Answers that uh we have received uh from the administration.

Um so please feel free to look at your tablet and just as a refresher to some of the questions that we sent over to the administration's side.

Uh because we are not voting on this piece today.

We are only here for discussion purposes only.

Then we will um we can begin.

We do not need a quorum this morning to get started.

Um so, Madam Clerk, I will still read the the uh ordinance into the uh record for the meeting ordinance number 1325-2025 by Mayor Bibb and emergency ordinance authorizing the mayor and the directors of law, parks and recreation, port of control, and or the Office of Capital Projects as appropriate to enter into one or more agreements and or amendments to the lease by way of concession with the Browns on their des or their designees to effectuate the terms and conditions in the settlement term sheet regarding the relocation of the Cleveland Browns to the city of Brook Park and the demolition of Huntington Bank Field, determine the method of making the public improvement of designing and performing demolition and site preparation of such sports facility and other structures in designing and constructing various lakefront improvements, authorizing other professional service contracts, accepting gifts and grants, and establishing the community benefits project and the lakefront development subfunds.

All right.

Um we do have a presentation this morning from the um from the administration.

And uh as before we get started, uh committee chair uh uh bishop will handle the public comment portion of the meeting.

So once we get to that point, uh we will hand it over to uh Chairman Bishop uh to take over the meeting from that point.

All right, we're good.

Okay.

Uh Chief, we'll turn it over uh to you, and you can introduce you to Chair, uh members of City Council.

Uh thank you for having us this morning to discuss uh ordinance 1325.

Uh I'm joined by uh a number of senior leaders from the administration.

First, uh Bonnie Twin, our chief operating officer, uh Scott Skinner from the North Coast uh Development Waterfront Authority, uh Jessica Trevisano from the Mayor's Office, a senior advisor to the mayor, our uh chief um our director of law, uh Mark Griffin and our chief of integrated development, Tom McNair.

I'm Bradford Davy, Chief of Staff to Mayor Bibb.

Uh we're we're here to first provide a high-level summary of the settlement agreement uh as discussed last month.

Uh we will also make some time to answer questions uh that the members may have about any terms listed in the settlement agreement.

We will also point back to the October 29th letter that was sent over to Mr.

Uh Titran that outlines the 54 questions that were sent over by the individual members.

So we'll start just by a high-level summary of the settlement agreement terms.

Uh first, HSG will donate 25 million to the city of Cleveland by December 1st, 2025 uh to advance lakefront development.

HSG will also raise the current Huntington Bank field in downtown to a pad ready state at the Browns expense that will begin promptly uh upon termination of the party's lease agreement.

Uh it should be noted that HSG will cover the costs of demolition and excite work even if it exceeds the $30 million estimated cost, which was an important point uh made by members of council.

HSG will also pay five million dollars to the city by January 1 of each calendar year from 29 to 33, totaling 25 million dollars um over five years to advance the lakefront vision.

And then upon termination of the leach, HSG will also invest no less than two million per year over the next 10 years on mutually agreed upon community benefits projects throughout the city, totaling no less than 20 million.

It's important to note that those will happen throughout the city, not simply on the lakefront.

Uh both parties will of course work together to ensure public health and safety interests regarding any efforts uh at Hopkins Airport.

It's been noted that we want to ensure uh the safe transfer of all of our residents and visitors.

And then both parties will mutually support infrastructure plans with respect to the stadium project uh and modernization of Cleveland Hopcourt Hopkins International Airport.

I want to just spend a moment focusing in on the community benefits projects.

Uh HSG will contribute two million per year to the city for 10 years for community benefits projects upon termination of leach.

It is important to point out the scope of those projects.

Elible eligible projects will advance health, safety, or the provision of community services within the city of Cleveland through any one or more of the following capital improvements to existing infrastructure, construction of the new facility, educational programming, and recreational program.

So more specificity on the utilization of projects, utilization of capital for projects in the city of Cleveland.

On or before March of each year, the administration and council will jointly propose community benefits projects for the year to HSG.

HSG and the city will work in good faith to align projects with city priorities on timing and implement the projects.

This really uh illustrates the long-term partnership and collaboration that we expect to have uh with this body over the course of the settlement.

Uh and then of course, those projects will total 20 million in community benefit across the city of Cleveland.

Of course, uh with the transition of the stadium, uh it it puts an even more acute need to uh solve for the current site uh at Cleveland's North Coast.

Uh the donation by the Browns will advance lakefront development um by 50 million dollars and provides a method for demolishing the stadium and preparing the site uh for development at no cost to the city, at no cost to the city.

All improvements, public improvements, amenities, buildings, um, other improvements all are subject to the planning commission review and the city review process.

So please know that although uh HSG will take responsibility for uh the site work, uh it will remain uh the purview of the City of Cleveland to approve any of those decisions.

And then the North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation, which Scott represents, uh is currently evaluating responses to Lakefront Development RFQs to identify partners to lead to redevelopment efforts.

I would also just note that the council president has been instrumental in the review of those RFQs, another point of collaboration between both bodies.

Um it's it was brought up at the last hearing, uh, and so it it is worth um underscoring that HSG does not have development rights for the lakefront or Burke.

So in this in this agreement, uh development rights for the lakefront or Burke Airport are not contemplated.

Just a couple of additional points before we take a step back and answer any additional questions from the members.

Uh HSG will invest $50 million total for Lakefront, uh, $25 million up front, $25 million over five years, plus cover the stadium demolition cost.

That's about $30 million and 20 million in community benefits for projects throughout the city.

70 million funding commitment does not change, even if demolition and pad prep cost change.

So we understand that the environment currently uh is one that fluctuates quite a bit that will not affect the reality of this settlement.

The settlement allows the Browns to exercise two one-year options for the stadiums.

The economic impact study by eConsult estimates 30 million in regional impact uh of the stadium leaving downtown, and that is mostly indirect impact.

That's mostly indirect.

About 32 million in principle remains on the stadium to be paid off uh in 2028 before the end of the lease.

And an estimated 4 million in capital repairs uh over that term.

Capital repairs will be limited to repairs necessary for the health and safety of visitors employees.

Uh that is agreed upon and uh enumerated in the lease.

And there is uh, you know, this this is maybe the most important uh point that underlines all conversations here today that there is no legal strategy.

There is no recourse that can force the Browns to stay in their stadium in Cleveland beyond the end of the lease in February of 2029.

Uh this settlement is a result of that reality and one that we are eager to discuss with the members.

Thanks for the chance to spend some time with you this morning.

Uh we would love to answer any additional questions you have outside of the questions that you sent over to the administration earlier last month.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Chief.

Uh is there anyone else from your team who would like to say a few words?

I think we're ready for questions.

Okay.

Sounds good.

We'll turn it over to Councilman uh Bishop and then Councilman's slide for introductory remarks.

We go to the committee.

Uh thank you, Chairman Harrison.

Uh I do have some initial questions and of course I'm not going to um try to ask all of my questions I have, but I'm gonna allow my colleagues to kind of chime in.

But uh you you know what what concerns me is the agreement we have with the Browns and good faith um with the capital repairs.

Um and we and we talk about um you know the capital repairs repairs will be done based on what's emergency and what's for the health and safety of our patrons of the stadium and uh everybody that inhibits the stadium.

But in a in the case where we can't agree um, you know, uh between the city and the browns, and then the council weighs in on this also in the term in in a case where we can't agree, how how are we going to resolve any kind of disagreements as far as capital repairs going forward between now and the end of the lease?

Through the chair.

Through the chair to Councilman Bishop, first of all, thank you for your question.

Um let me first note that the limitation on necessary repairs uh will be written into the amendment.

So not just will be good faith, but it will be written as part of a binding agreement.

And then that agreement, because none of us want to get into protected protracted litigation or fights over what is or is not an emergency repair, we have mandatory arbitration, which should expedite things as quickly as possible.

So uh, you know, we hope that there is good faith, but it's trust but verify.

So that's why it's written into the agreement and there is rapid arbitration to resolve those disputes.

Okay, thank you.

Um through the chair.

So you say we have uh our process where we're gonna do arbitration if we can't come to uh reasonable terms.

But in a situation where the city council weighs in, and the city council doesn't deem these repairs to be necessary, but you know, we have a disagreement agreement with administration.

How we handle that through the chair?

Through the chair too, Councilman Bishop.

Uh the same way that we uh handle disputes between council and the administration, which is uh we need to sit down and talk about what the city's position is as a whole.

And certainly if uh there is a dispute here where we can't pass or approve those finances, I would think that it would go to arbitration.

Okay.

All right.

So another question I have is that the Browns have um pledged to make a payment up front this year by the end of the year, 25 million dollars.

Um how will that how will that 25 million dollars be handled?

And when will the city start to spend that 25 million dollars and start to plan for a lakefront redevelopment?

To the councilman through the chair, great question.

The 25 million dollars uh will be donated to the city as soon as December 1st, uh pending council approval of the legislation, um, so likely after December 1st, but as soon as feasibly possible.

Um those dollars are intended to advance uh the redevelopment of the lakefront, and I would say generally there's a couple buckets of work that that'll go into.

It's planning and engineering necessary to prepare the site for redevelopment.

It is some short-term interventions to uh make the site enticing in the meantime, so things like the North Coast Yard that we did um this summer and plan to continue doing uh in the interim until we fully redevelop the site, and then we'll also be used for um all of the we'll be able to be used for some of the park planning um and operational needs for NCWDC.

Um just added uh to the councilman through the chair.

Um those three buckets are correct.

We're looking at public space infrastructure and operations engineering planning.

Uh the public space is important for a couple reasons.

Uh, one in the 5,000 plus community surveys that we have in the hundreds of community meetings that we've done as part of this project, uh, the common denominator from almost every single respondent was a desire for public space on that site.

Um so we are trying to fulfill that commitment to the community first and upfront.

Uh the second, the the second reason that's important is that it's something that we can start right away that entices potential development partners.

When you look around the city of Cleveland to really quality public space attracts additional private investment.

So it's both a way to fulfill our commitment to the community and also to attract potential development partners.

To the councilman through the chair, I want to make sure I I completely answer your question.

Those dollars will come to the city.

I think you asked about the logistics too.

So those will be dollars that are accepted by the city and then dispersed by the city.

Okay.

Um another question I have is through the chair, that um at the end of our lease, um, the Browns have an option to have two one-year um options to renew.

Um if the they are not ready to move, and you and uh and let me say this.

I am not real I'm not happy with the um the agreement that we made to extend the Browns to the exact same terms of lease that's been uh the the current leases right now.

I think I do believe we should uh be able to make some changes to that lease uh it to for for that for two year one year renewals.

But um if the Browns are not ready to move to Brook Park after the end of the second renewal, how will the city approach that uh through the chair to the councilman?

Uh first obviously it will be assessed at that time, but there's a hard stop after two years.

We want certainty on the lakefront.

We want to know that we can move forward on that.

Uh and so you know, our view at this time is they need to be done after two years because we have exciting things to open up the lakefront to the public.

Uh you know, Mr.

Skinner's here, Mr.

Vassano are working hard.

And so uh we are looking, we're our view is that that is a uh date certainly.

All right.

Uh Chair, I uh uh I'm done with my question.

Thank you.

Uh Chairman Bishop, Chairman uh Slife.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

And I want to start with some questions that are more narrowly tailored to the Transportation Mobility Committee.

Uh the first, my assumption all along has been that the brand this is a technical question I appreciate that the Browns don't have any sort of submerged land lease simply because they are tenants of within a city facility.

Is that the case?

Through the chair to the councilman, yes, that is the case.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh could you all what conversations have been had with the Browns as as we define pad ready site?

I ask because the lakefront.

So the lakefront is a very tricky development site, and we've done a very good job in this city of putting out pretty pictures of what the lakefront could be, but I don't think we've done a good job of educating the city on what hurdles there are because it's landfill, what hurdles there are from the state because it's legally considered Lake Erie, uh, what hurdles there are to financing development when we are prohibited by charter from selling land, so we are having to come up with complicated 99 year leases uh that are very confusing, uh maybe not enticing for banks.

My concern is that a pad ready site in Medina County to me is very different than a pad ready site on the lakefront that is not only going to need all the support to finance any development, but is also going to need very significant subsurface structure in order to support development.

And my fear right now is that a lot of that exists.

Clearly, we have a stadium.

What is being ripped out, and are we actually making the site less developable in how we're divine defining pad ready?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, um, you are saying out loud the thing that I've been focused on almost exclusively for the past two weeks is making sure that that site is going to be properly prepared for vertical redevelopment on the site.

So we're going back and forth with um HSG for the full settlement document in our definition of pad ready and how we then assess that the site is in fact pad ready because we are being outcome-oriented here.

They have to deliver us the site in a certain way, regardless of the cost.

Um and so we are highly focused on exactly what you've said is making sure that the site is ready for vertical redevelopment.

And I might let Scott speak to maybe the broader picture of that financing and making sure that the space can be um attractive to developers.

Um, Councilman, you're you're exactly right, you know the site very well that it is a very complicated site.

Um we've done a significant amount of due diligence work to understand sort of the general boundaries of what uh engineering improvements will need to be had.

That's obviously highly dependent uh dependent on what the ultimate development looks like.

Um and then to answer your question directly from a submerged land lease perspective, uh we've also been working closely with the director of port control uh to make sure that the submerged land leases that we have with ODNR are financeable, essentially.

So as as uh I know you know more than most, um, there are a number of different submerged land leases on that site as well as across the entire lakefront, all with different lease terms.

Um the behind the scenes work that we've been doing over the last 18 months is working to, and this is not complete yet, we'll go it has been going through council, we'll continue to go through council, working to combine all of those submerged land leases into one submerge lease and uh adopt terms that are financeable.

And we're working with uh real estate attorneys and uh development partners to ensure that what we are submitting to ODNR is something that they can secure debt from or get equity from.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Included in that, have there been conversations or a need for conversation with the railroads as potential uh lakefront property owners?

I know that that was dealt with across the lakefront years ago, but I don't know if those conversations at the time focused directly south of the stadium.

Yeah, to to the councilman through the chair, we've been uh we've been engaging with railroads, especially as it relates to the North Coast Connector project.

So this is one of those places where there's um some bleed over between the North Coast Connector and the feature redevelopment.

So, yes, we've been having conversations with railroads about where each property lies.

Okay, I can I can pepper my colleagues later with why I'm asking about railroads, but I'll spare you all right now.

Um you're welcome.

Yeah, it's trying to hope unless you guys want to be here for nine hours.

Um I had uh has just out of curiosity, has there been any desire or engagement with the state of Ohio related to the submerged land lease issues, and at what point can we convince Columbus that the lakefront in the year 1800 is no longer the lakefront to absolve us of all of this bureaucracy?

Um sure, I I can speak to that.

Um we have had conversations with ODNR to encourage uh to make sure that we have submerged land leases down there that are financeable.

Um I have not directly had converse conversations around fixing the broader challenge.

I imagine that wouldn't uh that would involve uh change to the uh state law uh and a whole bunch of other things.

But we're what we're trying to focus on is right now, making sure that this is a enticing site to development partners, and something that we're able to build public space on ourselves.

Okay, I I I think that we uh quite earnestly should pursue those conversations.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of one of the largest impediments to developing lakefront land in the city of Cleveland being out of our control and us getting blamed or there being an insinuation that we're incapable of doing something when in fact I would say the state makes us incapable of doing a lot of things.

Um I will also say to the to the to the desire for public green space on the lakefront.

I'm actually I'm not worried at all about the availability of public green space on the lakefront.

It's the easiest thing to do.

The harder thing to do is to actually develop along the lakefront and to build structures.

And and uh frankly, I found the answer in in about our concern about the 30, how are we gonna recoup 30 million dollars lost?

It is factually correct that the stadium does not generate 30 million dollars directly.

However, I am fearful that a lakefront that is exclusively or overwhelmingly green space, while beautiful, would not even come close to recouping the indirect benefits that we currently get from the stadium.

And I'm just gonna call it as I see it.

It is very difficult to get the administration interested, in my opinion, in kind of routine stuff in the neighborhoods.

And and the enthusiasm with which we see the lakefront and the and trails and and the riverfront and things in the urban core, and and I could go list after list of projects and and and I'm gonna try to get off the soapbox.

But my worry is that if we are not recouping anywhere near 30 million dollars, how how is our general fund going to be able to simultaneously absorb a large park and its maintenance needs alongside all of the other routine things that occur across the city of Cleveland?

And at what point are the residents of the city of Cleveland effectively continuing to subsidize regional amenities by having parks that aren't as grand as what we see in the suburbs, rec centers that have deferred maintenance, all of those things.

That that's the worry.

The specific question is is with as you're looking at RFPs, is there a break even for lack of better terms, scale of development or jobs or things that we have has to happen on the lakefront to meet our expectations, or do we risk this becoming a very, very beautiful park that perhaps the city simply can't afford.

