Good afternoon.

Today is Monday, November the 24th.

This is the next hearing uh regarding ordinance number.

What is that, Casey?

Give me that ordinance number.

What is the ordinance number again?

Used to have it written down by heart.

This is uh the next hearing regarding ordinance number thirteen twenty five-twenty twenty five as amended uh by Mayor Bibb.

Once again, we are not taking legislative action today.

This is uh for us to get uh subject matter expertise regarding ordinance number thirteen twenty five-2025.

This is the hundred million dollar uh settlement that the mayor has uh negotiated with uh the Cleveland Browns franchise.

Um I want to make sure that I level set what we're trying to accomplish today so that everyone is clear, okay.

Uh we've had the administration come to have a conversation with us about this stadium.

Uh and I'm gonna ask in the meantime if uh Miss Trevisano and if uh Mr.

McNair would like to join us before our guests join us.

Uh, but we've had the mayor that come in that came and made the case himself.

We've had members of the administration that have come to the uh to the table to express uh some of the details of the deal.

Uh today what we're gonna do is bring subject matter experts.

These are people that are external uh people that actually uh have reached out and have a um have a stake in this conversation, let's put it that way.

And uh, we're bringing them here today so that we can ask questions on why people believe this is a good deal and um why this is a good deal for Cleveland.

I want to level set.

As sentimental as this is, and congratulations on the Browns of on their win yesterday.

And as sentimental as this is, I want to make this clear to this council and to this listening public.

This is about how do we get the best deal for the city of Cleveland.

This is about how we look at this and how do we actually come up with um a strategy to make sure that Clevelanders can still have faith in its lake front, can be made whole to re increase or replace the revenue that we're going to lose when this venue goes out of town.

How do we mitigate any losses that we might have with any other institutions that we've upheld, like convention centers, rocket field uh rocket mortgage field house, as well as some of the other public investments that we made.

And if they do believe that this is a good deal, um, we're gonna have some people that are going to talk to us about how we can pivot to the future of the lakefront and try to make sure that Cleveland uh has a bright future ahead.

So I want to make this clear.

This is not about sentimental Browns.

I know that I'm a passionate Browns fan, just like the rest of our city.

Uh, I want to ask this council and I want to ask this administration that we look at this from a business deal standpoint.

And today, we're going to have several people that we're going to hear from, and the administration is here as well.

We do have the law director here in case there's any legal questions that uh he wants to answer.

But in this order, we're going to hear these people.

We're going to start out by hearing from my former boss, uh, and also the former chief of staff and the architect who actually did the deal, the past deal for the stadium as well as involved with the uh putting together this deal, Ken Silliman.

Um I'm gonna use one of his phrases because this is kind of why we're here today.

Don't bring me a problem without bringing me a solution.

And that's what we're trying to try to figure out, kind of trying to figure out today.

So we're gonna hear from Ken Silliman, who's actually written book books about uh this as a subject matter expert and actually went to forums that was hosted by Councilman Brian Casey in the past.

Uh, we're gonna hear from the Greater Cleveland Partnership, which represents the corporate community.

Um Beijou Shaw, who is the president and CEO could not be here, but he sent our former economic development director at the city of Cleveland under Mayor Frank Jackson, David Ebersall, and the Greater Cleveland Partnership, and Mr.

Ebersaw is actually the one that looked at the numbers uh to see how this deal can actually uh still make sure that Cleveland is made whole.

Uh after we hear from Mr.

Ebersaw, we're gonna hear from Mike Deemer.

Michael Demer represents the downtown Cleveland Alliance, which is the official organization that represents all of the downtown business owners, apartment owners, restaurants, et cetera.

So Mr.

Demer is going to come and give his opinions and uh talk about what he believes can happen and and how this may impact the downtown business community.

And then finally, the closer, the talk about vision and talk about moving forward and how this could look and how we could actually transform from a massive stadium that many of us, myself, maybe not you guys believe shouldn't have been built there in the first place.

Um really should have been built over by where the current gateway complex is at.

Uh, but however, we have a stadium there that's there now.

Once again, this is a business conversation.

This is not about everybody's feelings.

Um, everybody's entitled to their feelings, but at the end of the day, I want this council and this administration to talk about the business case for why this transition can be helpful and can position Cleveland to continue to bring in revenue and be made whole in this conversation.

So I hope everybody's clear.

