you could be a Dalmatian, you all get the same amount of money, the same benefits, the same dignity, and the same pride.

And I have worked with many different people in the building trades.

I really have we are as of years ago, much better today and being very inclusive.

Right now, today, I just want to make sure my residents, because I've been knocking on doors too, and the Browns have been the big topic, but the people that I run into that know I'm a you know a labor guy, 47-year member, local 310, proud member, raised four kids with that union book in my backparty.

This is a tremendous opportunity so that we can have some sort of opportunity to get Cleveland residents, men and women, young and old, in into the trades.

I mean, out of CMSG, right out of the pipeline, maybe two years in the college where they decide.

So I will be really looking very closely at that of what we do.

And through you, mayor and your administration, and through President Griffin and uh this council, we're gonna have a lot of shovel ready uh opportunities here.

And uh it's gonna be an opportunity to get men and women in in great paying jobs that like uh Councilwoman Maurers said, not only pay well and help benefits pension, gives you dignity on the job site, but I'll be up behind that gives you pride when you're walking around the neighborhood or wherever you're at that you belong to that union and that you help build that skyscraper or whatever else you might build.

So that uh everything else has been discussed, but I will really be focusing on working jobs for the city of Cleveland so that our people can maintain and rise and make a living out of that for their families.

So that's about all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

And thank you for um making that statement.

Councilman Anthony Harrison, Councilwoman Lauren Welch, Councilwoman Deborah Gray, Councilman Casey.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, uh it's been a long morning.

I know this is the first crack at this, as you've indicated.

We have uh I'm sure we're gonna spend many more more days and uh and hours around this issue of the 100 million dollar deal that we're discussing here uh this morning.

Um so thank you for your your leadership, uh, Mr.

President.

Uh just a little little different take uh for me.

You know, uh I I know that we are all here where many of us are upset about when we knew about what you know what we knew about you know the deal and and how we all found out uh about the deal.

You know, no doubt that I believe that you maybe a little bit more advanced notice could have been given, right?

Uh I don't think any of us is disputing that.

But I also understand that when you when you're a part of negotiations or when when things are are are moving and you have 18 different opinions and ideas, how things can quickly get muddy, right?

And I do not believe it would have been the right thing to do for the administration uh to have 18 different uh viewpoints and inputs in deciding how we move forward, right?

We elect the mayor for a reason.

We elect council members for a reason.

We elect the a leader of this body, the council president for a reason.

And so uh I believe that it is incumbent upon us that we stand behind those that we have elevated to these positions to do the work on all of our behalves, right?

Not that I'm not saying that you know we won't feel some sort of way about the decisions that we've all made, because we all have to make tough decisions every single day.

Every single day we are here in 601 Lakeside in Cleveland, Ohio.

We are forced to make tough decisions.

Sometimes people will agree with those decisions, sometimes people won't, right?

However, we still have to make the decision.

So you take it, you know, as it is.

And so uh for me, I look at this a little bit differently.

You know, we're here.

The facts are the facts.

We we we don't have a state government that that's on our side, right?

We don't have time that's on our side, right?

We don't have many other factors that has been laid out here today that's on our side.

And so the best thing that we could do is do what?

What we've all asked to be done is that we do not leave the taxpayers holding the bag.

There's a difference about coulda, should've would have, 100 million, 300 million, 700 million.

But the end of the day, the number that we have is 100 million.

The foundation is a hundred million dollars that we're discussing.

So, you know, my viewpoint is that how do we move forward with the deal that we do have that's in front of us, right?

How do we uh articulate our our thoughts and concerns and and and and find ways that we can collectively pull together to see what else may be out there?

I hear through the chair uh from our our our our law director that the hundred million dollars is it, right?

There's there's nothing else there.

But I'm optimistic, right?

I'm sure folks from the HSDHS uh HSG team and the Cleveland Browns are watching, and they hear the frustrations of council members and and what we believe are are important to our residents and how uh we believe and others believe that you know uh there's a little bit more left there that we can squeeze out for the people who who who uh live in these communities, who work in these communities uh that make Cleveland what it is.