I I can start um the councilman through the chair.

Um the park, the the way that I'm thinking about the park um is that again it entices additional developers.

I agree, vertical development will need to be an absolutely critical piece of this.

We've had a frankly a more robust response from this RFQ process than I initially anticipated.

Uh we are currently evaluating responses, interviewing respondees, and we'll ideally make a selection in the near future.

Um and those responses include significant density multi multifamily.

Those responses include hospitality, those responses include entertainment and recreation.

Realistically, we're not going to replace 65,000 people coming down to the lakefront 10 days over 10 days uh a year a year.

But what we can do in the aggregate with a number of different uses is make up for that lack uh that that lost in economic impact.

Yeah.

So uh also uh through the chair to councilperson, uh first uh I I wanted to say that I wish we were in a world where the Cleveland Browns were investing downtown and in a world-class lakefront.

That is not the world in which we live in, right?

And that is not our choice.

I also think that it's important to know that 31 million dollar economic impact uh exists downtown, and that is going to harm downtown businesses, and that is not our choice.

Uh that 31 million dollar economic impact is also said is indirect, right?

And so it's not a direct dollars into the coffers of the city of Cleveland.

Um I think also important to acknowledge that we're talking about here is the reversal of decades of public policy, right?

If you look at the totality of all of the different complexes that we have invested in downtown, right?

Rocket Mortgage Field House brings in over two million visitors annually.

Progressive Field brings in 1.8 million visitors annually.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame brings in about 600,000 visitors annually.

Cleveland Brown Stadium brings in about 650,000 uh visitors annually.

Great Lake Science Center brings in about three million 300,000 uh visitors annually.

That's about 5.3 million visitors to our downtown, of which Cleveland Brown Stadium represents about 12% of that.

Uh right.

And so I think it's also important to think uh, as Scott was pointing out, and the crux of why we're here today, uh, right, this is 25 million dollars.

It is beginning the process of accelerating that transformation of our lakefront, uh, right.

Um, you know, it's 650,000 people coming to Cleveland Brown Stadium.

Uh North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation painted some cracked asphalt and put a shipping container down, and 25,000 unique visitors showed up this year, right?

That is just like one small snippet of what we're getting at.

Because, you know, ultimately I say all the time, right?

Like we are the waterfront city that can barely see and does not touch the waterfront.

I can barely see it out the window sitting here behind you.

You have to be in a perch of some building, like we are nowhere near it.

Like there are cities that would cut their proverbial fingers off to be able to have the natural assets we have out there, and we have to begin the process of connecting to them.

You know, I think it's why we created the North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation.

It's why we put in place the shore to quarter shore TIFF district, because it's like I've always joked that I'm 49 years old.

We've been talking about doing this since I was like negative 10, we actually haven't made a whole lot of progress.

Uh right.

So we've been putting the tools in place to actually get there.

But as we've learned, it is very expensive to borrow the dollars necessary to make those connections, right?

So we need every grant dollar we can get.

25 million, and and by the way, Cleveland Browns at a minimum are going to continue to play football down here and bring those 65,000.

I am always amazed that 65,000 people will show up no matter what.

Uh, we've learned that quite a bit over the last 20 years uh to watch this, right?

Um, you know, but ultimately uh they're going to be coming down for at least the next three years, and we need to do everything humanly possible to begin to accelerate this transition to support those downtown businesses, right?

Because when those people stop coming down for purposes of watching a sporting event, we need to have something to backfill that.

Uh and I agree with you, councilman, right?

Like it needs to go beyond that, but that is also why this agreement has two million dollars annually for a period of 10 years that is working on community benefit projects all over the city of Cleveland, not just downtown.

But I think it is very important that we remember that there is a extremely direct impact to those businesses downtown, right?

And if you look at the way many of them function, um, you know, if you are in uh the southern end down by gateway, right?

It's like you make the bulk of your money from a food and beverage standpoint.

Uh you've got opening day of the guardians, uh playoffs games from Guardians and Cavs, because yes, they go to the playoffs on a regularly consistent basis, uh, right.

And that is kind of the nest egg that allows you to stay open other parts of the years.

And for a lot of these businesses on the northern half, it is these 10, 12 dates a year where there's 65,000, 70,000 people that are coming in that support them and help them stay open during the harder times of the year, right?

So I think it is incumbent upon us as a city to not forget that those businesses exist and to do everything that we can to build this back up because I do firmly believe that when we unlock the power of that lakefront, it's going to lead to a hell of a lot more investment downtown Cleveland.

Thank you for that.

I just I nothing that's gonna be said today is gonna overcome my skepticism or anxiety.

So I'll just but I appreciate that we all are functioning off of the same set of facts, I suppose.

Um I will say, and and I've said again, because I'm not opposed to the lakefront, but there's a lot of other priorities.

Had I been brought into these conversations sooner, one example of something I would have said is can we find money to help expand CPP to Hopkins?

I know I agree that there could be some challenges in a CPP being the power provider for a facility that is not in the city of Cleveland.

Uh but as we look to kind of backfill also CPP's lost revenue, I think that the airport is a great opportunity, as is the entire West Park neighborhood that does not currently get Cleveland Public Power.

And and that would be, I think, a very transformational thing given that uh terminal modernization plan.

Let's put a pin in that for some later day, uh, because that's a big thing to unpack.

My my final question, and then maybe a comment.

Can you please elaborate on the two million dollar community benefits being subject to the Haslam Sports Group's approval?

Because I have to say, and I don't say this cynically, but we we all have we all bring different goals to our role.

You know, a number of years ago, the administration identified the West Park Rapids Station as one of the best transit oriented development sites.

We've seen zero progress on that.

I've done rezoning along Lorraine Avenue to try to prevent gas stations from coming in, but the only enthusiasm I'm getting is I'm having to tell people no, but I feel that I'm not getting the administration coming in and helping support what my shared goals are.

And I apologize if that is not taken well with you all.

My concern is that as I'm trying to fight to support the area of town that I represent.

Am I now going to have to face another hurdle by having it be mutually advantageous that the Hazm Sports Group, what degree of autonomy is there from this body and not even this body, this building to determine how those two million dollars are spent and how extensive is the Hasm Sports Group's approval as you understand it.

To the councilman, to the councilman through the chair, I can start.

Um, and I'm sure my colleagues will add in.

The this commitment from HSG, just to be clear, is sort of beyond the regular commitments from the NFL uh that we see kind of consistently throughout our city right now.

So this is an additional two million dollars.

And the the items on the screen are really the parameters that we've talked about.

So eligible projects, wanting to advance health safety or the provision of community services, uh broadly capital improvements to existing structures, new facilities, educational programming, recreational programming.

In our conversations with HSG, I don't see them saying that's not the location that we want to uh be investing in.

I think it's this is intended to talk more about the type of use of those dollars.

And so I feel confident that as long as whatever is proposed by the city and administration that is kind of within that second bullet point, that those will be the types of community projects that HSG will say, yes, let's do it, and then let's just figure out how to align on city priorities implementation and timing to make sure that we're getting our most bang for the buck.

So by default, that $2 million goes to the city for projects that fit within that second bullet point, um, which is purposefully very broad and inclusive, and then it's just a matter of making sure that we're being as efficient with those dollars as we can be.

So thank you.

Humor me.

Um if this body were to decide that we want to use a portion of the two million dollars to support an educational curriculum around uh workers' rights and organizing, uh, would the Haslam sports group be able to say that is not how we want these dollars spent uh because it might not align with their politics, or would we be able to say this is no this is C educational programming, therefore it's eligible?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, um I I the way that it would work, the opera I I can't say kind of what the outcome would be, but the way that that would work is by March 1st of a given year, the city and both the administration and city council would say, here's our proposed plan for those dollars, uh, would give that proposed plan to Hasm Sports Group, and then there would be a discussion on what that plan was.

I anticipate it would be a discussion much like this one uh that would be out in the public that would be a full discussion of the merits of a proposal if there was disagreement on what those dollars were being used for.

So I don't have an answer on how it would be taken, but I do know that the way that we've set up the final settlement agreement is intended to be kind of by default.

A city city comes to them with a proposal, and then we'd have to work together.

Through the chair to the councilman, uh you started your comments earlier by suggesting that if you were brought in earlier, uh you would have done some things differently.

Uh this is uh early, very early, earliest days uh of an opportunity, I think, for the council, particularly the council and the administration to work together on what that disposition process looks like.

Um this is gonna be important to think about how these dollars are spread uh across your wards.

That that certainly will not be an obstacle to us uh and that will not be an obstacle to HSG.

It will be a decision that needs to be made with with your body against your membership.

And so um I would offer that now is a great time to be uh generative and proactive about a strategy on how those may be deployed.

Okay, and and bluntly my concern is that there is an ability to essentially have priorities of this community vetoed uh for any particular reason.

Um, I I'll I'll I know I'm running over time, but I I just I have to I I I can't get through the day if I don't mention it.

It's the city is in other litigation with a property owner in my ward.

Uh we were actually found against in the court of common pleas, the city's appealing, and I won't, I don't we don't need to get into the details of the case, but it's very it's it's a frustration to me that in the case of this, there's a willingness to settle and find a mutually beneficial outcome.

But when it comes to something in Cam's corners, in my personal opinion, the city would instead continue to inflict a lawsuit against someone who the court of common police has has found that the city caused property, substantial property damage to we don't have to discuss it, law director.

I bring it up because part of the challenge of being what I call a bridge and tunnel councilman is trying to get trying to get the same level of enthusiasm for things in uh a regular Cleveland neighborhood as you see downtown.

It's it's a it's a power gap, it's an enthusiasm gap, and and I bring it up because I think that there are other opportunities to benefit neighborhoods.

The lakefront is not going to be a cure-all for every Cleveland neighborhood.

We need to think through additional ways to support localized development and growth and investment in ways that benefits the average Clevelander on a cloudy cold Monday.

And and I I asked the administration to just remember that this appears to many residents as just another example of that enthusiasm gap.

So I I'll leave it there.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh Councilman.

Uh Slide.

Uh just going back to you, uh, Mr.

Bisano, you mentioned uh March date.

As I looked through the term agreement and just the conversation we've been having, um, the March date, so is it expected that the city will submit proposals to the uh HSG group uh every March for to and for us to receive that two million dollar payment?

That's right, to the count to the chairman.

Okay.

So we make a proposal, we submit it to them, uh, because I don't see that in the term uh term sheet in uh where where do we spell those uh dates out?

Yeah to the councilman uh the chairman the the settlement term sheet that is was attached to the legislation is is the term sheet.

Uh we talked about at the last meeting that some things would be fleshed out more fully in that final document.

And so this is one of the items that we've fleshed out more fully from the last time we were in front of council to now.

And we anticipate that this conversation today will continue to help us flesh out those details.

Absolutely.

Okay.

So this is enough we have additional uh edits that we need to make to this term sheet, correct?

To the councilman, there will be no edits to the term sheet because the term sheet is the representation of kind of the key overall terms what the final settlement agreement will add, and I would ask our law director to chime in.

Uh but it adds all the details, all the like by this date, this thing will happen.

But the additions, uh, Director Griffin, we will add separately to the agreement, correct?

Uh yes, the details uh within the bones of the structure uh of the settlement agreement that you've seen.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Um and just uh just continue the line of the conversation uh that Mr.

Slide raised.

Whether there is a disagreement between all parties of of how and what we want to use the the money for.

Um that that concerns me a bit, right?

And also, and I'm looking at the term sheet in item D, with the two million dollars is is slated to be used for the communities and not for the lakefront, but there is a uh uh word in here that that says the city and downtown Cleveland Lakefront.

And so I think that's something that that you know needs to be addressed, and that is something that has come up by several council members that have shared with me, including um uh staff as well.

Um and if you want to uh speak to that and why is why is that included in the uh term sheet here, item D that includes Cleveland Downtown Lakefront.

To the councilman, um that is in the term sheet, it's for the benefit of the city and downtown Cleveland Lakefront.

We have heard the feedback that that is confusing and makes it sound like it's intended to go towards the lake front.

So in the final full document that you will see before this passes, you will see that it does not say and for downtown Cleveland Lakefront, it just says good.

Yep.

All right.

Um lastly um for me we'll then we'll go to the uh committee members' questions.

Uh the demolition side of this.

I know we've talked extensively about making sure that this demo happens in a manner that you know can that keeps the um the um the utilities that are underground, right?

You know, is it is a fiber that goes to this place down here?

I'm sure it is, right?

It has to be well, whatever high quality uh is there.

Okay.

Um that we really pressed to make sure that you know the all of the the utilities and and other things that we can you know utilize for other you know vertical development stays in place and that we just don't have uh a dirt feel, right, with gravel or grass, and that we have to start, you know, uh all over that all the all the lines are kept to a point where you just have to reinstall them.

So I'm glad that that discussion uh came up.

But as it relates to the uh the the timeline after the uh team vacates the facility, which I have not heard that uh once the Browns vacate the uh stadium what what's the timer at that point um for the stadium to be demolished and come down?

Uh to the councilman, uh the what's in the full settlement agreement is that there's a that has to start within six months unless there's some sort of catastrophe that's unforeseen from anybody, but the default is within six months.

So they start within six months to begin demolition of the site.

And do we have um some sort of uh uh completion time?

Estimated timeline, completion?

18 months uh within eighteen.

And the six months start uh when they stop playing football there, okay, as opposed to whenever the option ends.

It's when they stop playing football, then they need to uh progress to demolition within six months.

Got it, okay.

Okay, sounds good.

Uh all right, we'll move on to the committee to questions.

We have Councilman Starr, Councilman Palenzick, and then Councilman Casey than Harsh.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, to the chair, um, to the committee, um question I definitely will ask uh regarding this negotiation deal.

Um, who is the part of the team that negotiated this current deal right here before council?

Uh through the chair to the council member, Mayor Justin Bibb, uh myself, Radford Davy, Chief of Staff, Law Director Mark Griffin.

We have all been involved in negotiations since early 2022.

Uh the rest of the team um has has really sort of changed over time, right?

This 2022 is a while ago.

We've we've changed some teammates.

Um but the team involved in negotiation, the final settlement term also included counsel from Jones Day, uh, our chief operating officer, Bonnie Twin, our chief of integrated development, Tom McNair, our chief financial officer, Paul Barrett, uh, and senior advisor for major projects Jessica Sorosano.

And through to the chair to um Chief of Style Dave, through that team that you just now mentioned, who has experience in working on any negotiation deals of municipalities such as stadium contracts ever, who on that team have done this before?

Through the chair through the chair uh to the councilman.

Uh so the answer is is multifaceted, which is uh within the law department, we've negotiated many uh public works deals.

Uh obviously there are only 32 teams in the NFL, so so there are very few of those.

But with respect to Jones Day, uh Jones Day also has uh experience uh as an entity uh working on behalf of uh NFL teams and NFL related issues.

Uh and when it comes to litigation, uh there are there are decades of experience in terms of defending the city, negotiating real estate deals, uh and negotiating uh issues with respect to uh lakefront development.

And to the point to um law director Griffin, um let me restate my question more so to make it more clear.

So through John's Day, do we have a list of actual NFL, MBA, MLB stadium negotiation contracts that they have currently did before we selected them to be our representation for this stadium deal to the chair?

Uh I'm sure that I could I'm sure that I could ask them for that, but remember also that we negotiate stadium deals uh through gateway uh every virtually every year with respect to our major league baseball team and of course uh our great Cleveland Cavaliers as well.

But with respect to Jones Day, uh one of the things that we wanted was a highly respected team that would negotiate for us.

So uh at the head of our team uh is Justin Herdman, who was the chief law enforcement and civil attorney for the federal government for the entire uh northern half of the state of Ohio, and that is truly a capstone position.

And he brought with him a team uh in our world of law.

Uh if you clerk for a federal judge, that's pretty impressive.

If you clerk for a circuit court judge, that's very impressive.

And no one really is good enough to clerk for uh a Supreme Court justice uh except at Jones Day.

So he brought to us uh two attorneys who had clerked at the Sixth Circuit, an attorney who had clerked at the uh Supreme Court.

So truly this was uh an all-star team, and I don't think that we could have asked for better representation than what we received.

Yes, um to that to that point, just trying to get an understanding from this deal.

Um when we break down to this community benefits agreement that's in before us, um it states two million per year for 10 years, which is a total of 20 million dollars as far as the community benefits package within this deal.

Is that correct to the chair?

Okay.

Correct.

All right, now correct.

Uh and the reason why I asked that because have you looked at other stadium deals in which their community benefit agreement was a little bit different?

And what I mean by that is um what made us land to this 20 million dollar deal as far as a community benefit agreements.

What was so ideally or or so great about the 20 million dollars within the 10-year time frame?

What made us say that is a good deal through the chair?

Through the chair to the uh council person.

Uh, first of all, I understand this is part of an entire package deal.

