City Council Hearing on Ordinance 13-2025: Browns Settlement Strategy - Nov 24, 2025

On November 24, 2025, the Cleveland City Council convened to review subject matter expertise regarding the $100 million settlement agreement between the City of Cleveland and the Haslam Sports Group (HSG) regarding the departure of the Cleveland Browns to a new stadium in Brook Park. Council President Griffin emphasized that the hearing was a strategic business discussion focused on ensuring the City of Cleveland is "made whole" financially and physically, rather than a sentimental debate. The session featured testimony from four external experts regarding the economic implications, infrastructure risks, and the feasibility of the settlement, followed by extensive debate among council members regarding the city's leverage, the usage of settlement funds, and the administration's negotiation strategy.

Consent Calendar

• No routine consent calendar items were included in this specific hearing transcript; the session was dedicated entirely to discretionary discussion and expert testimony.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Ken Silliman (Retired City Law Department Veteran): Stated he has no financial stake in the outcome but expressed a position of strong concern. He described the Brook Park project as the "single worst development deal" for the region in 38 years based on the city's economic study, which predicts $11 million in annual tax revenue loss. He expressed support for the $100 million settlement amount and its timing but strongly opposed the "best efforts" language in Sections 2E and 2F of the term sheet, arguing it could inadvertently prioritize Brook Park infrastructure over Cleveland neighborhood projects. He recommended deleting Section F entirely and amending Section E to clarify that city support does not override other city infrastructure priorities.
• Michael Deemer (President/CEO, Downtown Cleveland Inc.): Expressed "heavy-hearted" support for the $100 million settlement. His position is that the "die was cast" when the State of Ohio provided the $600 million, shifting the focus to making the best of a difficult situation. He argued the settlement provides the necessary clarity and funding to strengthen the downtown core and mitigate the negative economic impacts of the stadium's departure.
• David Ebersall (Vice President, Greater Cleveland Partnership): Expressed strong support for the settlement. His position was that the agreement allows for the development of a domed stadium that will benefit the region (citing peer cities like Detroit and Indianapolis for added events) and secures critical investment for the downtown lakefront. He argued that rejecting the deal would result in the city getting "nothing" and losing the opportunity to catalyze $5 billion in regional investment.
• Scott Skinner (President/ED, North Coast Waterfront Development Corp): Expressed support for the settlement as a necessary step to provide certainty for the downtown lakefront development. He argued that the $50 million specifically earmarked for the lakefront and stadium demolition is critical to initiating the $150 million land bridge project and attracting private investment, which would not happen without the certainty of the stadium's removal.
• Councilman Joseph Slifer: Raised concerns about the potential for unfunded mandates and prioritization of Brook Park infrastructure over city-of-Cleveland needs (specifically Miles Road, Lee Road, and Rocky River Road projects). He stated he would not support an agreement that locks the city into prioritizing suburban projects over neighborhood infrastructure needs.
• Councilman Michael Palency: Expressed strong opposition to the deal as currently structured, stating he "cannot support" it without further amendments. His position includes concerns that the stadium has not been independently inspected to confirm demolition is necessary, that the $100 million settlement is insufficient given existing city debts and capital repair obligations, and that the administration failed to leverage a "full court press" against the state of Ohio or the NFL.
• Councilman Brian Casey: Expressed a determination to "die in the alley" and oppose the settlement, arguing the city could have secured more and that the deal favors outside interests over local residents. He highlighted the disparity between the support provided to billionaires versus everyday working people in neighborhoods facing school closures and disinvestment. He questioned the shift in position by the Downtown Cleveland Alliance and Greater Cleveland Partnership, accusing them of failing to lobby in Columbus against the $600 million state grant.
• Councilwoman House Jones: Questioned the relevance of the settlement to single mothers and seasonal workers in neighborhoods facing immediate hardships like school closures. She argued that the projected economic benefits are distant and that the deal essentially transfers tax revenue (currently $11 million annually) to Brook Park and the State, leaving the city with "nothing" but a liability for the stadium demolition. She urged voters to hold the state accountable for valuing billionaires over working people.
• Councilman Anthony Harrison: Defended the administration, stating they had genuine conversations and plans to keep the Browns and that the 600 million state grant was an insurmountable obstacle. He argued the council must accept the reality of the situation and work to make the best of it rather than creating division.

Discussion Items

• Infrastructure Leverage and Term Sheet Language: A primary discussion focused on Ken Silliman's testimony regarding Sections 2E and 2F of the term sheet. Councilman Slife, Councilwoman Moore, and others pressed the administration and legal team on whether "best efforts" language could legally force the city to prioritize Brook Park infrastructure over city neighborhood projects. Council President Griffin and Chief Treasurer expressed that the intent was never to prioritize Brook Park and committed to amending the language to protect city flexibility for projects like Miles Road and the West Park Rapid Station.
• Revenue Loss and Economic Impact: Multiple council members (Palency, Jones, Slifer) argued that the move represents a net loss, citing a projected $11 million annual loss in city tax revenue and a $30 million hit to economic development. They questioned the validity of the "multiplier" effects promised by the stadium proponents and the lack of tangible benefits for neighborhoods.
• Negotiation Strategy and Leverage: A significant portion of the debate centered on whether the administration could have secured more leverage. Councilman Palency and Councilwoman Jones argued there should have been a more aggressive legal and political battle, including a "full court press" in Columbus and a refusal to settle while lawsuits were pending. Councilman Harrison countered that the Art Modell law was effectively gutted by the state, leaving the city with no legal leverage to keep the team and that delaying the move further would cost the city more.
• Usage of Settlement Funds: Council members debated how the $100 million settlement should be allocated. Council President Griffin and Councilman Slifer emphasized the need to ensure funds are used to replace lost revenue and invest in neighborhoods (e.g., Gen Academy, John Hay, Sheridan Hotel, housing repair). Councilman Palency expressed skepticism that any funds would reach the East Side neighborhoods.
• Stadium Demolition and Lease Extension: Councilman Palency questioned the necessity of demolishing the existing stadium without an independent structural study. The discussion clarified that the stadium must be demolished under the term sheet. The lease extension provision (two one-year options) was discussed, with councilmembers noting the low rental fee ($250,000/year) during the extension period is inconceivable compared to market rates.
• Role of Business Organizations: Councilman Casey challenged the positions of the Greater Cleveland Partnership and Downtown Cleveland Alliance, noting their executive committees supported the move while their full boards had previously voted against relocation plans. He accused them of failing to mobilize against the state's $600 million grant.

Key Outcomes

• No Final Vote: The council did not cast a final vote on the settlement during this hearing; the session was strictly for expert testimony and information gathering.
• Commitment to Amend Language: The administration explicitly committed to addressing the "best efforts" language in Sections 2E and 2F of the term sheet to ensure it does not prioritize Brook Park infrastructure over Cleveland neighborhood projects. Council President Griffin pledged to work on these amendments.
• Strategic Pivot Confirmed: While passionate debate occurred, the council's leadership (Council President Griffin and Council member Harrison) concluded that the city's leverage is limited to delaying the move rather than preventing it, and the immediate strategy is to secure the $100 million settlement to make the city "whole" and protect taxpayers from future demolition liabilities.
• Directives for Staff: The Council President directed policy and research staff to gather recommendations on amendments to the term sheet and lease, focusing on infrastructure priorities and the use of settlement funds for neighborhood revitalization projects."}