So I'm optimistic, Mr.

Chairman, and to the mayor and your team that there may be a little bit more there.

That we can we can find a little bit more there uh by collectively sharing our voice, you know, with HSG and the Cleveland Browns about the needs that that are that exist for those who live and work and play here in the city of Cleveland.

So Mr.

Chair, uh Mr.

Chair, I I am optimistic about the possibilities that that lies in front of us.

Mr.

Chair, I'm also optimistic about you know the long-term um conversations around you know the new stadium going up in Brook Park and the work that's gonna happen here, you know, uh after the Browns has left, you know, our waterfront, and how we can ensure that the people who are Clevelanders who work at the stadium now uh have access to get to Brook Park, right?

The other conversations that we're not thinking about, that you know, it's gonna be a longer ride, you know, a longer uh travel time to get to Brook Park and how you know we can work with the team and others to make sure that there's additional support for those workers who are traveling from our neighborhoods further out, you know, to uh to Brook Park, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chair, I I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm thoughtful about you know how we can ensure that as many Clevelanders as we can be a part of this job site, you know, Mr.

Chair, and having that conversation.

You know, working with our building trades, who's gonna play a very big role in the uh the the building of this new stadium and a big role in the demolition of the stadium, right?

You know, I'm I'm optimistic about the conversations that are gonna come out of those discussions, Mr.

Chair, that how many Clevelands are we gonna put on these job sites, right?

How many minority firms are going to really have uh uh meaningful engagement on these this job site in Brook Park and also this job site that we're gonna have here in Cleveland, because it's that's gonna be work here in Cleveland as well, Mr.

Chair.

So, you know, I look at today as a starting point that we can take the discussions from the day, the thoughts and concerns of the day, you know, and really come together to figure out our long-term uh the long-term success, the long-term uh uh work that is gonna be required, you know, for each and every one of us in this room.

Um, and the people, really the people who sent us down here, you know, how it's gonna really benefit them, you know, uh as we move forward, you know, in our discussions around this uh Cleveland Brown Stadium, Mr.

Chair.

You know, just a few questions uh through the chair to the administration.

You know, have we have we crunched the numbers and looked at the debt that is left on the stadium uh versus the revenue that we are going to continue to receive between now and the end of the Browns uh lease here uh in Cleveland through the chair.

Yes.

To the councilman through the chair, we uh do have those numbers.

I don't have them in front of me, but I can provide them.

Thank you.

And through the chair to uh um Mr.

Vassano, uh, do we believe that the revenue that we are we're going to generate over the next uh few years is going to be uh enough to uh cover our uh uh debt payments and other uh maintenance obligations that we're required uh by uh between the city of Cleveland and the Browns lease.

Through the chair.

To the council person, I believe that.

I think so.

Yes.

Let me check all of my numbers.

I haven't done the I haven't done that exact analysis, but I believe yes.

Got it.

Um thank you.

And so really those were the biggest concerns for me.

I know we we all have taken out our calculators, right?

We all have elevated ourselves to mathematicians, right?

You know, we all we we we all know um you know better than you know what the facts are, right?

We all believe differently than what the facts are.

You know, but I I'm interested in you know the truths, right?

I'm interested in the facts.

You know, I I I do believe that you know, um again, as I said earlier, that we had all the factors, the factors working against us, right?

And um would I have others like to see more?

Absolutely.

But you know, uh we have to start somewhere.

And so, Mr.

Chair, you know, I I look forward to this coming to uh DPS.

I look forward to this coming to the committee that I chair and also the other committees that you intend to send us to, Mr.

Chair, municipal service and finance, because we can dive deeper into some of the other questions.

You know, the the life after, right?

You know, the life during, you know, the work that we expect to happen over these next few years uh relating to uh the move of the uh the Cleveland Browns.

And so I'll leave it there, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you for your your leadership, Mr.

Chairman, from bringing us all together.

Uh thank you for bringing us together so that way we can could uh uh stop assuming, right?

So we can stop you know uh hurling uh uh inaccurate information, right?