So we looked at the 100 million dollar benefits to the city that replaced uh you know our obligations to continue to pay for different things, and instead of us paying them, uh this was us receiving a hundred million dollars of which of value, of which 20 percent uh went to will go to community benefits.

And so we thought that that was a uh a strong value.

Uh we also thought it was something that uh in terms of city council would help uh promote your decisions within your wards.

And so we thought this was a a strong uh incentive for us to settle.

Uh and in the alternative, the risk was that we could get nothing.

To the councilman through the chair, I'm sorry, but I also want to mention that the $30 million demolition and site work for the stadium in the city of Cleveland is also subject to the city's community benefits ordinance.

So the 20 million dollars refuse to refers to a cash payment that can be used throughout the city, but there will also be benefits for our MSB CSB um uh women-owned businesses uh for the demolition and site work as well.

Um thank you.

Um to me, it makes me think about this deal because when I look at other deals that have been done, um, just one recently, well, that is taking place with Buffalo.

The Buffalo Bills have a one-time cash payment of 100 million dollars, and then they have another additional 90 million coming in, increments of three million per year for 30 years.

So, right there, that just tells me that's a hundred and ninety million dollars opportunity of a deal, and we're talking about a hundred million dollars for Cleveland.

So, my question is when I ask who has experience, who has been doing this type of contract negotiation, you tell me Jones Day, you told me the amount of people on the mayor administration and the team that put this together, and you telling me the best we can do is a hundred million dollar deal, and including the community benefits part of that one-time part of that um one-time funding source for for the city of Cleveland.

I'm trying to I'm just trying to understand.

Are we are we are we negotiating or are we just having a coke and agreement within this?

I mean, what is actually this hundred million dollar breakdown?

Because as you look at some of this stuff that you call it a community benefit agreement, um, as far as hey, they're gonna demolish the stadium.

So now you say you got this one-time payment or deal of a 30 100 million dollars.

Now you're talking about that 30 million comes down.

Now we're down to 70.

Then you start talking about um different increments of 20 million dollars broken into 10 years.

Now you're talking about we left with 50 million dollars.

And if you're telling me that Buffalo Bills can get a hundred million dollars, one-time cash payment, and then they got um a community benefits agreement where they're getting three million dollars for over 30-year time priority, which is equivalent to I mean, two million every 10 years.

I mean, what are we actually working out here or what are we actually receiving that we can be able to look at a community benefits agreement to help our neighborhoods or even help the lake front to the chair?

Through the through the chair to the council person, uh appreciate your line of questioning.

I I would first predicate this that every stadium deal is different.

So if this is a matter of president, you look no further than Kansas City, Chicago, Jacksonville, most of the development sites where money is going the opposite way.

The term historic deal has been utilized a number of times by some of the reporters in this room.

Um, and and that is that is used not superfluously, it's it's used specifically because it is coming back to the city of Cleveland.

Uh we don't see many stadium deals where money is flowing into the city.

Even the deal that you're describing right now, councilman, uh, you know, is uh tied up with other investments.

There's a requirements for the the city to make investments into new stadiums.

This is a situation in which a team is leaving and making an investment, and so um, you know, if we we want to sort of have conversations where we do a comparative analysis, uh it's important that we do a thorough analysis that includes what are the final products delivered for all of those community benefits to be clear.

The only thing that we are delivering through this community benefit is the Cleveland Browns not playing football downtown anymore.

Um, and so you know the the way in which those capitals come into the city are gonna be different for each of those, uh, each of those projects.

Um more specifically, I'll turn to Jessica to talk a little bit about delivery and purpose.

Sure.

Um, and and I think just to be really clear about delineating, there are some stadium deals where a stadium is being built within a city.

There's substantial public money being put towards the stadium, and then also community benefits as a result of that public money that is not kind of the situation that we're talking about here, as Chief Davey mentioned.

We are talking about a settlement agreement where the Browns are leaving the city, and this is a result of our litigation strategy that we end up with 100 million dollars.

There's a very real world where they could go to Brook Park and the city could have nothing.

There would be no dollars associated with this.

So happy to continue answering specific questions around um that $100 million deal, but that is a hundred million dollars as a result of the litigation strategy that we've had in an attempt to keep the Browns here, but they will be leaving for Brook Park.

Based on what y'all both just said, take a hundred million dollars and that's it through the chair.

Is that what I'm hearing?

To the chair to the councilman, that is not what you're hearing.

What you're hearing is what we just described, councilman.

So I'm interpreting what you just said from to the viewing public, is basically saying that the administration team right here is saying, hey, we either take this 100 million dollars or we risk not getting anything for the terms of this part of the portion of the Browns wanting to leave to go to Brook Park.

So they offered 100 million dollars, and then they broke down the terms to say that they will pay for the demolition of a stadium that is projected to be around 30 million dollars.

But after that projection happened, um it possibly can exceed that because I told you last time when we discussed this, the same amount of 30 million is what it cost to demolish the Yankee Stadium, which is about 11 years ago.

So if you think about the cost of inflation, it's not gonna be 30 million, it's gonna be more.

Um then I believe this team said any additional cost, the Browns will take care of that cost.

And then next thing you know, the Browns will pay or donate 25 million dollars to the city at a one-time cost the minute this deal is struck.

So now you talk about 30 million, 25 million, that's 55 million dollars there.

Um, then you talk about additional 20 million.

So right there is basically saying we're left with um another additional 25 million max, and it just seems as if the people that have vested in this stadium, the city of Cleveland is getting the short end of the stick.

Um, through the chair, this is just me talking to the administration to let them know exactly how it feels.

When you talk about um a community benefits agreement, do we have anything in place such as creating a community benefits oversight committee to be able to handle this through the chair?

Um to all about to the councilman through the chair, we've not contemplated a special community benefits committee for this.

Um for as it relates to the stadium.

I would anticipate that would go through our regular OEO process.

I think if the council administration want to talk about some sort of committee for the two million dollars a year for that total 20 million dollars, I think that's something that we should definitely keep discussing.

Yes, because with the 20 million dollars compared to, like I say, a buffalo, they're getting a 90 million dollars on theirs.

And they're gonna stretch that for 30 years.

So therefore they're gonna be able to do different things in the neighborhood.

And when I look at different impacts and the breakdown of things that can actually possibly take place within there, I think we need to have a community benefits oversight committee so we can work on different things that they can do.

Also, I would like to point out to um the Washington commanders who's going through a similar contract as well.

And one of the things that they have in place with the commanders is they have the economic impact um committee where they work on small businesses where they're gonna have funding.

Um, the team pledged a 15 million dollars to contractors for DC-based small businesses.

So that's another benefit that the commanders have.

Then they also have a community benefits with the commanders will invest 50 million over 30 years to make sure that we have groceries subsidies in our neighborhood.

We know we're dealing with a food desert and inside of the city of Cleveland.

So we should be able to invest in different opportunities, job programs and events focused on different wards in Washington, such as five, seven, and eight, and they also have an oversight committee who would track whether those commitments are met.

So therefore, we should definitely consider that.

Also, they're gonna have local hiring at least 51% of the stadium and hotel construction job must go to DC residents, not suburbs, DC residents with smaller contracts set aside for local businesses, youth and workforce programs, and a new youth academy in their War 7, um, which offers sports, tutoring, mentorship, and teams will go to support those jobs and training.

So when I'm talking about a community benefits bill, and we just keep scrambling screaming 100 million dollars as if the 100 million dollars is just great.

It's just it's it's magnificent.

It's a hundred million dollars.

We're not blinded.

When you when you peel back the layers and you get to the root of the actual onion, you start seeing we're we're not getting a hundred million dollars.

We're getting more like thirty to forty million dollars on this deal when we could have got more when you just seen me break down that the um city in Buffalo is getting a hundred million dollar one-time gift.

So when you talk about this 25 million dollars on the first uh December 1st, or once we pass this or get this to council, it should be 100 million dollars from that standpoint, and then we could break down another 90 million dollars or whatever dollar amount to get these other part of a benefits.

That's how you negotiate a contract.

I'm sorry if I have a sports management degree and I understand these stadium contracts because I studied it.

I'm not just saying it because I'm on a team or a committee.

I'm trying to make sure we get the best thing for our city so we can be able to do things.

Our our residents, our taxpayers was the ones who agreed to build the stadium.

And this administration, not this administration, the administration then was saying, hey, let's deliver and get a stadium here.

Now you're talking about a stadium is getting ready to leave, and we have a team is getting ready to leave, and we still ain't even paid the stadium off.

And then as soon as we pay the stadium off, we're gonna tear it down to create a new investment.

So my question would definitely um go straight into the lake for front development plans.

What is the actual plans and also the projected cost for the lake front development plans that you have um for the city submitted so far through the chair?

Through the chair, through the councilman, if through the chair to the councilman, maybe before I turn it over to Scott about this.

Uh I would be remiss not to point out that you you failed to mention that the deals that you are describing include the development of new sites, which include uh taxpayer payments for those sites to remain in the building.

So if this conversation is one in which council wants to put general revenue money forward to develop a new stadium, some of those benefits may be possible.

But what we heard from this body was to protect the general revenue fund.

And so while we could be having a conversation about additional community benefits that go into stadium projects for the development of stadium projects, we are have the unfortunate, unfortunate circumstance to be talking about a team who has chosen to leave, in which we have received community benefits in lieu of them staying here.

And so it is important that we are we are really clear uh that the Cleveland Browns have chose to play football in a different location other than the city of Cleveland, and they have not asked us for more money to build their stadium.

If that were the case uh through the councilman through the country to the chair to the councilperson, then we would have made asks for specific CBA items like the ones that you described.

But because we are in a situation where the Cleveland Browns are leaving and we are asking them to pay what is essentially restitution for those same commitments that you described, councilman.

I would argue that we are one of the only cities in America who have ever seen the community benefits that you described.

And so uh while I understand your frustration, sir, it is something that has been shared by all of my colleagues.

And while I would like to acknowledge Councilman Slife from Ward 17 uh in his statement that we should be spending our time talking about other things, I would offer that our time here today is in fact that.

This is a conversation in which we have all collectively acknowledged that unfortunately the Cleveland Browns will be playing football somewhere else.

And in this moment, we are asking to celebrate together the accomplishment of ensuring that the residents of Cleveland will be made whole.

It is true.

It may not be fully whole.

That is up to many of the people around this room to help realize.

We will need to work incredibly hard to assure that the dollars that are generated from Cleveland Brown Stadium downtown uh stay in Cleveland.

And and what I know, what I am certain of, is all of the people inside of this building will work tirelessly to ensure that happens.

But what I cannot allow uh what I cannot allow is for us to uh mix and mingle realities.

This is a reality that happened to us, and we should be proud of our collaboration at the end of it with the Cleveland Browns to deliver something for residents.

If there were more to be got, uh, please know that we would be taking responsibility for leaving something on the table.

Uh, that is not the case.

Uh, and I am incredibly proud of the men and women who have ensured that to be true.

Thank you.

Through the chair.

Okay, so within this goat negotiation, what would be the cost of paying off the bonds is going to be since you negotiated this through the chair?

Mr.

Travisado.

Uh, sure, sorry, let me just flip to.

Uh there is currently the remaining debt balance, uh, remaining debt service for the next three years is about 9.2 million dollars a year for 26, 27, and 28.

That's the debt principal remaining on the stadium that is tied to the 30-year lease of that stadium.

So right under 30 million dollars.

And then the net funds that will be available after that demolition and the bonds repayment is done, paid off.

What would that be?

There would once the bonds are paid off, uh, there aren't funds, there's no other additional money that would have to go into the stadium besides for annual capital repairs, which are limited to just health and safety repairs.

And then the annual capital repairs would left remaining on the stadium up until 2028 is how much on projected cost.

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, we're uh estimating around four million a year for health and safety repairs to make sure that visitors and employees of the stadium are kept safe.

So roughly 12 million or 16 million to the chair.

To to the to the councilman through the chair, roughly 12 million.

So therefore, are you telling me we're going to pay off a house and then tear down and continue to put money into the for the next um three or four years through the chair?

To the councilman through the chair, I was not here 30 years ago when uh the administration and council agreed to a 30-year stadium uh proposal.

Uh, but that is how the debt and the you know capital repairs are based on is that 30-year commitment that the Browns are going to continue playing in the stadium for.

And I'll wrap and I wrap up right here, Chair, just to make sure we get an understanding.

One of the key deliveral deliberals I wanted to make sure are brought to the table is a community benefits oversight committee.

Um we're dealing with terms of how we're going to actually um determine how to spend dollars since we're only getting 20 million dollars over 10 years, um, as far as community benefits.

Um, that means I mean, I mean, our our city only get 20 million dollars from a team leaving.

Wow.

Um, compared to other stadiums, they don't get that.

But also in in understanding of of this this deal, I definitely will just wrap up is making sure we understand um how we get to that lakefront development.

I know I meant to add I did ask um about the lakefront and the actual plans for the lakefront and the actual cost um regarding the lakefront development plans.

Do we have a total number of how much is going to cost to actually develop the lakefront?

Yes, we know what it's going to look like or what's the goal.

But what is the actual dollar amount that is going to get us to that that that road map of success?

Mr.

Skinner.

Uh to the uh to the councilman through the chair.

Um it's a complicated question.

I'm gonna put it in a couple different buckets for you.

The first is the North Coast Connector project, uh, which is the change to the uh the the reimagined of the shoreway, the construction of the land bridge, and ultimately the construction of a multimodal transit hub.

That's estimated to be at 447 million dollars.

The part of that that is funded that we are moving forward with, I'll call it the first phase, is a 284 million dollar infrastructure project.

Uh that is the construction of the land bridge and the reimagining of the shoreway from west third to about east twelfth.

That is funded through 150 million dollars in grants, 130 from the federal and 20 from the state.

Uh and the balance will be some sort of uh debt product related to the city's shore to quarter shore TIF district.

So that's the infrastructure piece of this.

Uh then there's the actual development of the lakefront.

And then within that, I'm gonna put that into a couple buckets.

The $50 million, $25 up front and five uh a year from 29 to 33, is meant to cover some of the public space because parks don't pay for themselves, as well as the infrastructure costs uh of the lakefront.

Um above and beyond that, most of the lakefront will be privately financed.

We are gonna be developing public space.

We will handle some of the infrastructure work, um, and we are doing that so we can facilitate the the market so we can facilitate developers to come in and build the rest of it.

So those are not costs that are borne by the city.

Uh we do not know exactly what that's going to look like yet either.

Uh the city spent before I was even in this role three years doing community engagement and understanding what folks want to see on the lakefront and put together a really terrific master plan with the world-class uh planning group.

Um that master plan has a stadium in it.

So we're uh we are reimagining now what that plan looks like without a stadium.

Uh what that process will look like moving forward.

Uh in short order, we will announce development partners that we want to work with.

So these are private developers who have said, I want to invest in uh on the downtown lake front, I want to invest my money in uh in Cleveland.

Uh we will then work with them and another planning group to put together a new version of a master plan that does not include a stadium.

So to answer your question directly, councilman, I can't tell you exactly uh what it's gonna look like yet because we are still working through that process.

The last master plan was a two and a half to three year process.

This is one that is going to be very expedited.

Uh and I expect mid-2026, we will have some version of a plan to show to the general public uh to show to council um and to solicit additional community feedback from.

Thank you.

And just to that to that last point, um you went through a lot of community engagement, residents support about a master plan on a lakefront that did include a stadium.

Yes.

Now that stadium has removed, I think is is in a right and a duty for you to take your actual new plans that you're trying to do back to the community to talk about it.

Because if they this community envisioned one thing, and then that one major part of the development changes, you're talking about a different area of type opportunity for development.

And then also back then we did not include the fact that the administration has asked for help from our congresswoman to um get rid of Burke Airport.

So those things need to be included in whatever plans we are looking to do to make sure residence input is is thought of before we just move forward and say, hey, it's gonna be expedited.

We need to take our time to make sure this this plans that we're trying to do actually come forth um with the residents included as a top priority, and I yell chair.

Thank you, Councilman.

Um Councilman Starr makes a good point about it, maybe as we continue these conversations between the council and administration, uh, you know, even if it's just centered around the two million dollar year, right?

You know, having uh a group that comes together, you know, not one or two people or three or four people, but really a group that can come and discuss, you know, possibilities, you know, for the annual payments that um we have.

And again, we don't have to make that decision today.

It's just you know, hearing the idea, it it it you know, it is a good idea, right?

Uh that we can get folks together to have some of those uh discussions as we move along.

Don't need to answer today.

Uh but you know, let's let's put that on our our list of things to discuss as we move uh forward, okay.

Um and then uh secondly, um around the um uh uh the you rattle you rattled off some numbers, Mr.

Skinner, about you know what the cost that we have already, you know, some of them which I know because we're we're still in the N N CA, we've been a part of many of these discussions uh as DPS chair, but um would I discussion that have come to me and just kind of you know what some through the conversations, what is the goal, right?