I really wanted to give it the context so everybody was clear to understand what we're trying to accomplish today.

Uh before I bring up, uh I would like our guest, Mr.

Silliman, if he could come up, and then uh Mr.

Ebersaw, if he could come up, and then I'm sorry, Mr.

Silliman and Mr.

Deemer, and then after Mr.

Spy, Mr.

Silliman and Mr.

Deemer can join us at the table.

Uh, I'm gonna give Ms.

Trevasano uh and also uh director or Chief McNair an opportunity to make remarks why they're come to the table.

Thank you, Council President Griffin.

I just want to say again, thank you for your uh leadership and this council's leadership in this thorough vetting process.

You have an excellent panel of experts before you today.

So while Chief McNair, Chief Griffin and I are here to support and to answer any uh questions that you need from us, we're really looking forward to you hearing from this expert panel today.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

McNair.

Uh thank you, Commissioner President.

I'd only add, look, I I I continue to wish we were living in a world where the Cleveland Browns were investing in downtown Cleveland uh and the world-class lake front, and that is not the world that we live in today, right?

Uh that was not a choice that anyone in uh either this body or the administration made.

Uh there are a lot of factors that have led us to where we are today, and I think that our focus is on how do we make the city of Cleveland the best that it can possibly be uh for now and for the future.

Thank you.

Uh just before I allow our guests to go into their introductions, I do want to instruct council members because of the lengthy um schedule that we have today.

I'm gonna limit remarks to every for everyone to 10 minutes.

Please do not repeat questions, and once again, we will have an opportunity either via our staff or via anyone else to have follow-up questions.

Uh, but if you have burning questions that you would like us to answer, please do it within your 10-minute time frame because I do have to be very, very efficient with today's uh meeting.

Okay.

That being said, I am now going to ask Mr.

Silliman if he can introduce himself, and then uh we're gonna go ahead and take questions from Mr.

Silliman, and then uh once we take questions from Mr.

Silliman, we're gonna excuse him because he does have to catch a flight out of town, and then we'll bring up our other guests so that they can go through presentations.

Mr.

Silliman, you had the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Make sure if we need more.

One short on that side, I think.

Uh Miss Ur.

If you could uh make a couple more copies just in case we get other members that come in.

Please proceed, Mr.

Silliman.

Well, thank you, Council President and members of council.

Uh sort of deja vu for me here today.

Um I want to start by saying that it's close to 38 years since I started in the Cleveland Law Department in 1988.

Uh for the audience, my name is Ken Silliman.

I'm uh retired uh city city hall veteran.

Um when I started in 1988 in the law department, looking back on those 38 years, I can honestly say that this Brook Park dome scheme is the single worst development deal for the city and the region in those 38 years, and nothing else is even close.

Um as support for that, uh the city did an economic development study last November, and many of the points that I just made are made in that study.

Secondly, uh Councilmember Casey organized a panel discussion last June of 2024, and he invited several of the foremost economists on sports facility financing to that session, and I think anyone who attended that session would agree that they made similar points.

But that being said, I did watch Mayor Bibbs' testimony before the council several weeks ago, and I'm here to say that I agree with much of what Mayor Bibbs said in defending his proposed $100 million settlement.

I certainly agree that it was the $600 million gift from the state of Ohio that put the city basically behind the eight ball.

Secondly, I completely agree with Mayor Bibb that having studied both of the lawsuits and having some background in the lease language that was the basis of one of the lawsuits.

That I, although I think particularly the lease breach case, the city had the city had a very strong argument there.

On both of the lawsuits, I concur with Mayor Bibb that the best outcome the city would get would be to delay the project and delay the move out of downtown Cleveland rather than prevent it altogether.

So furthermore, I concur on the timing of the settlement.

I think it was the right time to come to terms, and with the dollar amount of the settlement, which I can speak to later on if there are questions.

So I'm not going to second guess either the dollar amount or the timing of the settlement.

But the city's commitments, as expressed in the term sheet that council received at that first meeting, go beyond the actual dismissal of the lawsuits, and that's my primary reason for reaching out to the council today.

Specifically, term sheet sections 2E and 2F could undermine future infrastructure projects in the city of Cleveland.

Now, how does that happen?

It's sort of a complicated explanation, which I'll get to.

But essentially, those two terms obligate the city to use best efforts to support Brook Park's public safety, utilities, and other infrastructure projects.