That we can really come together as a council and administration to talk about you know uh what we have before us, you know, what's reality, you know, what's fact, you know, what's a myth, you know, how we work together to move forward in the best interest of the people that we all serve, all 18 of us were elected to represent, and that is the people who live, work and play here in the city of Cleveland.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilman Harrison.

Councilwoman Lauren Wilch.

Through the chair, I just want to say thank you so much for your leadership and bringing us together today.

I want to say thank you to the mayor for allowing us to have this conversation and thank you to his team for coming to the table.

I agree with my colleague on this starting point and having a pathway forward.

Um, I have to tell you, like many of our other colleagues or my colleagues, um, my phone has been ringing off the hook, text messages off the hook since um Friday.

Um, and so many of those people aren't just residents, they're local business owners.

Um and I think sometimes in the conversation it gets lost that our local business owners are also taxpayers, they are also people who have families.

And so I just want to offer up if it hasn't already been happening um that in the discussions, even if it's just the 20 million that we're thinking about what it looks like for them to thrive.

These are many business owners, not just in downtown Cleveland, but in the flats, who um are benefiting from the egress from the Brown Stadium, right?

And so as we're thinking about the lakefront and we're thinking about shore to core to shore, um, that egress and what's that looks looks like for them as we're developing these plans in the future.

I think a lot of them again are just now recovering from COVID-19.

A lot of them, if I can even say recovering, are trying to make ends meet um when there aren't Browns games going on, when there aren't Cavs games going on, when there aren't Guardians games going on, right?

I live downtown, so I understand on a regular basis that sometimes it's a little empty.

Um, right.

And so um it's important that as we're having these conversations and in these negotiations, that I hope that they are top of mind.

Um also to my colleague's point about um the workers that are at the Brown Stadium, what that transition looks like for hospitality workers.

I know that there's been some conversations about um people who are working in the construction industry, but there are many people that I know that I work with on a regular basis who are uh with airmark, who volunteer, who need to figure out what they're gonna do as we're in the middle of transition, and some of them don't have transportation to get out there.

Um and so what does that look like?

What's the plan for them?

Um how are they gonna be able to make ends meet?

And then finally, um, I guess just also some consideration um to Councilman Harsh's point around taxation.

You know, our so many of us have been paying so many taxes or so many projects for a very long time.

It would be great to see just the scope.

What have we been looking at for the last decade around what we've been paying, what haven't we been paying so people can understand that, and then also see side by side the progress and the work that's been happening every day in 601 because there's tons of work that's being done, some great work that's being done to make sure that these places are being connected and we have a foundation so we can bring in talent and we can have an economic future that's successful for all of us.

So I think seeing those things side by side, seeing um how they're working hand in hand with some of the progress that's being made, I think would be extremely helpful for so many of our residents and local business owners.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, uh Councilman Welch, and welcome to your to Cleveland City Council.

You're getting baptized early.

Councilwoman Deborah Gray, and then uh Councilman Casey has asked to be put back on.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

I appreciate this, and thank you, Mayor and his team coming to the table.

But I just want to uh uh express my uh sentiment about uh the Browns.

I am a Browns fan, as far as back I remember as um uh my colleague Customer Casey say, uh we are dedicated and we are and we are and we are emotionally attached to the Cleveland Browns.

So uh so to say the least, going back, I just have a question pertaining to, as you said earlier, Chair to the mayor, you said that the state gutted uh the Mundale law, and that is heart reaching uh due to that because when um when the state gutted the Mundale law, was that early part this year?

When um you know when uh Dewine put that out.

Um but when they did that, even though, because I'm reading some notes, uh, even though that uh Jimmy Hasman bought the team in 2012, and I f almost forgot that he bought the team from uh learner who sold it to them uh you know to him for a billion dollars.

So, due to all that, that time frame, and then the Mondale law was created during that time after the fact, why was it?

I know I know no one could answer that question.

Probably Casey can answer this question per se, probably not you, not demanding your position, Mayor, because we were much younger, you know, you were per se.

But however, during this whole process, during this whole process, when when um when the when Hassan bought the Browns and the name, but uh also we also had the Mondale law.