What what what is the goal and and where have we have we thought about the amount of residents, the amount of commercial uh office space footage we need to kind of I don't think we uh uh it'll be years before we can we can meet the exact um uh levels of where uh the Browns in the impact they've had.

But you know, have we thought about the goal?

Have we thought about what it's gonna take in terms of scrib footage and amount of residents and people uh coming to that area to kind of get us uh to that point of of what we are we will no longer have once the Browns uh leaves that part of um uh downtown?

Uh to the chair, it's a very good question.

Um a lot of economic analysis was done as a um as part of the process for the initial master plan that does include a stadium.

Um it suggested anywhere from 600 to 900 apartments is what the market could bear in that site, uh, somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 hotel keys is what the market could bear on that site.

Obviously, without a stadium, the calculus is different.

And it'll be a long sort of there will a long economic impact analysis and a long process to understand exactly how many apartment units, how many hotel keys, what other uses uh that the market can bear.

Um I don't have a specific number uh for you.

Obviously, the goal is to replace and add in the aggregate to the users that are coming down coming downtown uh right now, six uh plus or minus six hundred fifty thousand people across 10 games.

Um but it will be a very long to uh the councilman's point, a very long community-driven process to understand exactly what is going to go there.

Sure.

And just thinking um again, all the other conversations.

There was once a conversation about this the soccer stadium, I know, down by uh the the Guardians field, there was a discussion there.

You know, have we have we uh had a conversations with maybe that group who were looking to bring the the uh soccer team here uh to Cleveland.

Um to the council.

I was asked that question.

I I couldn't answer that.

I didn't know where we're yeah, to the councilman.

I don't want to get too in the details of Scott's RFQ process, but um a soccer stadium, we have there have been conversations around soccer on the lakefront, and it's currently vetting to see if that's uh appropriate use for the federal.

Absolutely, you know, even when you think about uh these these uh tennis fields, right?

And places, you know, we have some great summers here, right?

And to have a facility like that right off the water that can that can house uh soccer uh teams who can house uh um you know our summer uh tennis uh uh games and I'm just just thinking if if if our goal if if some of us want to keep that sports-like feel, right, you know, and those attractions because those are the type of uh um things that will bring thousands of people together in addition to concerts and and other you know uh kind of uh national events.

Um but just thinking kind of down the line, you know.

I know there's many quite conversations that are happening around the use of the site, so I just wanted to put that out there.

Appreciate it, the chairman.

Um recreation is something that will be critical to this site, and we're actually already doing it as well.

This summer um uh Director McNair alluded to earlier at the North Coast Yard, uh, we took 1.5 acres of that 25-acre surface parking lot, put some shipping containers and some paint on it, and had 25,000 unique visitors.

Most of those visits visitors were coming for uh a Monday night soccer league, that Ohio City Soccer put on sort of playing European-style foot futsal.

Uh P League hosted uh uh basketball league there throughout the entire summer every Wednesday.

Um and we had uh uh Roland Buckeyes had roller skating there on Friday evenings.

So those were what folks are being drawn to for the lakefront right now.

We're already doing that work.

And when we think about the community engagement process as part of the initial master plan that included a stadium, you know, that information, that process is still useful.

We have a lot of data for what folks said they wanted to see on the lakefront, and recreation is just right up at the top of the list, and that is top of mind and thinking about how to differentiate this site and how to provide a really valuable asset for the general public that does not currently exist in downtown Cleveland.

Gotcha.

Um my last point before we move on to the committee members.

Um I'm thinking about all the Muni League teams that we have across the city: basketball, football, flag football, and the other folks we have around the city.

Have we have we uh thought about ways to, as we work to redevelop this site, that we can um uh develop this in a way that we can attract more of those type actions, right?

Because though those those mini-league teams, they they gonor hundreds of people as well, right?

And and they and they are have to happen more frequent than the eight eight Disney games that we have here uh uh from the from the Browns.

And again, I know that it's not um the you know the the same in terms of attendance and you know everything that that's sending around, the the eight to ten home games, but those are hundreds of people, man, that are that are frequent who who are city folks, right?

Uh primarily in and to get them more engaged in in down in that part of uh the city.

Uh to the chair, absolutely.

Um have had those conversations.

Um one of the reasons why those folks aren't coming downtown to our waterfront right now is that the space doesn't exist, right?

So as as we are continuing to advance what will be the permanent version uh of public space down there of recreation space, and as we are continuing to program the North Coast Yard in the summer of 2026 and 2027, those are conversations that we are already having and will continue to have to ensure that we're meeting the the space and physical needs uh of these groups that to your point do come down and utilize other uh city services, go to restaurants and spend time downtown.

Sure.

Thank you.

Uh we'll move on to Councilman Palenzi, Casey Harsh.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Chairman, my honorable colleagues, and to the administration.

Um I've had a pleasure to work with most of you at the tail, except I haven't had the pleasure with Mr.

Shuttle yet.

Um let me just say this.

Um we collectively cannot continue to make bad decisions around this city.

I've been here long enough to see a lakefront line that goes to a parking lot that nobody wants to ride to building a hotel downtown with no parking.

Um losing a jail of 400 plus jobs to Garfield Heights, um the Browns leaving the Brook Park, uh schools about to be closed that will devastate our neighborhoods.

So I came in this body over 33 Councilman, January 1st, there will be 15.

We're going to go through the census again in 2030.

Um if we don't get it right in this city, we're gonna lose another two wards from the east side of the city.

I will tell you that right now.

Because I see nothing before us that tells me anything about stabilizing our city specific, the east side of the city.

Nothing.

So we have the Browns legislation before us.

A hundred million dollars.

Councilman Starr touched on many of the points.

Within 100 million dollars is 30 million set aside for demolition.

The legislation, if passed, requires the Cleveland Brown Stadium to be demolished, correct?

Uh to the councilman through the chair, it anticipates that it will be, yes, it will be right.

It will be demolished.

See, I'm not convinced the stadium needs to come down.

I'm not convinced of that.

I believe, and I'm going to propose to the council that we need to get an independent um study of the stadium.

Tell us the condition of the stadium.

Give us an independent oversight engineering report as to the condition of existing Cleveland Brown Stadium.

Based on $33 million we owe in debt, plus 27.871 in debt service, $12 million in capital, $1.1 million for the lawsuit, we will wind up at a negative $3.97 million if we approve this deal.

We will be in the red $3.97 million.

So to my brothers and sisters, honorable colleagues and to the Administration.

When I spoke to Jimmy Haslin twice, and I will say publicly, I appreciate him reaching out to me to talk.

I indicated to him on the phone, I didn't meet with him in person.

We talked on a phone for a lane.

And I told him I thought it was a bad deal.

And his comment was to me, and I got to say this publicly.

He said, Well, Councilman, you tell me what needs to be improved in the deal.

And I touched on a few points, but he also said to me, I'm not going to, I'm not going to negotiate against myself.

So I think, going back to Councilman Starr's comment, I think we still had movement.

We had the possibility to get more out of the Cleveland Browns, out of the team, out of what we've experienced.

And so I don't think we pressed SHG enough.

We have spent almost $700 million on the Lakefront Stadium.

Now I want to say that again.

$700 million with debt service.

Nobody, when our own staff, Mr.

Chairman, when our own staff tried to find out how much the roads, the sewer lines, the water lines, the CPP, nobody could tell us.

They said it's been too long ago.

They can't provide.

That's what the staff told me.

The city cannot provide that.

And I will tell you that was a substantial amount of money, because I was here.

And I'm one of the I'm the only one left in this body that voted against that bad deal.

And I wish I had been wrong, but I wasn't.

So we poured millions and millions into water lines, sewer lines, CPP, road work, et cetera, which was never part of the original structure itself.

So what do we wind up with?

Number one in poverty, number two in childhood poverty.

According to people who speak the worst place in the country for black women to live, I could go all down the list of what all the negative indicators we're confronted with over these past 30 years.

So I'm going to go back to my original comment.

To the talented people at this table.

We cannot continue to make bad decisions here.

We are moving into very difficult times, and I'm going to say this to my colleagues.

The bunch in Columbus continue to make bad decisions that affect our bottom line, affect our operations in the City of Cleveland.

And why they continue to do this is beyond me.

So we're dealing, we're dealing with diminishing resources, and yet we're going to agree to a deal that in the long scheme of things doesn't do much for us.

Doesn't do much for us.

So my question to the law director, is the lawsuit still in effect, the three lawsuits?

We know there's four, but there are three lawsuits pending.

Through the chair to the councilman.

They have been stayed.

And if the uh court or if the uh council chooses not to approve this legislation, uh then that will uh those will go forward, but there will then be the risk of getting nothing.

Right.

And none of those lawsuits will enable us to uh force the Cleveland Browns to stay here.

At the end of their lease, uh they can leave.

Well the value of the lawsuits has been to uh create um well, certainly uncertainty and to prevent them from negotiating with Brook Park.

But the negotiations have been going on for three years.

Three very difficult negotiations.

And uh and I think that this result is a good result.

Okay.

Well, Jimmy hasn't told me, he said point blank.

He said, I don't have to give you anything.

He told me that on the phone.

But I said we gave you 700 million dollars.

And you and you and he told me also that the stadium was not a good stadium.

But I said you knew that when you bought it, when you bought the team.

Okay.

We sacrificed the people of Cleveland sacrificed.

We gave up a substantial amount of money to the Cleveland Browns and to all the sports teams.

We gave them a substantial amount of money.

And what did we wind up?

Take a walk in these neighborhoods.

Take a look at what the conditions are that exists in these neighborhoods today.

The number of people who can't fix their homes.

Start when you when you walk, look up, a third of the houses need to get the roofs repaired.

Grades leaning, front porch is sagging.

We could have funded a whole lot of programs and initiatives.

But we we were told that if you build it, not only will they come, but the city will prosper as a result of it.

And it was a bunch of BS.

It was a bunch of BS they laid on us.

They extorted us.

They extorted the previous mayor at that time, they extorted him, they extorted the body collectively, they extorted our citizens.

So, Mr.

Chairman, to the administration again, who are talented people, you're talented people at this table.

I don't believe the deal is good for us at this point.

I believe the lawsuits give us leverage.

They give us leverage because if they are required to stay here longer at Cleveland's Lakefront Stadium, and going back to I think it was Councilman Slaif's comment, whoever made the comment.

For us to agree to any lease extension at the same terms, we need to go see a proctologist.

Let me tell you that right now.

Okay?

I mean, $250,000 a year, give me a frickin' break.

Give me a break.

I want that deal.

$250,000 a year, that's what they pay the City of Cleveland.

We pay the insurance, we pay the taxes, we pay for everything, capital repairs, and we're going to extend that, give them a lease extension for two years without extracting anything else out of them?

Have we lost our friggin' minds at this table?

No, not at this table.

Have we lost our minds in this city?

So, Mr.

Chairman, this is what I I see.

Touch again with some of my colleagues.

The demo is debatable, in my opinion.

Because once the stadium comes down, then he has no competition with Jimmy's world out there at the 170 acres.

Because he told me on a phone to his benefit, he wants to bring, he told me, Councilman Palencick, we only play 10 games there.

I said, Mr.

Hasman, you're right.

But he he said, I want to bring at least 50 events out there.

He wants to bring at least 50 events.

So he's going to compete against Playhouse Square.

He's going to compete against Huntington Convention Center.

He's competing against Rocketfield.

And the pe folks at Playhouse Square and up at the Rocket Field, you know, they had lock jaws.

Never said a frickin' word during this whole process.

Never said a word.

And look at the public money we've poured in a Playhouse Square in the last 40 plus years.

Never said a word.

He is going to compete.

You know, he's a businessman.

He didn't he didn't make, he didn't become a billionaire by being pleasant.

He became a billionaire by being a hustler by knowing how to run businesses.

He wants to create a complex out there that he told me he's going to he wants a 500-room hotel.

500-room hotel plus all these other amenities he wants to create out there.

And I got to tell you right now.

Why the city port control?

You talk about bad planning, no vision.

The city port control, didn't the division, our department park to not buy that 170 acres right next to the airport is beyond me.

You talk about a lack of vision.

It's there.

It's a freaking lot.

And we don't, right next to the airport, and we don't buy it.

I'm like, one bad decision, bad decision after another.

So, Mr.

Chairman, we're gonna now besides taking the team.

Now we're gonna give him 10 years that on community benefits that he has input into.

He's bailing, but we're gonna give him input into how $2 million is going to be spent.

And also, explain to me about this.

He's gonna have input or about the lakefront development of Burke Airport.

Is someone explain does he have first dibs on that?

Does he HSG going to have some input into the development of Burke?

Which again is something else that I don't know needs to go.

Okay, because the city has never made an effort to make it work to Burke Airport.

Through the chair to the councilman, HSG does not have any development rights for the lake front, either at the stadium or Burke.

Then why is it in the agreement?

You've got you got it, it's right in there.

About they're gonna they're gonna be you're gonna be working with them to the councilman through the councilman through the chair.

The agreement is intended to uh indicate that the city and HSG will work together on certain big priorities, like coordinating on the airport to make sure that traffic and the airport improvements are.

I'm not talking about Hopkins, I'm talking Burke.

I'm talking Burke in the lakefront.

It's right in there.

Um Councilman, can you uh share exactly where it is in the uh the agreement that you see that you are concerned about?

And I I think the mayor mentioned when he was here at council, you know, one of the benefits of this new relationship with HSG that's a little less litigious, is that we can work hand in hand on some of our shared priorities.

And so the intention here is to be able to leverage HSG's relationships in Washington, D.C.

and down at the State to try to help accomplish some city priorities, like closing Berkeley Front Airport.

So you're telling him so both parties will work together to ensure ensuring public health and safety.

No, wait a minute.

Okay.

Um that's not the right line.

I'm looking on the case.

I think the difference is whether they have development rights or whether we've uh agreed to work together to try to promote things.

And so I think I think that's where the confusion could be.

Well, if if we get if this council gets to a point, I want to say that again.

If this council gets to a point where we wish to redevelop Burke Airport or the lakefront, then I would assume that this council would demand that it be open to any developer who would like to come in and put a forth a proposal.

We're not going to be locked into anyone or getting uh making uh deals with anyone.

We're gonna we're gonna open up to bring in the best possible development we can.

So, Mr.

Chairman, I'm not gonna belabor the point.

There's been very good points made already.

I think we could extracted more out of HSG.

I I I'm troubled by the whole the way the negotiations went, quite frankly.

Um the fact of the state throwing in $600 million, um, which does not, to my knowledge, does not have to be paid back.

Um as I'm coming down here this morning for this hearing.

Um looking at the noise walls and sections by 90 to have holes in them, broken guardrails, broken signs, yet the state is gonna come up with the last figure I saw was approximately $140 million plus to do um ODOT was gonna do infrastructure work around the their new proposed site.

Yeah, we can't get repairs, we can't get additional state highways repaired in the city.

This this whole thing has left a very bad taste in my mouth in light of what I've seen historically here.

And my comment was to uh Mr.

Haslum.

Um we have to step back a moment and ask about loyalty.

We have to ask about um remembering the sacrifices of Cleveland taxpayers.

And what I've come to the realization here, and I when I sat, Mr.

Chairman, I sat in then the Council President's office with the late Paul Tagliaboo when they were they came to us to talk about, I was then majority whip to talk about the lakefront plan.

I mean about the the Browns stadium proposal.

And I'll never forget him sitting in that room.

And I think he mentioned maybe football three times.

He mentioned about the PSLs and who was gonna control the concessions and who was gonna control advertising and who was gonna pay for this and who was gonna pay for that, and what the NFL was insisting.

And here I am, I'm going into a meeting saying, oh, this is about the Browns and keeping the Cleveland the name here and keeping the colors here and all this fan crap.

And then it sat in that room in the council president, and it and it like uh Pericles sword fell in my head, so you know what?

Has to do about who pays and who plays.

Who pays?

And what became very clear when I walked out of the council president's office is that we are going to pay through the nose to keep the Cleveland Browns here, to keep the name, to keep the colors, had nothing to do about what was good for the city.

It was about who made the money and who paid for it.

So here we are again today, at the end of this long uh process of having to endure a crappy team on the field.

Watching that disaster yesterday.

I'm glad I watched it.

I always watch the last four minutes, then I feel fine.

Um we gotta wrap up, Councilman.

Yeah, I am wrapping up.

Mr.

Chairman, as the legislation is presented right now, uh, in all due respect to the administration.

I know I know Justin Hurdman.

Fine, fine, outstanding attorney.

But I just don't know if they were given, if they were given the direction, given to direction or the our our team of negotiators.

I don't know if you were, I don't believe you were able to extract out of the team what we needed out of the team.

And so as the legislation stands, Mr.