Now, in the uh memo that I passed out to the council, you'll see a quote from the city's attorney in this matter, Jones Day.

It was not specific to this particular situation.

It's actually several years ago.

But that law firm basically opined that you should generally avoid best efforts commitments when you're signing a contract or an agreement of any sort.

And the the language speaks for itself.

I won't go into that.

But here's how I make the connection between City of Cleveland projects and the Brook Park best efforts language.

Most council members know when the city is doing an infrastructure project, we're usually seeking either federal or state funding.

And there's usually a competitive selection process where our project is put in a uh competition with projects from other parts of the region, other parts of the state.

So in my view, when you're committing to best efforts for the Brook Park infrastructure, I could see a scenario down the road where the city might have a very important neighborhood infrastructure project that gets thrown in the same hopper with a Brook Park infrastructure project.

And in that case, could the Browns and the Browns attorneys kind of hold the city's feet to the fire and say you committed the best efforts, not reasonable efforts, best efforts.

And therefore, in this round of uh competition, you need to you need to put your weight behind the Brook Park project rather than the city project.

Yeah, and as long as that best efforts language remains in the term sheet, you have that possibility.

Now, if that was not the intent when the settlement agreement was crafted, then it's to me a fairly uh easy matter to amend the language to reflect exactly what was intended.

And to that and at the tail end of my memo, I suggest how you could modify sections E and I'm recommending that you delete Section F in its entirety.

Um and you have my suggestions for the specific language there.

I'll conclude my uh initial presentation with uh really uh supporting what the council president said at the outset.

I've been very clear what I think about this project in Brook Park and its impact on the city and the region.

But when the state made the decision that it may 600 million unwarranted dollars from the state's unclaimed funds to a project that helps neither the city nor the region, it basically put the city behind the eight-ball.

And uh anyone who cares about the future of the city has to look beyond uh your your feelings about the Brook Park project and say, okay, how do we deal with the consequences of this project?

And to do that, again, Council President, as you made very clear, we have to take a motion out of it, and we have to look at what's best for the City of Cleveland going forward.

And again, in my view, the settlement is appropriate, the dollar amount of the settlement, which again I can speak to is appropriate, and it is uh uh a good way to basically make uh lemonade out of lemons.

So I'll stop there.

I know there are questions, and I'll be happy to address any questions.

Thank you.

So before we take questions, I know I have Councilman Charles Life, I know I have Councilman Michael Palency, Councilman Brian Casey.

Uh I will ask if our staff can take this and make sure that our law department has this uh so that we can uh take this into consideration, as well as um Director Mark Griffin is here with us today.

Uh I'm going to first hear from the administration uh from Ms.

Trevisano since she's taken the lead, and then we'll pivot to uh Director Griffin if he has any comments.

And I really appreciate uh Mr.

Sillerman taking time.

I want to, for full disclosure, I have reached out to Mr.

Sillerman for the last three years to have discussions about this because I probably trust him most around um a lot of these matters as well as reaching out to other people and there are several other attorneys that concur with his assessment of this as well.

Uh so that being said, I'll start out with Ms.

Tremon.

And then I'll hear that.

Can you put me down, please?

I will put you down, sir.

But please can I ask everybody?

Um I'm going to need everybody to really be very, very succinct with their questions because we only have limited time.

But uh Mr.

Vassano, Director Griffin.

Yeah, um, thank you, Council President, and thank you, Ken, for those um remarks and for your you know careful feedback on the term sheet.

I can clarify on the business points that our intention was not to prioritize Brook Park over Cleveland projects.

There are often times where the city has multiple uh letters of support in for the same type of funding stream.

And so it wouldn't be unusual for us to have multiple projects that we are supporting for the same project, but the intention was not to prioritize Brook Park projects over the city's projects, and I will also say that we've clarified that none of these obligations require the city to make any sort of financial commitment to the project in Brook Park.

So I will ask our law directory to speak to the specific um language, but I know that it's something that we're gonna look at again and take a close look at.

Thanks to Mr.

Silliman.

Uh through the chair, to the chair.

Uh, first of all, I want to thank say thank you to all the council members here for a chance to talk to you again about um a very important project.

And I want to thank uh Mr.

Silliman.

I I don't think you can find a better public servant uh or one who's more knowledgeable about economic development and the impact uh of the law on our city.