Why was it nothing done then at the time of restricting um you know, restricting this type of deal alone the way, or was there some type of small print in that passage of them agreeing that lessonization at that time for this to happen, you know, for this move to happen, either um, you know, either you or um or my griffin can answer that question.

Through the council president to the councilwoman, I'll chime in quickly and I'll let um Mark answer as well.

Listen, um, as you uh alluded to, I was uh a ripe old 12 years old uh in 1999 uh when the Browns came back.

Um as you know, in the existing lease, there is no uh financial or legal obligation for whoever owns the Browns to stay in the city after the lease expires in 2029.

So I was not the mayor then, I did not structure that lease.

Um but that's how the current lease reads, and so we were just managing the situation with the existing lease that we inherited.

Mark, you want to chime in on that?

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um it's hard to predict what why things weren't done in particular uh several years ago.

Uh but it's our belief and certainly our argument that when um the Haslems purchased the team, they purchased it subject to the laws of the state of Ohio.

And and actually in the original lease, it required the Browns and anyone who who comes in after them to obey the laws of Ohio, however they might be.

And one of those laws, of course, was the Model Law.

So I think the answer to your question in part is uh we believe that the Model law then, and actually today, uh still applies, um, although it was changed.

So uh the General Assembly, as you know, changed it today so that it only applies if if uh teams are moving out of state.

Uh so I think the thought was well, we're covered by the Model law.

We should be okay.

Um, but uh laws change.

And so we would now be in a case uh in court arguing that the court should apply the old law rather than the new law.

So so the answer is because we thought it would still apply.

That's um that's honest but sad to hear that due to uh due to council chair to the team, due to council sit at this table every day since I've been here for four years.

I have been in um to understand that we pass laws through ordinance for the last four years, but to counteract the Mondale law because Hassan bought the name and the and and the team, and that was done before he even bought the team, and nothing has happened.

Uh I'm just still a little confused of why we need to even consider to agree to anything moving forward when we have so much misconfusion of each document, because each document override each document along the way because Hasman wanted to take the team to Brook Park, and even though Brook Park is in Ohio, it's not in Cleveland.

And even though Brooke Park is in Ohio, it's not in Cleveland.

So it's just uh I agree with my colleagues, it's just a sad situation today that we're dealing with this and being confronted to make a hard decision for our residents who've been dog fans as long as I remember, because I remember the dog pound used to charge only $10.

Now how uh now I don't know how much it is, because I stay at home and watch the game.

But just say the least of that, I agree with the colleagues, you know.

You know, where will our constituents work?

They depend on this football team, even though they work other sports teams, they depend on working at the stadium, you know, for the Browns.

So now they're gonna be out of jobs.

They don't have transportation.

So things of that nature has been brought to all our attention in all our community meetings.

And also I want to say, even that was brought to a couple these dargone interviews.

I've been in what other people interviewing me, asking me about the Browns, the Browns, the Browns.

And uh, and I hope all these people that interviewed all of us that asked about the Browns, you should be here in this meeting listening to this information, but telling him that we still don't have a final answer about the Browns because we still are all uh uh mystified about this move um in the first place.

So I that that's the only thing I want to understand about you know about the subject of the final uh gutted of the uh Mondale law, you know, with the state.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman, appreciate it.

Councilman Casey has asked to be put back on for a follow-up question.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Just real quick.

First, um, in hearing everything that I've heard, I really hope the administration does their homework on uh uh City Charter 45 regarding the lakefront.

So if you're not familiar with that yet, please familiarize yourself with that.

But as you as I said earlier before, uh about that breakup and that girl that you just can't get that you can't get rid of, right?

Uh and this whole thing else uh you know let her go has been running through my mind.

And then I'm looking at this lease agreement, and we know that we have an individual here who no longer wants to be playing football uh or dealing on the lake front, but yet a good portion of this agreement here is bringing her back or bringing bringing him back into the loop to help with further redevelopment of the lakefront.

So I don't understand why we would continue to dance with the devil and allowing somebody who doesn't want to be here to long term, whether it's the redevelopment of the the pad I get because you know he's benefited from that, but Burke or anything like that, I don't understand why we would want to continue to have him at the dance.