Chairman, as it stands, if it comes before this body, I will not vote for it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilman.

Councilman Casey.

Uh Mr.

Chairman Matt, may I respond to a couple of those points?

Yeah, I give you, you can respond briefly.

Uh Chief, because we got to move on.

I I I did just want to say, Councilman, I I appreciate many of your points in there.

Um, I say all the time we are a city of infinite needs and very limited resources, right?

I understand that.

I think it is important to note that we are making a great many investments, particularly on the east side of the city of Cleveland.

Uh leveraging our waterfronts isn't unique to downtown Cleveland, right?

There's a 300 plus million dollar project for uh the Cheers and Metro Parks and many people that are coming around between East 55th and East 72nd Street to rebuild our waterfronts uh in addition to uh investments in Gordon Park, but also all this comes down to the fact that we know that Clevelanders need good quality jobs, which is why uh this administration and council work together to put 50 million dollars into the site readiness fund, which is being leveraged by another 50 million dollars, which now has over 200 acres of land under control, much of it on the east side, to bring good high quality jobs to the city of Cleveland.

Uh, I think that also comes in play with the opportunity corridor, which there have been many uh major investments made in, and there's a lot of work going on behind the scenes right now to populate those sites.

And I think also really important, I I hear you at the 700 million dollars that the taxpayers of the city of Cleveland, including myself, uh have made in the current facility there, right?

I think it's important for all of us to know that one uh any real estate asset, right, is worth what it's worth today, uh, not what you've put in it over the course of time.

Uh right.

And and on top of that, I think that we can we can look at this.

Was that a lot to pay?

Sure.

Uh I you know, we could go on and on about the impact of professional sports facilities downtown.

I know that there are a lot of opinions on that, but I also, you know, I am old enough to remember, you know, I remember my mom uh and my family were coming downtown to see the king and I after Playhouse Square was felt.

I was a little kid, uh and I will never forget my mom telling me we're going down Prospect Avenue, she said, Tom, I need you to cover your eyes and put your head uh down, right?

And I didn't understand it at the time, but I think several people may remember what Prospect Avenue used to be like.

Uh I also remember that I lived downtown for a period of about 10 years uh in the early 2000s, and most of the buildings that existed around me were boarded up vacant and abandoned, uh right.

And the investments in these facilities brought a lot of folks downtown, they brought a lot of regenerative growth downtown.

Did that change the conditions in our neighborhoods?

No, absolutely not.

These are not civil bullets, there's a high price to pay, but as we also learned in this city, if you are not willing to pay them, somebody is, right?

That is the business of Pro Sports.

It is an ugly business.

I think that we're talking about a proposition now where we are actually deobligating Clevelanders of those long-term costs that we're all dealing with right now.

And then and in exchange for that, we're getting dollars to reinvest of like where can we drive revenue, right?

Which is why I always come back to like where are the places that we can win.

And when I look at that, it is that green city on a blue lake, right?

And so we're talking about taking reven dollars in right now that we can invest in infrastructure and the types of things that are going to attract investment and the type of investment that is able to be utilized, uh, 365 days a year, the type of investments that will pay tax revenues that are coming on the books and not just be about these 10 days a year.

So I hear you, and and the last part I would add here, as it comes to reusing the uh the stadium or demolishing the stadium, right?

Um, you know, I know you said it's like negative 3.5 million dollars, but actually uh, if we went through that, if we got nothing and we went through the whole process and we had to demolish it, then we're down like 40 million dollars.

Uh I'll also say that I would think that the adaptive reuse of a facility like that would be incredibly expensive.

Um and somebody's going to need that money to come from somewhere, and I can tell you right now, I don't care if it's an adaptive reuse of a stadium, an office building, an apartment building, they all look at us to start plugging those gaps.

Um and frankly, I think when we talk about the concerts, and yes, uh, I absolutely know and understand that we are now talking about facility that is being designed to compete with many of the places downtown Cleveland.

Uh we did not enable that.

The state of Ohio did.

Uh right.

And so, but ultimately, I think if we are talking about places where you can have concerts and those sorts of things, yes.

And I think that there's a place for that uh on our waterfront.

I know that those are conversations that are going on right now.

Uh, and ultimately, if you think about the cost of maintenance, which we all know way too well, uh, that facility, that's probably not what we want to invest in long term as opposed to a more simple structure.

But Mr.

Chairman, to the director, and I appreciate your comments.

Again, I will say to the council, we need to get an independent review of the stadium.

We need it, someone needs to tell us independently.

Is this place that bad that it needs to come down?

Okay.

And I understand all your comments at the end of the day, and I appreciate them.

At the end of the day, again, I want to go back to my opening comment, Mr.

Chairman, and I appreciate your giving me this time.

We cannot continue to make bad decisions, Tom.

We cannot make bad decisions going forward.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you, Chief, for you uh for your response.

Um, Chief Dee Win.

May I make a comment in this charge?

Um so, in regard to the independent study, we have done an independent study in 2024.

Osborne Engineering took a full assessment of the current stadium.

Um, and they've determined that there would need to be a hundred and seventeen million dollar investment into up to the year 2034.

Um, that's just to keep it at the current level that it is right now.

So we have done that study.

Um, and then using it for other opportunities.

Um, stadiums are built very specifically now to the sport that it's it's catering to.

So a stadium that might be a good stadium for football um uh team would not necessarily be a good stadium that's for a soccer team or baseball team.

Mr.

Chairman, I would hope that the report would be forwarded to the council to the various committees, uh, because I've not seen that report, and I don't know if the committees have seen that report.

Thank you.

All right, yeah, just make sure we get it to uh Mr.

Titra and get it to folks who have not had a chance to see it.

Uh Councilman Casey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um Mr.

Chairman, just to piggyback a little bit off of Councilman Palency, when it comes to loyalty, you have to understand who we're dealing with.

We're dealing with an individual who you know had his pilot flying J scandal where he ripped off the hardworking truckers of the United States.

We're dealing with an individual who wanted to sue or sued Warren Buffett over billions of dollars because he was inflating his own his own uh investments.

We've got a guy here who went downstate a number of times in the state of Ohio and has bought the state of Ohio, even in regards to the model law changing different things around when it comes to redistricting and everything else.

So Mike, I I don't think loyalty is a word that that man into unless it's his own pocketbook, uh which is what we know of, uh there is no loyalty to the city of Cleveland when it comes to to Haslam Sports Group, Jimmy Taslam, D.

Haslam, or anybody else uh who's running that organization over there.

Um my first question, Mr.

Chairman, to the other side of the table is uh at the last committee hearing, um Director Griffin, you indicated that the Browns were in violation of their lease.

So why is part of this agreement um extending the lease that they're already in violation of through the chair to the councilman?

Uh you asked whether they were in violation of the lease.

And our view is that negotiating with Brook Park and taking steps to uh to build a stadium there was inconsistent with their lease obligations.

So uh as part of a package deal for everything for the hundred million that we're getting, uh we think it's in the best interest of the city to make that um decision.

It let me also say this, which is I think one of the core questions, 30 years ago, our community made a decision to subsidize pro sports.

And that's cost us uh close to 700 million dollars.

And one of the one of the objections that I hear today is a value decision about maybe we shouldn't continue to subsidize pro sports anymore.

And I think one of the things about this uh this agreement is that instead of us paying 10 to 15 million a year between the bonds and the the four uh four million up uh upkeep or the 117 million, we'll go from paying out to receiving.

And so I think it is a good deal on behalf of the city, and I think actually it's consistent with the values that I hear around this state, this table, that uh we should be receiving money instead of paying money.

Mr.

Chairman of Director Griffin, I hope you keep that same philosophy, thought, and those exact words in mind if you have if the administration ever comes to this council looking for money for another stadium for soccer.

I'm just saying.

So I really hope that if that's your belief of the administration, that if you ever come to us looking for money to put a soccer stadium in the city, that you keep that philosophy.

Um kind of touched on, but um, what is the expectation of the advanced leak front development in conjunction with Haslam Sports Group to Ms.

Trivisano or Scott?

Should we just just remind her, make sure all questions and go back to the chair?

All right.

Uh through the chair to the councilman.

Uh can you clarify exactly what you are asking?

Exactly.

And it in it, Mr.

Chairman, to Scott.

Yep.

Right.

Um it says uh in uh in the term advanced lakefront development, right?

That the Haslams will be involved in the advanced quote, the advanced league front development.

What would be HSG's role in what we would consider advanced lake front development?

Uh Mr.

Chairman to that.

To the councilman through the chair.

Scott, I don't know if you have a title with Scott.

Uh $50 million is the is the first answer to that question.

Is the advancement to the lakefront development comes with $25 million up front and another five million dollars over five uh per year over five years from 2029 to 2033?

And Mr.

Chairman, to to Scott, is that it?

Just the fact that they're gonna give the $50 million.

That is that they're they're not involved with any what should go there, what shouldn't go there, not none of that stuff.

Okay.

All right.

Um to the councilman, um, just to be very clear, with the exception of uh David Jenkins is the um president of HSG, and because the Browns are on the lake front, they are a stakeholder on Scott's board along with Rock Hall, um, Great Lake Science Center, the port, and the city's appointment.

So they have one vote of a board of 12.

Okay, so I just don't want it to be misconstrued later.

All right.

So, Mr.

Chairman De Scott, once they're off the lake, are they off your board?

Uh that is a decision to to the uh councilman through the chair.

That is a decision that's up to my board and not me.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, didn't the mayor appoint that board?

Uh mayor and council president Griffin uh jointly appointed the board.

Okay.

I I know there was okay.

We'll we'll get that.

So uh Mr.

Chairman to Ms.

Trivisano, mutually agreed upon CBA.

I would love to be in the room, Mr.

Chairman to Ms.

Tribassano, when you're gonna negotiate any of the CBA, that the Haslam Sports Group would have to okay in my ward.

I would love to be in the room.

Because I don't think keeping the fingers in the cookie jar um and for them to say where their where the money should be should be dictated, I think that should we shouldn't have to okay it through through Haslam sports groups.

That's just my opinion.

Uh to the councilman, if you don't mind, Chair, I expect that council will be in the room.

That it will be a negative that we will start between council and the administration to discuss what is on that list.

Okay.

And to the extent that there is disagreement with that list, I anticipate that that would be continued conversations with the council.

I look forward to that one.

All right.

Um who wrote, Mr.

Chairman, to the chief.

Who wrote the actual term sheet?

Through through the chair to the council member.

Uh that was done by our outside council.

Jones Day.

Correct.

Okay.

Um which would leads me to my next next uh my next question.

Mr.

Chairman, the next time we have uh a joint committee hearing or a committee hearing in this, I do believe that it would be appropriate for Jones Day to be at the table.

Um we'll invite Jones Day to give their opinion on where we're where we should go where making sure that there's still an agreement or what their opinion of the whole deal was.

Um Mr.

Chairman to Director Griffin or the Chief, who's J H A C L L C H A C L L C I believe that that's a Haslam related LLC.

Is it I I don't know, because they're part they're part of this.

And I I knew every so Mr.

Mr.

Chairman Mr.

Visano, could you elaborate?

Do you know who they are?

Uh I uh J H J H A C L L C I can get you information about what that specific affiliate does, but it is an affiliate.

Because they're they're part of whoever they are, they're part of this agreement.

I just didn't know, I mean, I understand the other ones, but but that one.

And um uh in conjunction with the term sheet, one E.

Um, does that does that put the Mr.

Chairman to uh Director Davey, does that put us in violation of our own city charter?

Uh I would like to hear from Chief Davy first.

Through the chair, I'm gonna defer to our legal counsel who is best positioned to answer that question.

Oh, through our director.

Uh through the chair to the councilman.

Uh the answer to that is no.

Um the resolution that was passed, the ordinance that was passed by this council, uh, urged the administration and me, the law director, to um enforce the model law to the fullest extent possible.

Part of the model law uh is contingent upon whether or not the city agrees to allow them to to go.

Uh and so what this does is essentially satisfies the model law and satisfies the resolution by giving them that permission.

And Mr.

Chairman, to the to the director, you know it was an ordinance and not a resolution, so it is law.

Uh yes, thank you.

And I and I misspoke if I I think I said both resolution ordinance, but so that that brings me to my second question, Mr.

Chairman to the to Director Griffin, Chief Davy.

Um, if this is passed, are we telling the Cleveland Browns, yes, you have our permission to leave the City of Cleveland Yes.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, to Ms.

Trivisano or Scott or even Chief Tijuan, is raising the stadium tied to lakefront development?

To the councilman, yes.

Okay.

So since tearing the stadium down is tied to lakefront development, the initial $25 million that the Haslums have agreed to to provide the city could go toward then the bonds, since that's part of lakefront development and that original $25 million, Mr.

Chairman and Ms.

Trivisano is for lakefront development, and tearing the stadium down is part of lakefront development, we could actually use that $25 million to put toward the bond, which would free up, which would leave us only $8 million and free up $25 million in general fund that the taxpayer of the City of Cleveland have obligated to to the stadium.

To the councilman um through the chair, and I'll ask my colleagues to add, the intention of the dollars, the settlement dollars with HSG is to advance our lakefront mission.

And so while demolition of the stadium is a key portion of that and paying off the debt is a kind of prerequisite to the demolition, ultimately what we're looking for is to, as I think we've talked about really well here today, is to mitigate the impact of losing the stadium for our downtown businesses, our residents, and our city overall.

So maybe technically, yes, but I think that there's a lot of reasons why we wouldn't want to.

But but the the 30, what is it, 32 million dollars or 33 million dollars that's left on bond revenue is being paid for by the taxpayers of the city of Cleveland, Mr.

Chairman, to the other side of the table.

And if we have the ability to ease their burden on the $32 million that is left with the $25 million gift for advancement of the lakefront, and you just admitted that tearing the stadium down is for advancement of the lakefront, we could possibly use that 25, we could possibly use that 25 million toward paying off the bonds, which would ease the tax burden of the payer of the ratepayers of the city of Cleveland, correct?

To the councilman, it's I I don't know that it would ease the burden to the taxpayer because then in order to advance lakefront development, there would have to be additional debt.

And I don't want to get into all of the sort of debt repayments.

Mr.

Chairman and Ms.

Travisano, there's two things here, right?

Our taxpayers of the City of Cleveland, we know already are obligated to pay $32 million left on paying off that stadium.

Not every taxpayer may want the advancement of a lakefront.

Okay.

So what I'm saying is that we know we have an opportunity to use $25 million to be to ease the burden of what's owed on the stadium that is being paid for by our taxpayers through bonds that we have taken out.

We have that ability, and this can be for further discussion.

I just want to to put this on the table now.

We have that ability to use that $25 million for because it will be obligated in the term lease that it's for advancement of lakefront development, and we know that tearing that stadium down is for the advancement of the lakefront development.

This is for a further conversation.

But Mr.

Chairman to Mr.

Davy, Mr.

Visano, the law director, there's a possibility that we could save the taxpayers that $25 million burden.

If I may show it for the question, go ahead.

While that is true that technically and legally that we are able to do that, I think a couple of things are important to note.

First and foremost, while it is certainly true that every single Clevelander may not be interested in the advancement of the lakefront, it is almost definitely true that every Clevelander wasn't previously for funding of sports facility and yet previous councils and previous administrations have put ourselves into this obligation, which I may note is compulsory.

What is different is the payments that we're currently describing are non-compulsory.

They are not required.

And therefore it is a two-party negotiation.

Both parties need to agree.

And what HSG has said, and really response to both this council and this administration is that what they are interested, willing and eager to support is the restitution that it needs to be paid for the movement of the team from the lakefront.

And so the team themselves are interested in paying for this.

And so while there may be a host of things that the city, the council, the administration want HSG to support, HSG still needs to agree to support those because it's it's non-compulsory.

And so you are correct that that technically this is true.

What I would state is that the hundred million dollars that have been negotiated and in the buckets in which it has been negotiated are things that have been agreed on by both parties.

Um for failure of playing football in Cleveland.

All right.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Davy, a couple of weeks ago I asked for uh an evaluation of the $450 or the 450 acres of Burke, the 50 acres that the stadium sits on and the stadium itself.

Has this has the ball started rolling, Mr.

Chairman and Ms.

Trivisano or Mr.

Davy to get those uh evaluations done.

Mr.

Vassano?

Um to the councilman, we have not done any new work on valuing any of those properties since we last talked.

And then Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

or to Chief Davy, um, why know tax revenue sharing?

Um if Sherwin Williams was going to move to independence, right?

We would have negotiated something with the tax revenue as we did when uh the Cavaliers moved their practice facility.

You know, there was negotiating back then and there.

Here it's just a strict no-tax revenue sharing.

Why not, Mr.

Chairman to Director Griffin, I guess.

Uh, through the through the chair, the councilman.

Um obviously that that would have to be by the consent of Brook Park uh and as well by the uh the consent of the Browns, and and that has not been part of the the deal or the agreement.