Uh he has decades of experience, and so I'm I'm grateful for him and for his review uh where he has kind of taken a keen eye to the core terms and then also the the legal language.

Um so, and again, I'm grateful to uh to Mr.

Sullivan for uh supporting the core terms.

Uh, with respect to his suggestion on the edit about uh best efforts, uh I think that he has raised an important point uh that we're gonna look at, and as um Chief Trevisano said, uh it was not our intention to prioritize one over the other.

It in my 30 years of litigation, I've never seen something litigated over best practices versus reasonable practices.

But I think everything that we can do to eliminate um uncertainty in the contract is is important and valuable.

And so uh we absolutely take, you know, you take the good with the bad, and so we we or or you take the compliments with the criticisms.

And uh I want to say thank you to Mr.

Silliman for raising this issue, and we're gonna look at it and make it clear that we are not gonna prioritize anything.

Um in favor of Brook Park.

I look, our priority is the city of Cleveland.

Always.

Uh, and we will always do that.

And so Mr.

Silliman has raised a good point, and I think that we will we will look at that.

Uh I'd also say a couple things.

Uh we're not paying any money for any reason, and we have an arbitration clause to speed things through if there's any uncertainty about what a contract means.

But but I think uh Mr.

Sullivan has uh focused our attention on a small but important point.

Well, and just so I can make this clear, um, I am heavily leaning on if that is not the intent, then this amendment should definitely be made because if it comes down to a project that means we get Miles Road done or Lee Road done or Rocky River Road done versus Brook Park, I'm choosing Miles Lee and Rocky River.

So we want to make sure that this council has the flexibility and does not inadvertently lock itself into an agreement where even if our partners who might read that inadvertently take that as a tacit approval that we're going to prioritarize this interchange and these kind of improvements over some of the neighborhood and other things that we think are priorities, uh, then we want to make sure that the language appropriately reflects that.

And one of the things that I will tell you uh is that we already have some confliction, some conflicting things with that.

When the state does its capital plan for the first time, I believe three two to three years ago for the first time unanimously, the county council executive, the county council president, the mayor, myself, the head of the Greater Cleveland Partnership, as well as um others all signed joint letters to support capital projects.

I do not want this to become an impediment to us trying to really have a unified front in order to try to bring dollars back from Columbus here.

But it needs to be clearly stated that we won't prioritize uh this over some of the other infrastructure needs that we have.

Okay.

So we'll look at that late legislation, and that's something that I want to put a point in for potential um for potential um amendments, okay.

Uh just a couple of questions and then I'll turn it over to Slide Polenc, Casey Jones.

Um, Mr.

Silliman, if you could thank you so much for bringing this to us.

Um I just have to ask, why do you believe that this project um is not one of the best projects or probably the worst project that you've seen in the area?

Is it because of the impact that it would have in a central business district or because of the way that it's structured or because of the potential um poaching or other kind of things from some of the downtown central business district uh thank you for that question, Council President.

Um the Browns are able to get one or more county council members to take this issue up.

But to shine it, my answer to your question is the city's economic study did a great job of documenting that this Brook Park dome scheme will harm the city, to the tune of 11 million in tax revenues lost per year and 30 million, harder to pin down economic development.

And that beyond that harm to the city, the city's economic study went on to suggest that in a slow growth growth region like Northeast Ohio, when you build a new retail complex, you don't add value.

What happens in a slow growth region, which we unfortunately still are, what happens is that the people that visit the new place spend their dollars there instead of existing places.

So apart from cannibalizing the city, you know, and taking dollars that used to be spent in the city, you're also cannibalizing other parts of the county.

For example, look at West Side shopping centers such as Great Northern, Crocker Park, Westgate, all of these non-subsidized shopping areas.

How do you defend sending public money to a new retail complex which is part of this scheme and not subsidizing the other centers, particularly when whatever retail they get in Brook Park is going to pull customers away from downtown Cleveland over to the Brook Park venue.

The city's economic study also talks about once the project gets settled in, and once the Browns learn that they're not going to get a million and a half more visitors out of Brook Park than they get at the lakefront, and once they see the realities that other cities with domes have experienced over the last 20 years, those realities again were documented by one of the economists that Councilman Casey invited last uh year, that once they realize that they're gonna get maybe five or more extra events beyond what you have at the lakefront, they're gonna compete very aggressively with the uh Rocket Arena with the convention center downtown and every other activity in the city of Cleveland to get dates, bookings at their new facility.