The council president, councilman Casey, look.

Um it's easy and and and quite frankly, um very real and honest to be very upset about how this deal transpired.

And it's consumed a majority of my time in the last few years since I've been blessed to be in this office.

Um a lot of moments I was angry, sad, and frustrated about this negotiation.

But um at the end of the day, and maybe I'm just a different kind of leader, but in this political environment in this world we live in, um, I have an obligation to work with anybody, Democrat, Republican, independent who wants to do their part to move our city forward.

Now, do I agree with HSG on Gorner Brook Park?

No.

Do I agree with his politics?

No.

But here's what I do know.

Um, you know, we get we didn't get to this deal lightly.

Took a lot of pain, a lot of hard, hard conversations.

Um, and because of this body holding this administration accountable.

Because of your partnership, we have an historic opportunity to together write the next chapter of our lake front.

And I'll work with anyone who shares that vision, and we may not agree on everything, but I have a responsibility to the taxpayers of the city to number one, make sure we got financial resources to tear down that stadium.

Um, and unless you guys have other solutions or uh policy ideas.

I don't know where the other 40 million dollars is gonna come from.

And then number two, we've worked our butts off as a team with your support to get 130 million already for lakefront development, 130, 150 million rather.

130 million million, rather.

And so this is an opportunity to supercharge lakefront development, protect the hardworking taxpayers of our city, and make sure we write this next chapter together in a pragmatic and responsible way.

Well, Mr.

Chairman of the Mayor, and I am sure there is going to be a lot of further discussions on even whether we should close Burke or not.

And that that's not a guaranteed done deal.

And I hope I just hope that there wasn't any sort of backroom deal that was done in order to use somebody's influence at the Federal level to help close that that airport.

Now that technically, as you admitted before, that the Browns are in violation of their lease, what happens now if if we don't want to do the capital repairs or what I mean, the worst they could do is now that they said that they're going, the worst they could do is not pay their rent, right?

Which is 250,000 a year.

Okay, that's not going to bring bank.

But if they come to us next year and say we need 30 million dollars in capital repairs done, and we say no, then what happens?

Yeah, we'll have to look at it then.

I don't have a crystal ball to uh first of all, I don't think it's going to be 30 million.

I'm just I'm throwing it.

I don't care if it's you know what, at this point, I don't care if it's a dime, if it's a million.

Here's what I would say, which is we have obligations under the lease.

And so did they.

Uh that's right.

But I think the most important thing would be to uh make the repairs necessary for the safety of visitors.

And I think I think we'd have to have a discussion around that about what really is necessary and what is not.

But I think safety has to come first.

All right.

And and just two more points in regards to the 100 million dollars, Mayor.

Um, and I know it sounds like a lot of money.

But remember, when when Jimmy Haslam purchased that team 12 years ago for 1 billion dollars, it is now worth today, according to Forbes, $7 billion.

So he was able to profit or in return on his investment of $500 million a year since he's owned that team.

And I understand $100 million is a lot, but sometimes there is a principle behind a lot of money, too.

And then my last question is to the law director.

If we pass this legislation, are we saying that it's okay for the Cleveland Browns to leave the City of Cleveland?

Yes and no.

Okay.

So let me let me be clear.

We are not saying that it's morally okay.

What we're saying is we're not going to sue you today.

Okay, then let me ask you this.

If we pass the legislation, please revent everything to Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Chairman to the law director, if we pass this legislation, are we giving the Cleveland Browns, Haslam Sports Group, Jimmy Haslam, permission to leave the City of Cleveland?

Mr.

Mayor.

Uh through the council president to Councilman Casey, um, this settlement agreement ensures that the taxpayers of this city are protected, that we're not left empty-handed, and we have an immediate cash infusion to take care of our responsibilities and build a new chapter for the lakefront.

I don't know the semantics of what's going to happen with Brook Park and the rest of the financing.

I don't know if they are going to close the gap without the county.

Here's what I do know.

You guys gave me three mandates.

Number one, don't leave us empty-handed.