So uh I think that is the core reason.

All right, Mr.

Chairman to Chief Chief Davy, um obviously that stadium is one of CPP's top ten customers with uh an estimated value of revenue of about $500,000 a year.

Now we know, Mr.

Chairman to Chief Davy last year when the council was considering allocating dollars to CPP, the administration said no when it was a five million dollar ask, and now we're losing $500,000 a year.

Mr.

Chairman to Chief Davy, is there a plan going forward to invest for the administration to invest in Cleveland public power one way or another?

Through the Chair to the Councilmember uh would offer that that will need to be a collaborative effort between both bodies to make broader capital improvements and investments into CPP.

What I think is important to note is um that there would need to be significant investments uh in CPP to ensure the uh viability of power to that stadium, some 20 million dollars to extend out to Brook Park.

And so uh while we may appreciate days gone by of five million dollars of American rescue plan dollars, uh you know, 20 million dollars for single-site activation is something that we would need to contemplate as a uh a broader strategy.

I I certainly defer to uh our COO with anyone.

And and Mr.

Chairman to to Chief Davy, I'm not talking about providing power to the the new stadium out there, right?

But there needs to be an expansion of Cleveland Public Power to the West Side of Cleveland, right?

I think we're way beyond the political days of that fiasco um and the history there.

Um but you know, there needs to be a significant investment somehow, some way, somewhere, um, to get Cleveland public power to the west side of Cleveland to, if nothing else, power the airport, uh, power the west side of Cleveland.

You know, we're spending millions a year uh you know pay uh to first energy just to power our our our airport, right?

So I know that's for a different conversation at another date.

Um but uh I have one one last question is Chief T Uan.

You indicated that the stadium was built, and it's in the answer uh in the questions that the council sent over.

Question number 15.

Um the lakefront stadium was built and designed specifically to accommodate an NFL football team.

Uh the stadium is not suitable for other purposes, and it will be demolished upon the termination of the lease is the sole expense of the Browns.

Mr.

Chairman to Chief Tijuan, um have we held concerts at that stadium?

We we have.

Have we held hockey at that stadium?

I believe no.

The answer is the answer is yes.

And then Mr.

Chairman to Chief Tiawan, we've also held soccer games at that stadium, correct?

On occasion, yes.

Yes, okay.

I was just making sure.

Mr.

Chairman, to to Chief uh Davey, this is a take it or leave it deal, correct?

And that was very specific.

Well, you had an answer first.

Through the chair, yes, we feel like this is the best deal we can.

No, no, I I didn't ask that.

Mr.

Chairman to Chief Davy, this is a take it or leave it deal.

Yes.

Okay.

So, which is exactly what what Jimmy Haslam told me when I had the conversation with him.

His his quote was, I don't have to give you anything.

Um I used the analogy before about dating somebody.

And with the extension of the lease, with having him keep his hands into the community benefits, uh, especially the extension of the lease, you know, and I use that analogy of dating that girl that you know doesn't love us anymore.

Um, and I'm looking at the administration bringing this to us, and it's almost like now the foot the shoes on the other foot, right?

It's now it's like you know that the girl wants to leave you, but now we're trying to hang on by allowing him to keep us two million dollars here, five million dollars here.

I've been a huge advocate to keep that team on the lakefront since day one.

Um but I say if the administration has made up its mind that the team is going, uh I will still be a no vote here.

I don't know if this will pass through council or not.

But if he's done that last the minute that last second ticks off the clock at the end of his lease, get out.

Go.

Because we know that even uh um recycling things uh when the demolition, he's he's not allowing the city to keep that.

We probably know there's got to be five to seven million dollars just in steel at that stadium that will be recycled, um, that'll come off his 30 million.

Um so instead of allowing him to stick around for another two or three years, if he's that confident that he's gonna build Jimmy's world by the time he needs it built, God bless him, right?

Go.

But we don't have to make it easy on him either.

We could still continue the lawsuits, right?

No judge or no court has ruled on any on on on that that that uh the lawsuit yet.

So to me, it's like giving up.

And I said before, I'd go down fighting bloody and lose before I would give up.

And unfortunately, I think that the administration is representing the city of Cleveland saying we give up.

Uh, just yesterday, I I went into a store and some guy's complaining about the game, and I just looked at him, didn't know who he was, and I was like, should the Browns move to Brooke Park?

Older African American male, he said, as much as I hate the play on the field and I hate the ownership, no, that team needs to stay on the lakefront.

That's our team.

There's the tradition, there's the history.

There's everything that goes along with it.

And I just don't think that certain people within 601 Lakeside get that.

And I think that once you get out into the into the community, and the people that have supported it for the last 30 years and will continue for the next three years, when they realize that it's gone, it's gone.

And Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Davy, with all due respect to the mayor, that's gonna be his legacy.

You can talk all you want about a flashy downtown, about a flashy lakefront, about advancement of this.

People seem to forget that we have Edgewater, we have Euclid Beach, you have Voynovich Park.

You're gonna open something up to look at a break wall.

All right.

And I understand and I can see a vision and I understand that.

But at the end of the day, it's gonna be Mayor Bibb who the own admission, Mr.

Chairman, to the to Chief Davy, through the law director, out of his own out of his words out of his own mouth, is yes, we are saying that the Cleveland Browns can leave the city of Cleveland, and that is what legacies are built on.

That's why Art Model is not in the is not in the Hall of Fame.

We have Monday Night Football because of Art Model, but nobody remembers that.

We have overtime because of Art Model.

Nobody remembers that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thanks, Councilman.

You want to make a uh please uh through through the through the chair to Councilman Casey against my better judgment, I will take the bait on your dating analogy.

Um I I will I will state that as someone who has gone through enough heartbreak in his life, um, it is also sometimes better um for you and your partner when you decide for things to be over to split the rent until the lease is up.

Um this is not love is blind, we aren't looking to win at the end of the dating show.

Uh the point is to make prudent, pragmatic uh decisions based on uh the residents and the bottom line.

And while I argue that it may feel good, uh it may feel good in those moments uh when you're you're breaking up to say the quiet thing out loud, maybe the thing you should have said a little bit sooner in the relationship.

Um but oftentimes we find ourselves in a much better position if uh we can take a big deep breath, look ourselves in the mirror, uh, go out with some friends and and meet somebody new.

And so uh I hope uh councilman that the legacy is not one um of a petulant breakup, but one um that is really rooted in uh solutions and outcomes for the taxpayers.

And uh I am confident uh with the hard work from a lot of the teammates at this table today.

Uh our future is brighter than our past.

Uh and so thank you.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Chairman to Chief Davy.

Uh we can relationship talk all we want.

I'd rather kick her to the curb and be done with her and move on.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilman.

Thank you, Chief.

Uh Councilman Marr.

I'm so glad that this extended analogy has been about kicking out the girl who you no longer want.

It's really enjoyable.

Um, so I really appreciate the conversation today and the thorough questions.

I also want to thank my colleagues who are letting me skip the line a little bit because I have to leave in a few minutes.

Um I I I'm gonna hone in on just one particular point that was my question.

It was question number, let's see here.

33 in the questions that were sent over.

And I just want to make sure I have explained my question and gotten a very clear answer on the record about the idea of dismissal with prejudice.

And this comes from a space uh of uh the idea in law school of issue spotting.

I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.

I just want to make sure that the question is understood and responded to.

Um and I want to lay out sort of where my legal brain uh is going and understanding that sometimes uh people with law degrees get themselves into trouble when they ask legal questions about areas that are not necessarily their topic of expertise.

But I do seem to remember uh some topics and conversation in law school about the ideas of a dismissal with prejudice.

And the idea of a dismissal with prejudice is that you cannot then re-file the lawsuit.

And one of the other ideas of a dismissal with prejudice is you can't refile a just very slightly similar lawsuit with a very slightly different claim.

Um so for instance, if you have like a a very classic uh uh trip and fall, okay, and you have risk listed out a bunch of claims because of your damage to your knee, you scraped your knee and you hurt your back, and then uh you have sued where you the place where you tripped and fell, and you've reached uh a settlement out of court, and part of that settlement is that you get a chunk of money and you dismiss the claims with prejudice, right?

You cannot then re-file a case based on that trip and fall, saying, I actually also hit my head, I also hit my head and I have a concussion.

The idea is that you've reached a global resolution of the problem that reached you that day.

Um, and my concern about getting to the point of a dismissal with prejudice on the model law is a question of what happens in the admittedly unlikely.

I understand this is not something we think is currently on the table, but what happens if a year down the line the Brook Park deal falls through?

The Cleveland the Cleveland Lakefront is done, and we are suddenly in the position of the Haslam Sports Group saying, we're leaving, we're leaving Cleveland, uh, we're going to Columbus, we're going to another area.

I understand that is unlikely, but does the law department believe that we could refile a model law claim based on the Haslam Sports Group taking the Browns out of the region after we have dismissed this case where we are claiming that they are taking it out of the city, but we've dismissed it with prejudice through the chair.

Through the chair to the councilwoman.

So as law director, my job is to defend the city.

So I'm not going to provide an opinion which might undermine a claim in the future.

I want to make sure that uh we preserve all of our rights that we can going forward.

So let me try to answer your question as best I can.

Uh, but please understand that my job is to make sure that if something happens to the city, we have arguable claims going forward.

So uh I am sure that if that were to happen, the Cleveland Browns would argue exactly what you were suggesting.

Um I think that there would be a variety of ways to suggest that this is different and doesn't fall within that doctrine of of uh collateral stoppel uh which you articulated.

So several things I think are are worth considering.

Um of course it depends on the facts of what happens, where they would go, what would happen, uh did they make representations to us that were truthful, a variety of other about a variety of other issues.

So uh and please also understand that our litigation is still going forward right now.

And one of those pieces um has to do with whether the supposed new model law applies to this case or not.

And certainly it's our view that it does not, and it's our view that that we have strong claims, uh, which is why they need to pay us to get rid of those claims.

So uh look, the the Browns will absolutely argue that we can't refile it.

Uh and we would argue the opposite.

And and it's my job here at this table is not to give away an inch of territory in protecting that claim.

Thank you.

Uh I think your answer highlights my exact concern.

And through the chair, I'm wondering if a better resolution, because my other concern is that if we were to refile our argument of the old model law applying would be substantially weakened uh because we'd be, of course, filing a new case versus preserving our case as is.

Why didn't we agree to stay the litigation pending the Brook Park, like get a shovel in the ground, get the finance stack completed, we could achieve the exact same result by just staying the litigation and then dismissing with prejudice once the Brook Park deal had gone forward or any deal in the region through the chair.

Through the chair to the councilwoman.

Uh the answer to that is is when you reach a settlement, uh you always stay the case pending uh the the documentation of the full settlement agreement.

So that's why we did it this way, and and certainly uh I think it it enables uh there to be a reduction of risk and uncertainty for everybody.

But through the chair, this um uh at what point in the effectuation of this settlement deal are we expected to dismiss our case with prejudice through the chair?

So after the passage uh by this county approving it and the final signatures uh where the the uh the ink dries.

So uh I think it's within 48 hours of uh final agreement.

Right.

So your your answer that, okay, of course we're staying we're staying litigation pending resolution of this settlement agreement, that's a different thing from what I'm saying.

That's that's just hey, we've got this on the table, we're gonna sign and finalize it.

But what we did not agree to was staying the litigation pending the completion of the Brook Park deal and getting a shovel, just getting a shovel in the ground in Brook Park.

We are not staying the litigation.

We are dismissing prior to that happening.

And I don't understand why um we why not fight to just stay, it it it causes no harm, no additional fees.

We've stayed it for this extended period of time, and that way we only dismiss with prejudice and risk our claims after we are assured that the Browns are staying in the region at a minimum through the chair.

I'm not sure that I do understand your question.

So let me just say this, which is uh in order to start the clock on the payments, uh we need to dismiss uh with prejudice.

And so that is that's a critical reason uh to begin that 25 million uh and everything else.

Thank you.

It this is essentially a disagreement in terms.

You agreed to a term where we dismissed with prejudice prior to the Brook Park deal being finalized.

We agreed to dismiss as soon within 48 hours of this settlement agreement being done.

Is that correct through the chair?

Uh yes.

So when you say the Brook Park deal, you mean the the deal between the Browns and Brook Park?

Essentially the deal that allows there to be a shovel in the ground to begin work on the Brook Park Stadium.

We are dismissing prior to that being completed through the Chair.

Correct.

And to the administration, what you say is that to ensure that they are actually going to move there and not do a bait and switch and say we're going there making it look like they're going and then they turn around and not go there.

Well, here's the other reason, which is we believe that they are in violation currently, as Councilman Casey asks, for simply making these uh um procedures, negotiations, and steps forward to moving.

So for them and for us, we need to clarify that we're not going to bring claims on that uh in exchange for the the 100 million dollar commitment.

I I I understand that.

I just think I don't quite understand why we structured it where we are losing our opportunity to raise a claim down the line if if our shared goal is that the Browns stay in the region at a minimum.

Um we seem to be creating uh a very um a window of time in which we've given up our claims and if if and I you you furrowed your brow.

So I I say that in the sense of when we dismiss with prejudice, sure, we say we are not suing you under the Modell law.

We have we've said we are not pursuing this case.

Um we but we have not confirmed that the Browns are staying in the region because the Brook Park construction has not begun.

The financing isn't completed.

There is not an assured path, and in fact, there's active litigation at the State House to prevent the Brook Park deal from happening.

Does that does that element make sense that there's sort of the gap the way we've structured it creates a window where we have dismissed our claims, but we haven't confirmed that the Browns are staying in the region through the chair.

Um thank you.

Through the chair to the councilwoman.

Um just briefly, if they decide that the Brook Park deal doesn't go through, they can come, they could conceivably continue in Brown Stadium, but we keep the 25 million.

So one of the reasons that we did that is we're we're assured of their upfront payment, even if their Brook Park deal eventually falls through.

Thank you.

And I I think the the again, very unlikely, very worst-case scenario that I'm trying to anticipate for is the Brook Park deal falling through and HSG saying we're moving the team out of the region.

We're we're taking them to another town.

Um what is Cleveland's uh ability and and uh legal claims in that instance.

And it seems to me that we substantially weaken our case by dismissing with prejudice at this stage compared to staying the litigation until the Brook Park deal is finalized and then dismiss with prejudice.

That we could dismiss with prejudice down the line just as easily, but preserve our rights during this window where the Brook Park deal is not finalized through the chair.

Through the chair to the councilwoman.

Uh, couple things.

First of all, um I don't necessarily agree with that.

I think that if there's a new violation, uh that's something that we would consider at that time and and evaluate at that time.

Um secondly, uh they've paid uh a substantial amount of money to acquire the land uh already in Brook Park.

So I I let me just say I agree with your framing of the hypothetical as very unlikely that they won't they won't go.

So you know, in any uh you know, one of the problems with lawyers is that we can always imagine things.

And then we start we start uh putting so much into a uh settlement agreement of things that are unlikely to happen that at some point you have to say uh okay, we want to control for the things that are reasonably a reasonable risks, but we don't want to imagine things that are incredibly unlikely.

Uh and I and I think that's the case here.

Okay, I I will respectfully disagree about not needing to anticipate this because I think what we have shared here at the table is our lack of trust between the city of Cleveland and the Houslem Sports Group, that there is a lack of uh that the trust factor is not has not always been there.

And I think the only thing I could imagine hurting the city worse than the city than the Browns leaving from the lakefront to Brook Park is the team leaving from the lakefront all together.

And I would truly want wish to avoid that.

And the only thing I'd offer to my colleagues and and to you all, uh, because I did promise this was a short line of questioning, and I apologize, um, is that there seems to be a very easy solution where we could preserve our claims for this window while the Brook Park deal is being finalized, if we would just stay our litigation for a period of months, and then once there are shovels in the ground or whatever um measurement you want to use, but something more certain than what we have now, then we dismiss with prejudice because as you stated here, once we dismiss with prejudice, it it will open the door for the Haslam Sports Group to come back to Cleveland and say you don't get a second bite at the Apple.

Because as you stated here, once we dismiss with prejudice, it will open the door for the Haslam sports group to come back to Cleveland and say you don't get a second bite at the apple.

You don't get to try to keep us here.

And I would just argue we should try to preserve that for as long as we can, our claims for as long as we can.

I think they're preserved.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh director.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

Uh Councilman Harsh and the Councilwoman House Jones, what closes out.

Uh button.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Mr.

Co-Chair and Mr.

Co-Chair.

Um couple of questions, and I apologize if any of this clarity has already been provided, but uh just from my own um through the chair to whoever wants to answer about the pad ready state again.

Um pad ready, that does not include through the chair removal of the existing pylons, correct?

To to the councilman through the chair, I expect that we're gonna come back to you with a full definition of pad ready before we ink the deal.

Uh it does not include the all the pylons to like a certain point.