Um there are the two studies made at the state level, one by the governor's office of budget management, and secondly by the state's legislative service committee.

Both of them cast considerable shade on the Browns economic study that promised all these extra jobs and extra events and everything else.

So and as mentioned before, ask any national economists that studied this area, they'll tell you that the benefits from building a new sports facility really do not show up as new value to the economy.

Um reason we we say Gateway as a successful project is not that it necessarily added new dollars to the economy, but it redeveloped a much needed uh deteriorated urban neighborhood, and that's where Gateway contributed its own special um benefit to the city and region.

You don't have that out in Brook Park.

Thank you.

And I'm going to make sure that Mr.

Demer and his remarks can answer this, but part of the argument that the teams have made to me and other supporters of this is that there will only be a limited amount of hotel rooftops out in the new development, therefore it would still drive um occupancy rates and other things to the central business district.

And I'd like for you guys to address that when your time comes up.

Quickly to that point, Council President.

This spring I took a West Coast train trip and I included a one day visit to Inglewood California, which is the site of what most people regard as the crown jewel of stadium mixed use development, SoFi Stadium where the Rams and Chargers play their football games.

That complex opened five years ago and it's got all kinds of activity around it a casino other in the spring were they breaking ground on a 300 room hotel five years after.

And I think the reason they broke ground on the hotel this year is because the intel new basketball arena for the Los Angeles Clippers opened across the street.

My point being don't necessarily believe you're going to get those hotels that the Haslums are promising out there in Brook Park because if the if it takes a while for it to happen in Englewood, draw your own conclusions.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Selman one last question and then I'll turn it over to my committee and this is I'm going to try to collapse my question so please see if you can capture it all.

In your opinion how would you advise this council if we have any other leverage points beyond the lease or anything else that you just stated.

So do we have any other leverage points the the lease was the one thing I thought was a leverage point and a couple of other things.

If that might be considered what would that look like and last but not least what else would you recommend this council try to extract out of this deal in order to make sure that we get the best benefit for the city of Cleveland on the Council President the first question about leverage points in my judgment we we had the two lawsuits.

So the my answer to your question is we don't have any leverage other than the lawsuits and the lawsuits only give us a partial relief so that's my answer to that.

And in my judgment the only scenario where you could continue to use the stadium is if you did a major renovation not renovation, a major reconstruction and basically knocked off the upper deck to create a soccer specific facility there was a proposal to that effect from NeoTrans over the summer.

But I think that I doubt whether that would be successful given the cost of doing a complete reconstruction.

Um I mean, I know a lot of people question the dollar amount of the settlement.

Um I don't.

Uh again, having looked at what our legal options are and what other leverage are.

In in my judgment, uh hundred million dollars is is a pretty good uh takeaway for the city given how much we were compromised by actions by the state of Ohio.

Uh but I know council, I know from the past, my appearance before council in the past that council can get very creative as to other options, and I'm certainly not rolling those out.

But as to the dollar amount, I I think we have got you know a fair sum.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Silverman, for giving us an honest independent assessment.

We know that you don't work for the administration, you don't work for the Browns, and you don't work for a council.

Uh so this is you as an independent citizen that has a tremendous amount of knowledge and background of these type of deals.

I really appreciate you coming in and giving us your opinion.

I'll now turn it over to the floor.

I have Slife, Palency, Casey, Joe Jones.

Uh thank you, Chief.

This is uh uh strange dynamic that I'll I'll adjust to it.

I'll adjust to it.

But I mean, I feel bad.

I'm not sure if you're not used to the microphone and uh view the other way around.

Exactly.

Um, I I'll just share with you, Chief, that my uh I I can be inclined to agree with uh the value of the deal.

My frustrations have maybe been more about the proposed end uses of dollars and and without going in too much of a tirade because we only have so much time, but uh it is it is my strong opinion that the residents of this city uh, including the residents I represent are frequently expected to sort of disproportionately finance what are regionally beneficial amenities.

Um I fear once again that we are going to go further down a road where Cleveland residents are being asked to effectively accept less for the greater good, very often by voices who are engaged in the city but live in the suburbs and I think are therefore maybe not as willing to participate in carrying that burden.

Um but I I I I start there because a focus of mine has been if the Browns move to Brook Park, yes, there are a lot of negative impacts for the city, but there's a lot of also spillover impacts within the neighborhood that I represent.