Number two, protect the taxpayers, and number three, use every legal and political tool in our arsenal to hold them accountable, and we have done just that.

All right.

And Mr.

Chairman to the mayor, I appreciate that.

But the question was that if we pass this legislation, are we giving any Haslam Sports Group?

Are we giving Jimmy Haslam, the Cleveland Browns permission, saying that it's okay that you leave the City of Cleveland?

I think that's a question for the State Government.

Thank you.

I'll take that as a you're not going to answer it.

And that's probably a yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Councilman Panesic.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman, just request through the to the administration.

If we could, we know we we still owe $32 million on the on the Browns.

If we could get the debt service number for the next three years, the exact legal fee bill so far, the estimated capital repairs, we know we paid 2.6 several months ago million.

If we could get anticipated capital repairs for the future, and then you have indicated uh was indicated that we re um we derive 500,000 uh from clean public power.

We also derive um uh water bill, sewer bill from the site as well.

So any of those critical numbers that you indicated as well, 99 million, excuse me, 99,000 per game for security.

If we could get all the particular numbers so we could really have transparency, Mr.

Chairman, as to what we're looking at, and again, I want to appreciate the mayor being here and members of his team.

This is a tough one.

This is a tough one.

All of us want to make the right decisions, but we need to know exactly what our future anticipated costs are for the stadium going forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And what I'm gonna do in closing is uh Mr.

Titran, you have um Mr.

Councilman Polencick's request.

If anybody has any other numbers so that we don't miss any potential numbers that we want to get in order to do this, um we'll do that.

I I also want to thank the mayor for being here today.

Um I know this is emotional.

I know this is sentimental.

Um I want to tell everybody that once again, as uh Chief Davies said earlier, I'm not an attorney, but you're forced to have to understand a little bit about law being in this business, and what I've become adept to in law, another lot of the lawyers are here, is procedure and merit.

And sometimes you make your case based on procedure if you don't have merit, and sometimes you make your case on merit if you don't have strong procedure.

It's important for us to make sure that we deal with the procedural side so that we can make sure that the merit of the deal doesn't get undermined.

So that's why this was so important to make sure we had this first process in place.

Um I will tell you that I really want to hear from stakeholders, business owners.

I've had conversations with GCP, I've had conversations with downtown Cleveland Alliance, I've had conversations with the North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation, which I sit on that board, and what this means and how this could look.

A service economy.

So I'm not looking at this strictly from an emotional lens.

I'm looking at this from how can we make sure that the taxpayers of the city of Cleveland feel like we're gonna have to make some tough decisions, but they feel at least that they were protected.

So once again, as I said earlier, I think Councilman Polencick and Councilman Harrison put it very well that this is a starting point for us.

The ball is now in our court.

It's time for us to do our betting.

I do have some concerns about timeline that we'll have to discuss a little bit further because there are some uncertainties.

Um Joe and Jane in our community get out of this deal.

Every day, people are asking us for more speed tables.

Every day people want to demolish abandoned homes.

Every day people want more safety cameras.

Every day, people want things, upgrades in their parks.

As much as I want to see the lakefront realization come through, council has the authority to one approve the entire agreement, which we want to see the entire agreement, not just the term sheet.

And then also council has the ability to approve any accepting and expenditures of dollars.

We also have to approve anything around lease.

So what m mainly was important for us today is to put the framework in place for how this discussion will move forward.

It will go to DPS, it will go to municipal services.

Um I really wanted the chairs to really work with our policy team to frame the discussion so that we can get the outcome that we want.

But I do want to state this.

Um the lawsuit was our leverage.

The reason that I sent that message last year, and I heard the administration echo it today, is that the only leverage we have right now while we determine some of these loose ends is the lawsuit, which is why I requested that the lawsuit not be pulled until council takes an official action.

I also want to make sure that people understand that unfortunately, unfortunately, um people are rewriting processes and especially at the national and state level are shredding um and bypassing processes.

And that's why what we're trying to put in place is the framework for how council is going to deliberate this discussion.

Once again, I'm asking everybody as emotional or sentimental as this may be.

Thank you.

Thank you.