It's it's a hard question to answer because we're trying to do as much as we can to keep the site um flexible for development, but not to make the site um unstable in any way.

Through the chair to Chief T1, did the Osborne engineering study comment specifically about the state of the pylons because I know those are a big part of the construction.

Uh I don't remember if they did or not, but that I would imagine that that would not, because that's they're underground.

It would not be something that you can inspect.

But I I would add uh um uh uh Jessica Triposano's um comment that normal practice in demolition is that um anything underground is usually um uh um uh cut off at a certain depth below uh final uh pad elevation.

So I believe in this case it's four feet.

I think so.

I'd have to go that's normal practice.

Okay.

Because my my concern here, Mr.

Chair, is whether or not the pad rate uh pad ready state includes the existing pylons, which have a shortened shelf life.

I I think originally there was some thought that the stadium could last 45, maybe 50, 60 years, at which point the whole thing would need to be redone.

Uh and my assumption would always be that the pylons get replaced in in that process as well.

But if we're just capping them, then whatever happens on top of it is going to have to factor in a 30-year-old pylon structure underneath it, which could effectively alter the life of anything built on top, which gets back into the question about does the pad ready state mean they're just going down four feet and stopping there, and whatever goes in next has to be able to exist for a long time on top of that existing infrastructure.

It sounds like we don't know entirely, but the answer is probably yes, it just stops at four feet.

So I I I would say you would have to be very creative to try to reuse uh existing foundation for new construction and the removal of the pylons would be optimal then, because then we would have it to a pre-construction state where it's ready to go just as if nothing was ever there in the first place.

Removal to four feet below the surface.

Well, except that you still have to go below that if you want to put a new sub, if you need to build a substructure to hold something moving forward, you would still have to remove those.

Through the chair to the councilman, not necessarily.

You could work around those.

Depending on the structure.

Yeah, it would literally have no bearing.

I don't I don't want to get I don't want to get very well done.

Um I don't want to get bogged down in the into the sub into the underground stuff though.

So um uh I think that uh councilwoman Moore's questions are very prescient because the Hasms brought us down in groups of three three years ago, four years ago, to show us renderings of the stadium after they renovated it, they wanted to renovate the north side.

It was very nice looking, very, very pretty.

Um they told everybody that it would be 1.2 billion, I think, to do that, and they wanted 600 million from the city and six hundred million from others, um, and then decided never to show those drawings publicly.

Uh so the people at this table are some of the only ones that have seen it.

Um, and instead show everybody the public pictures of of of the Brook Park fiasco.

Um so uh it would not surprise me at all if they had a third set of drawings stashed away for Lorraine County or Medina County or Gealga County or wherever they find good cheap land that they potentially have sitting on a shelf that they haven't showed the folks at Brook Park because this is their sort of pattern of of behavior.

And I think it is a legitimate issue to ask ourselves publicly and openly whether or not we're getting baited into the Browns leaving the region and playing along with uh the Haslums who you know uh are pretty willing to to play games um with with uh with their investments.

Um if the Brook Park site collapses because the funding sources are ruled illegal.

So through the chair to perhaps the Chief Griffin.

Um and the Browns come back and say, oops, that didn't work, we need to go back into the stadium.

Um the current lease that they have through the chair uh allows how many years of extension after their initial 30 is up?

How many years do they have built into this existing lease that's current right now?

Uh through the chair to the councilman, uh they have two one year options to extend the lease.

And those existing options that they currently have access to.

I'm sorry, and I misspoke.

They don't they don't today have two as part of the settlement, they would they would acquire two one-year options.

Okay.

So this is very so this is where we're going.

They have they are in a lease right now.

Let's call this lease A.

The lease that they're in right now.

Does lease A, the existing one today, have an option built into it if they need to extend an extra year or two pre-negotiated as part of the current existing lease.

It does not.

It's a 30-year lease that ends uh in uh, I guess January 2029.

So if we take Councilman Casey's gambit and we say no, we tell them to kick rocks.

Yes.

Right?

And they don't have Brook Park ready to go in the fall of 2029, and they don't have another place to go, and they come back to the City of Cleveland and say we need an extra year, and we have rejected this proposal, they have no preexisting agreement for the cost of an additional year, correct?

Through the chair?

Through the chair to the councilman.

Uh they do not have an existing option to extend beyond January of 2029.

So if we tell them it's cool, you can stay another year, but it's 50 million to stay a year, or 25 million or 100 million, and effectively try to renegotiate this whole thing in three years, if if we gamit, if we gamble and say that Brook Park is not ready, we would have that option.

So now you're asking business terms.

And I would defer to others uh about how to how to negotiate those business terms.

Uh as a hypothetical.

Yeah.

We're playing hypothetical, yes.

Chief.

So through the through the chair uh to the to the councilman.

Uh you're you're right.

This is a hypothetical game that we could play.

Uh there's again a couple of factors that I think we would have to acknowledge.

One would be that um if we were to play said gambit, um, that uh we would also be essentially foregoing years of planning.

And so we would really be crossing our fingers and hoping that um our bet was right.

Uh and then if we were correct, we would then have to uh find 100 million dollars in uh lease value uh for whatever their extension period would be.

And um, as someone who you know, as it stated in the early part of this, have been uh engaged with the Cleveland Browns since 2022, I I can assure you uh that uh 100 million dollars in rent payments uh have not been in the equation.

I I think it's also just really important to note that you're a hundred percent correct, councilman.

Um, we originally engaged in a thoughtful, interesting, thought intriguing uh conversation about what the remodeling of the current site might look like.

And while it's unfortunate that we haven't been able um to you know move forward with that, uh if it feels prudent, it just feels prudent to acknowledge um that the Browns have been clear that no other site in the city of Cleveland would have worked for them.

Uh they were not contemplating additional sites, and that if uh we were to get back to a situation in which we would be looking at the renovation, remodeling or rebuilding of a new stadium, they would still need to go somewhere and play um for that period of time, because there's substantial improvements that are going to be needed past the useful life of the asset.

And so the answer to the hypothetical question is a hypothetical response, which is it would be incredibly more expensive and wildly risky.

Uh and that is the opposite of what we've heard from this body, which is it should be uh not only cost neutral but beneficial, and it should happen uh quickly, I think uh, you know, the councilman Casey used the words.

Let's kick them out.

Uh nothing more urgent than we are we are currently doing than saying this expires uh at the time of expiration with a potential of two additional years.

So it's interesting because um I I understand it's a it's a huge theoretical gamble, but what you're saying partially is that even if we were to take that gambit and they come back and say you win, we didn't get it done in time uh or we didn't get it done at all, the investment into the stadium itself would be so much that we would they would have to find an alternative playing site while we fix up the existing stadium because my understanding was through the chair to the Chief Tiawan's point with the Osborne was that if we just keep maintaining current investment level, which is about 11 million a year, it's good for another 10, 15 years.

It doesn't need uh a full redress.

Yeah, through through the through the chair to the council member, let me just make sure that I clarify this point.

Um because again, this is sort of one of those non-compulsory conversations.

What what I would maybe amend in that statement is upon termination of the lease, the Cleveland Browns HSG have expressed that the place in which they wanted to play football is going to be different than the current place in which they play football, right?

And so their business model is going to be predicated on a whole bunch of new things, such as parking revenues or suites or seats.

So I think it's a little bit uh premature or maybe hypothetical to say, you know, in the future, if this uh lease ran out and they didn't have anywhere else to play, that they would um be compelled to pick um Cleveland Brown Stadium and remediations.

While those remediations may allow them to continue playing, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're playing in the place that they would want to be playing in the type of atmosphere that they want to play that drives the kind of revenue that they want to have.

And that's a purely business decision.

I think that's the capital they want to have is really at core of this entire conversation.

Um through the chair um to the Chief Davy, when you guys were negotiating with them, did uh any conversation with them about uh altering the existing stadium to a repurposed use uh come up?

So instead of like you know, knock out the north side and turn it into a new blossom, turn it into a concert facility, transition it into something that complements the rock hall and becomes a music venue.

Any conversations like that about altering the current stadium part of the through the chair point of clarification um altering and continuing to play football?

Or altering the state.

At the end of the day, what what the part the agreement includes returning the stadium to a pad ready state, so tearing down the stadium and demolishing it.

Did at any point in the conversation was there a talk about just altering the use of the stadium rather than demolishing it?

To the councilman, no, not with HSG.

Okay.

Okay.

Um just a couple last questions uh through the chair to Mr.

Skinner.

Are the Browns currently contributing anything to the NCA?

Uh to the Councilman to the Chair, no.

Okay.

And through the chair to Mr.

Skinner, do you know how much the NCA could benefit from the Browns' involvement over the next three years?

Have you run the numbers on their beverage sales if they were to chip in?

Uh to the councilman through the chair, um, there's too many scenarios for what that looks like to answer that question in a real way.

Uh depends on yes, their revenues, but also percentages agreed to and uh fees agreed to, there's just there's too many scenarios to that.

Okay, but through the chair to Mr.

Skinner, there's a uh low ball and a high ball.

Sure.

Um and what's the low and the high substantial?

To the councilman through the chair, again, there are just too many scenarios to even get to low high ball.

I mean it's simple math for you can add on you know fees for seats or anything like that, but uh there none of those conversations have happened.

Um and none of those agreements have been had.

And again, there's a thousand different ways to think about that.

I do want to point out, Mr.

Councilman the uh through the chair, uh the NCA, while there is, you know, it is is meant to collect revenue right away.

The actual value of the NCA is to expedite lakefront development with future development partners.

When you look at NCAs across the state, uh the value that you need to create to to build public space to build district parking, that comes from future development.

So that's where you're really unlimiting the power of that as opposed to the specific curve users.

The the reason I'm curious is that and it comes back to this page three last bullet point, um, which I'm just gonna read it because it's not up on screen.

Uh and it says, and this is just this is from the administration, quote both parties will mutually support infrastructure plans with respect to the Brook Park Stadium mixed use project, the modernization of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, and the development of the Cleveland Lakefront, including the redevelopment of the Burke Lakefront Airport property.

And I guess what I'm trying to understand here is like what is the Browns' role?

And I know this was been brought up already, and I'm kind of opening up a previous subject, but I'm still a little bit murky on this.

If the Browns are not contributing to the NCA, if the Browns are are planning to leave and we're looking at giving them blessings to do so, what is their role in the development of the Cleveland Lake Front when we say both parties will mutually support infrastructure plans?

Mr.

Bassano?

Yeah.

To the councilman through the chair, and I'm sorry if I am this is a repetitive answer.

This is a pretty broad um section intended to capture both things around the airport, which where I think infrastructure makes more sense when we're thinking about any kind of improvements done to 271 around the airport that would also mutually benefit the Brook Park Stadium.

As it relates to the lakefront development and Burke, I just want to be, you know, no hesitation.

There is no obligation or commitment or development rights that HSG has to the lakefront or BREC.

There's no contemplated agreements or partnership or anything beyond what we've talked about today.

So things like the city asking for their support when it comes to us going to the federal government and asking to close BREC, for example.

So because I I have no residents at all that want to pay a single dime towards helping the Browns leave.

As a matter of fact, it's probably the number one angle I hear from neighbors, um, aside from them wanting them to stay, which is the top response when you poll the neighborhood.

The second thing is we shouldn't pay anything for them to leave.

Will we pay anything?

And I said, well, no, except both parties will mutually support infrastructure plans with respect to the Brook Park Stadium mixed use project.

So I guess my question is what is the expected cost for the City of Cleveland to facilitate their move?

I mean, obviously there are streets, there's sidewalks, there's water, there's sewer, there's infrastructure costs.

Uh you don't even put a bulldozer out there without somebody paying for the bulldozer.

They're going to build 80 feet into the ground, and I don't think anybody has seriously considered what that means.

The water table in Cleveland is three and a half feet.

Go dig a four-foot hole in your backyard and it fills with water.

They're going to put an 80-foot hole in the ground and put a stadium inside of it.

And like we haven't even like talked about the infrastructure needs for pumping water uphill out of an 80-foot hole.

Like there needs to be money spent on this, and what part of that is the City of Cleveland agreeing to up front?

Through the chair to the councilman.

The answer is none.

There is not an obligation by the city to pay a penny uh to help them move.

What the section uh talks about really is that uh that we would support each other through a phone call or through support uh through the various other entities, whether it's state, federal, uh, or elsewhere, but it does not obligate the city to pay um dime one or penny one to facilitate the move.

And to the councilman uh through the chair, I'll just add this is a point that we've heard before, and in the final settlement agreement, like the full settlement agreement, you'll say you'll see it say for the avoidance of doubt, this does not contemplate any financial commitment from the city as it relates to this section.

So this is something that we've heard and have addressed in the more full agreement.

Okay.

Um I just have two last comments and then I will uh get out of your way.

Um the the first is that um I I feel like a lot of this hinges on this notion that's been floating around Cleveland forever, uh, that if we just develop the lakefront, uh we'll become, you know, the the the American Toronto of the Great Lakes and we will explode and our economy will flourish and we will, you know, I don't know, uh turn into the Toronto of the Great uh of the Americas.

Uh and and I just want to remind people that there's a reason that we don't have a ton of lakefront development uh already.

Uh and part of it is that we are the cloudiest city on the Great Lakes.

Uh thank God for Buffalo, they're the only one that has more cloud coverage than us, but we sit at the southern and eastern shores of the Great Lakes, which means as weather travels from the west to the east, it picks up moisture and comes to us, which is why we have caughty days, because we're at the bottom.

Um the United States averages 205 sunny days per year in American cities, and we have 168.

Uh we're not even, you know, we're overcast over 50 percent of the time.

Um and it just doesn't create the same vibes that Chicago has or Milwaukee has or Green Bay or Toronto or Detroit.

Um and I really, you know, I I I hate to see us, you know, go through all of this to find out that not as many people are interested as living down there as we we hoped.

Um but I really need to end on this.

Um uh city council members get hammered all the time uh for uh campaign contributions from uh uh investors.

Um we get hammered whether we get those directly or indirectly.

And we all know that the Hasm Sports Group or Jimmy and D or whatever uh went down to Columbus and spread a lot of money around, I think about a half a million dollars in campaign contributions a month before the State House voted along purely partisan lines uh with 100 percent Republicans in favor and no Democrats in favor to give them 600 million dollars of uh of uh what is it the uh money's from?

It's unclaimed funds.

Uh taxpayer money that doesn't belong to them uh that they handed over to the Haslums, and there's a lawsuit that that this might be illegal, but we know that they gave a lot of campaign contributions.

Um so it's going to come up from the media at some point.

I might as well be blunt right now and ask through the chair uh to the chief, are we aware of any campaign contributions from the Hasma Sports Group to the mayor's campaign?

Chief?

Through the chair to the councilperson as chief of staff, I don't engage in politics or electioneering.

So I don't have any information about the current uh uh state of our campaign contributions.

I would offer that all elected officials have campaign contributions and um you know it's not simply the mayor that needs to be concerned about uh ethics and and where cash comes from.

And so while I certainly can't answer your question, because I don't involve myself in such affairs, uh I certainly share your concern and hope um that everyone adheres to the Ohio Ethics Commission's laws on such a thing.

Thanks, Chief.

Through through the chair to the councilman.

Um First of all, thank you for noting we are the cloudiest city.

I was in Buffalo, and and I would note that uh everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.

Um but having said that, as we think about uh our lakefront development, you know, one of the important pieces of this deal is that uh it provides some certainty for us to change the lakefront from a place where millionaires and billionaires play to a place where uh uh it can be a lake front for everyone.

And I think that is a critical piece.

And and I don't know that we have to imagine that we suddenly transform ourselves into uh a city the size of 10 million population, Toronto.

But I do think it's our obligation to plan for the future as uh past generations plan for us and to try to make it a little bit better every day.

And so I think one of the things that this deal um does is it opens up the possibility for a lake front that's um not confined to the wealthy but is uh open to everyone.

Well, you know, I I have to ask because I'm sure it will become part of the story at some point, right?

Um it became part of the story on how they got the money from the State House and it becomes part of the story every election cycle, and uh we all certainly have to deal with it.

Um I'm just uh curious if it's something that we should be looking for down the line.

Um the uh the last thing I'll say uh is um the question about whether or not we're subsidizing pro sports or investing in the local economy.

Uh this is just such uh uh uh you know a uh coin flip argument.

Uh I hear people pick which side they want to be on depending on on the day.

Um but there was a very strong consensus that when the Cavs were in Richfield that this did not benefit the city of Cleveland.

There was a very uh celebrated uh moment when they came and started playing in Cleveland.

We're happy now to be moving their practice facility from independence up to the east bank of the river, and we call this a win for the city.

Um so uh subsidizing pro sports is something that is very uh unsavory, but investing in the local economy is something that is very, very good.

Um, and we are definitely divesting in the local economy no matter how we feel about the billionaires involved when when the uh should the should the Browns leave.

Um Thank you.

I I I will stop.

Um I appreciate the time.

Just to clear things up, I received a text just seconds ago, just to answer your question that the mayor's campaign has not received a penny uh from the Haslums or anyone affiliated.

See, that was the answer I was looking for.

We just don't know.

No, it's fair, it's fair.

I get it, I get it separate separate separate lanes.

But that there you go.

That's the answer we want.

Thanks.

Thanks.

The answer is both, which is we don't know because we shouldn't know, but we get a we get a text that says the answer is no.

So thank you, uh Director.

So we're gonna uh end with uh councilwoman house Jones on the council side.

Do we have one person here for public comment and allow them to speak before we close out the uh discussion today?

Councilwoman House Jones with that beautiful uh broke she has all.

Thanks.

Okay.

Um from Nor Blunt, a wonderful black owned company.

Shout out to Yeah.

Anyway.

Um I'm gonna just ask um a couple of questions.

Um through the chair to the team that's here.

Um I know there were there was a conversation earlier, I believe, with uh councilman's life that talked about pat ready.

Um the one thing though is that um we do not have pat ready actually defined.

What is the definition of PAT ready?

Um and why is it not included in the ordinance?

Yeah, to uh to the councilwoman through the chair, pad ready is mentioned in the settlement term sheet, but the full definition of PAT ready will be in the full settlement agreement, which will be brought before council before final passage.

We're still negotiating the exact definition that we agree to on Padre.

So when will we get that?

Did it share to the team?

When will that be getting?

So we're so it's the expectation to vote on something where the definition is not clear.

Uh just to clarify a few things.

So today we're not voting on this at all today.

We're just hearing it, so there's there'll be no vote, no amendments offered today or discussed.

Uh, but earlier when we began this, the administration uh uh this term sheet that we have was not this was initial kind of draft, and they uh uh through these continued conversations are gonna be more edits and more things that that may come out of this and and in terms of clarification.

We talked about timelines earlier because when this when the request for the two million each year has to go in.

So they are going to develop a um uh another version, and then for uh our next hearing on this, uh then it will have that information so that we can we can further uh uh flush those points out.

Okay.

Um my next question, there was a conversation um again at the beginning of the meeting, where um the I guess the conversation is saying that um the community overwhelmingly indicated they wanted access to the lakefront.

Basically, that was the summary of it.

And so A, I just want to go back to that through the chair to the team.

How do you define community?

How is community defined in those terms as you're saying the majority of community indicated they want access to the lakefront?

Uh to the councilman through the chair.

Uh over the last three years, the city and uh myself and a number of other partners have conducted hundreds of community engagement sessions in every ward and neighborhood in the city have received well over 5,000 nearing 6,000 survey responses, uh both in person and through our website.

Um more than happy to provide you a detailed summary of every single meeting that took place um and general takeaways on the sur uh on the survey responses as well.

It's also all available on my organization's website, Cleveland North Coast.com.

And the chair to the team, is it broken down by geographics area?

Can you see what the responses are based on where you are and where you live in the city of Cleveland?

Uh to the councilman through the chair, it is not based on geo geography of what specifically is wanted.

Those that's not sort of how these questions were asked, but you can see geographically where every meeting took place um and in what neighborhoods they were facilitating facilitated in, and in most cases, number of uh attendants as well.

Okay.

So the reason why I'm through the through the chair, the reason why I asked that is because people say we are speaking on a community, and if you don't have uh how would I know if that was representative of um those that I represent um here in the city of Cleveland, hence being as I have attended a couple of those, and many times when you even went going to the community meetings that were held kind of in my neighborhood, what you will see is you get a broad range of constituents throughout the city of Cleveland.

And so to be I I think that is just a I'll look at the information and be able to give a response, but um it would be very interesting to understand uh who and where people are saying that that is their priority.

Um, because I know um I that is not uh from my experience that is not a priority based on residents that are living in um you know half Asia Town Um and parts of St.

Clair Superior and downtown as I have been engaging um over these last four years um with residents.

Um so my next question will be uh through the team uh through the chair, excuse me, uh to the team that's here.

Um it it we had these conversations regarding um the one to two year option lease if the relocation is not um if the the development is not complete.

My question is including because if we can say it explicitly, so currently right now we have to we are committed or obligated to pay for at least four million dollars a year on um health and safety of the stadium.

Would that also be included the additional additional four million dollars for the one to two years if the uh stadium has to stay here for infrastructure?

So to the councilman through the chair, um the city in our lease agreement with the Browns uh are we're actually obligated to pay for a couple different uh areas of capital repairs as part of this settlement.

We are limiting that obligation to just repairs required for health and safety of visitors and employees of the stadium.

And so our estimate is about four million dollars each year, and that would go every year that the stadium is in use by the Browns.

So if there are two-year options exercised, then yes, it would be another four million dollars each year is our estimate of what it would take to keep the stadium safe for visitors.

And through there's it through the um through the chair to the team here with this extension.

Why was it felt necessary to extend that level um uh of grace toward the HSG group?

Why?

Based on what?

To the councilwoman through the chair, the state the negotiation and the settlement was negotiated as a package, and so one of the things that HSG asked for as part of the package was for the city to agree to two one-year-long extensions, uh, which we've agreed to with some conditions and in the context of this hundred million dollar package.

I again my my question through the chair to the team here.

I say why I asked why.

I understand they asked for it, and I'm asking based on the administration's perspective.

Why did you agree to it?

Uh yeah, Chief Davy can add, but I think the only reason we said yes is because there's also a hundred million dollars worth of benefit attached to the Chief.

Yeah, through through the uh through the chair to the council member, yeah, simply simply to get the deal, the the answer is all of these things were contingent on one another.

So the package that you see um is what both parties have been able to reach agreement around.

So though those deal terms are the ones that HSG has put forward.

Okay.

Um when we um I guess the other question was in as we talk about um through the chair to the team here, we talked about infrastructure um and the overall context in the state of Ohio, where um they are always competing competing entrants as it relates to investments in infrastructure.

Um have we done any um estimation on what it would be when it comes to the competing with this new development um SAG as far as like obtaining like state grants, things of that nature for our own infrastructure needs when it comes to just like basic water pollution control, streets things that will be available.

Um what would the you know what is the future forecasting of competition going to be now with this new development?

Chief?

So uh through the through the chair to the councilwoman, um appreciate that question.

Um I I think as we know um public dollars have become more and more competitive, and I think that's what you're alluding to.

Um, and and we appreciate that.

Um, I think we've showed our success um with the the federal funding, the grants that we've received um uh for the North Coast Connector, um, to the point where um even our state uh agencies are surprised at the success rate that we've had.

Um, we will continue to advocate for um those dollars, whether it's directly through the feds or through the state um for those um improv uh dollars for infrastructure improvements.

So um you can have have my word that we will be aggressive on advocating for those grant dollars.

Uh councilwoman uh councilwoman Welch asked for a point.

Yeah, I just need a point of clarity around the question that uh councilwoman House Jones mentioned around the demographics.

Oftentimes when we do focus grouping, I understand that we have broken it down by communities and which communities actually had the meetings, but I think what is also very important is what were the age like.

I mean, senior needs are very different from student needs, what students want in their city is very different from people who are elder millennials like ourselves.

And so I think having an understanding about whether that data was collected, where that data lives, what was the breakdown of demographics as the councilwoman mentioned around zip code, which wards they're in.

I mean, I think that's very helpful information to have as we're talking about who's the community at hand and how we're defining the community.

Uh to the councilman through the chair.

Um, so yes, happy to share all that information to you throughout the entire process.

We use the tool called Wyatt, which is well-being insights asset and trade-offs.

It's a representation check tool.

Um, happy to share the results of that uh uh tool uh to you, but also offer to every council member here.

Um I'm not shy about talking about the lakefront.

I'm more than happy to attend whatever community meeting um you all are hosting and talk to folks in your neighborhoods and folks that you represent directly as well.

Thank you, councilwoman.

Um through the chair to the team, um as we look at this, I think this is the term sheet, settlement term sheet.

Um the I guess section two F uh, which 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.

What is the expectation there?

Chief of Mr.

Masano.

To the councilwoman through the chair.

Um, just to be clear, this is not any sort of financial commitment or city resources.

This is an uh agreement mostly on information sharing.

You know, what is it taking for the city to provide for public safety in this location, and how can we share that information to support our colleagues in Brook Park?

Um through through through the chair to um the administration since we are gonna have this ongoing relationship um with the ASG um group in the future.

Is the expectation for the city of DeCleveland to um provide uh public safety um during the game days?

No.

Okay.

And um my last point is I do actually have an amendment which I will share um that I would like for this body to consider.

I will send it to everybody.

I do have it printed out.

Um, but it's specifically just outlining um uh regarding equitable contractor and hiring requirements of public reporting.

Many times we talk about these things, but I I have become ever more clear that if it's it is not explicitly stated, then it doesn't get done, and people then are required to have public records requests and all of those types of things, and I really believe that we need to move away from that.

Um but I'll share that with you all to have your feedback as we're going through this process.

So thank you so much, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, uh, Councilman Howls Jones.

Uh before we move to uh Mr.

Casendich on for his uh public comment, Councilman uh Casey asked for a very brief uh question.

Just one one question, Mr.

Chairman to to Chief Davy or Director Griffin.

Looks like there's about 21 points to this to the term sheet.

How many of those were the cities and how many were the Haslums?

So if this is a negotiation between the city and the Haslums, obviously negotiations go two-way street.

So how many of these were what the city asked for and how many is what the Haslems asked for?

Yeah.

If you don't know right now, if you could if you could use the councilman, uh through the chair to the councilman.

Yeah, I don't know.

I've never tried to break down which points uh and then you know the other thing to know is that sometimes uh a minor point can get split up into multiples.

So I don't know how much that will tell you other than to say it'll tell us a lot.

So if you could just let us know, Mr.

Chairman to the director, just how many of these were were what the city took a hard stance on and how many are what the Haslam Sports Group took a hard state.

We'll try to do that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Director.

Can I add one more thing?

I just want to thank everyone here for this very um detailed and incisive.

You guys ask great questions about you know, usually when we have uh a contract or an ordinance, uh this body simply approves it and says, hey, go go talk, and uh the law department or department of public works will negotiate it.

But this is a different contract, and it's it's a contract of importance.

And so I want to thank you for letting us come to talk in greater detail than we I think have ever seen in any other contract because it's important and we want to be here to to answer your questions.

So thank you for that.

Thank you, Director, and also like to echo thank you to the um to my colleagues in their their line of questioning uh today.

Uh very thoughtful.

Uh thank you all.

Uh thank you to my uh co-uh chair of men um here this morning, Councilman Bishop, Councilman Slife, um, for their uh pre-engagement and their engagement here uh this morning.

Thank you to all the members of the administration, the team who is here today who who um came prepared to answer questions and very open and honest dialogue discussion, and also Mrs.

Skinner, who's not a part of the administration, but it's a very um a great partner of ours uh here in the city of Cleveland.

So just thank you all for your uh your diligence uh today.

This is the first byte at the app, one of the second byte, technically, and so we may have one or two more bites at this as we move forward uh through this process.

Um and now we're gonna have Mr.

Cassindage come on up.

You can take the seat on the end, sir.

Come on up.

You take the uh the seat on the end, the very last seat, yes.

No, go ahead.

You can sit down.

You can take the last seat on the end.

So this is uh we often committees uh have public comment portion of the meeting uh to allow those who may want to make a statement.

Uh and um we asked that the administration or members of council if they would like to uh you know uh give any feedback that they stay after the committee to to chat with those who are here to make public comment, the same process that we normally have.

Uh the public comment portion is normally three minutes, but I'll extend the courtesy to you, Mayor, and allow you an additional uh uh two minutes uh to speak.

All right.

How much time, sir?

So yeah, five minutes.

That's great.

Thank you.

I think I can probably name that tune in less than that.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, members of council, and uh members of the administration.

Uh first of all, a little bit about my background in case you're not familiar.

Uh I served as a member of City Council, uh, several different areas of the city.

I was clerk of the Cleveland Municipal Court, mayor of Cleveland, State Senator, member of the United States House of Representatives.

I've, as you serve this community today, I have served this community in many different capacities.

One of the ways in which I served was in 1996 as a member of the Ohio Senate.

I was responsible for writing and passing what was then called the Taxpayers' Protection Act and is now popularly known as the Modell Law.

That was to protect the taxpayers, in particular protect Cleveland, because our city had just lost an NFL team.

And I wanted to make sure this never happened again, that we wouldn't lose a team again.

And so today, uh, unfortunately, the law that I passed, uh, even though the state has amended it, the old law still applies.

This law has not been enforced, and city and local investors could still have an opportunity to purchase this team and keep it in Cleveland.

The City of Green Bay has 537,000 owners, not two, five hundred and thirty-seven thousand.

And it's really important, members of council, to keep in mind that right now we have something that cities all over America wish they had.

An NFL franchise.

We have it.

Cities in Mexico City would like an NFL franchise.

London would like an NFL franchise.

There are cities in Europe that would want an NFL franchise.

We have one here, and it should not be given away.

Now, Council passed ordinance number 391-24, which instructed the administration to do everything it could to save the Browns to keep them in Cleveland.

I ask you to determine whether or not the City Administration has followed your ordinance.

And I say these are our Browns.

We should not let them move.

And certainly the City Council, uh, being as street smart as many of you members are, certainly understand when there's a hustle at work.

Trying to push to get a decision by December 1st to take 25 million dollars.

What's the rush?

To take 25 million or what?

What happens?

There's over, and I I'm going to demonstrate this in a moment, there's over a billion dollars in valued assets that need to be regarded here, uh, not just giving something away because of a quick payment and high pressure sales tactics.

I know uh Mr.

Starr and Mr.

Polencick had mentioned uh had questions about the real value of 100 million, and I think it's been established it's not 100 million.

But 30 million to tear down the stadium.

Uh the Browns owners want to tear it down so there's no competition.

That's a value asset for the city.

67,000 seats stadium is great value.

And what what's the city, what would what is the city actually giving up?

It's giving up an NFL franchise for a hole in the ground.

And you know, all these other things are speculative.

Now, I just, you know, while I was sitting here, I just drew uh a little bit of a chart about value.

There hasn't been an appraisal, but I did some approximations and estimates here.

That stadium uh value is about right now, $325 million.

It's 26 years old.

It's not a piece of junk, it's a valuable property.

If they're going to sell 50 or give 50 acres away one way or another on the lakefront where the stadium is, you check out the value of Lakefront Land.

Confirm this for yourself.

Find out for yourself.

Get the appraisals.

Lakefront land goes for about a million dollars an acre.

So you've got $50 million there.

Burke Lakefront Airport, if they want to put this into the deal, another 450 acres.

That's 450 million.

The lawsuit, the city itself in its filing, which you know I have a copy of here from January.

The city itself said that the city and its residents will lose at least 30 million in economic uh output every year.

And then they said that the city will lose at least 11 million in annual tax revenue.

Now, if you go back to the lawsuit in a five-year period where the Browns are in violation because they make uh calls for uh moving the team, that lawsuit is worth at least at least uh 205 million dollars.

Mr.

Cassidy.

Kasinish So there's over a billion dollars in assets here that this that the council is being asked to give away.

Don't do it.

Look further, take your time, get experts to review all the cost and benefits involved.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Kascinish.

Thank you.

Again, thank you all for your time today.

As I stated before, I think that the um the administration was in a tough position.

This council gave clear directions.

I think the administration heard those directions that has, you know, um uh uh laid a a tremendous foundation for us to work from.

And I appreciate uh you know the work that the administration has put in on behalf of all the Clevelanders uh here.

Uh I think it is very real that we cannot distort the truth, we cannot distort the facts here that uh we have a uh state government who is not working with us, right?

They they actually had done things to work against us.

And so I think this administration uh would you know has done what their role is to do is to go out and figure out a best deal on behalf of the city.

And again, do I think that we can uh take a good deal and make it a great deal?

I think there's some opportunity there, however, uh that uh uh give kudos to the administration for the work that you have put in uh to get us to this point, because it's very real that we could be left with zero.

Zero.

We've seen the rug pulled out from up under us with the uh Modell law.

We we know a Supreme Court that is not in our favor.

We have a state that just does not recognize homebrew, right?

And so the other many other factors that we can name here uh that we that we had to consider.

And we are often all of us sit down here to make tough decisions, the decisions that are not always the the uh the most uh like decision by you know people who we represent or those uh who who do business around the city.

But it's decisions that we have to make, right?

And if we all just make decisions based on who's gonna like us afterwards, then we're sadly mistaken.

And so again, thanks to everybody, the administration and this council for putting in the work in the diligence uh on this topic here.

So thank you all.

Uh in the council president, I'm sure we'll will take over the next uh hearing.

All right, thank you all.