And and I am very thankful that you're bringing forward this infrastructure component because if my colleagues are not aware, uh a proposal was already brought to Nowaka and it's been tabled for further development determining what infrastructure improvements would be needed around the Browns Stadium to facilitate that level of traffic, and as originally proposed, and again, this is information for my colleagues, I believe there were six buildable units, uh, it's actually projects, uh all within the city of Brook Park, and then one that was sort of shown, including an infill RTA station uh that wouldn't have been funded uh but was just given um for uh for info information purposes.

And my concern was that the the what had been analyzed to that point didn't account for the fact that a substantial percentage of patrons leaving a new stadium instead of going east on snow road, would go west on snow road and immediately interface with the exit to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.

The highway in front of the airport is actually in the city of Brook Park, but the airport is owned by and in the city of Cleveland.

Uh so that would create uh high level of concern for the ability to ingress, egress the airport.

I was speaking with councilwoman more uh just before this started, talking about how infrastructure projects right now at Hopkins are already causing issues uh for patrons, and we can only anticipate that they're gonna get worse as we go further into the transportation or the terminal modernization plan over the coming years.

Additionally, beyond just the airport, um maybe my colleagues don't travel this way, but you can't get on 480 west from the airport.

You have to get off of the highway and go down Brook Park Road in Ward 17.

And understanding how patrons coming to or uh coming to or leaving the stadium would require to use City of Cleveland streets, especially in Ward 16 and 17, whether they are just trying to connect to a highway or they're coming up through the neighborhood to get to I-90, I think was a glaring omission in that analysis.

Uh so I thank you to the chief for bringing up the scenario where a project on Miles Road could become derailed because of an obligation to support something in Brook Park.

And if I don't want to end up in a situation where we essentially have unfunded mandates to begin making infrastructure improvements because we've been hamstrung by a deal that uh didn't anticipate that from the forefront.

So I guess my uh my question to the administration was going to be are the Browns receptive to this type of change within the term sheet.

It sounds as if that's a premature question because that hasn't been brought to them.

Is that the case?

To the councilman through the chair.

Uh we've talked to the following an initial conversation um with Chief Silliman, talk to the Browns about this sort of general concern around prioritization of Brook Park projects over the city.

Uh we are on the same page.

That is not as what is intended.

We have not talked about specific language changes to then address.

Okay.

So I I so I would echo the council president in supporting this, and then also just understand beyond just specific infrastructure.

Uh we've talked about how uh the administration identified the West Park Rapids Station as the number two TOD site in the City of Cleveland.

We have the Camps Corners Business District.

Like there are actual, I I am hopeful that people still come and tailgate downtown and then somehow get to the game instead of having to pay $300 to park at the Brown Stadium.

Uh but I also think that there are opportunities for the spillover effects of a game day to bleed over into the immediately adjacent Cleveland neighborhood.

And I also want to make sure that whatever economic development priorities we would do uh to sort of figure out how we could maximize this for the City of Cleveland is going to in one is going to include an outlying Cleveland neighborhood, not just downtown.

But two, that we are not going to find ourselves to be in a limiting situation where we're not able to invest in those sorts of things uh because of a term sheet that didn't anticipate such a scenario.

So I'll leave it there.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

First of all, thank you, Councilman uh Slife, and I will tell you just a few things that I have already begun to outline.

And the intention is once we get through this hearing is to have some amendments that we recommend uh to the administration and that this council would embrace, and then also to look at where we can make some very um critical investments as you're talking about.

Some things that run across my mind already are like Genn Academy, John Hay, JFK, Sheridan Hotel, and West Park Rapid Station.

So these are things that we want to try to understand, and that's where you uh original statement about the end use of these dollars is something that we really have to have a discussion about on how we want to see some of those things.

So I hope to embrace all the council and have that discussion.

Councilman Michael Palency.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman of my honorable colleagues, the administration, Mr.

Silliman.

Um reminds me of the polar gas movie.

You're back.

So um let me just say this.

You've read the you've read the agreement, correct?

Through the chair to councilman Polentick, yes.

The term sheet.

I've read the term sheet.

Okay, so the council president touched on the issue with the existing stadium because in the term sheet, if we agree to it, the stadium has to go.

That's a given.

That's what was said at this table in the last hearing we had that that's part of the agreement that the stadium must be torn down.

And you understand that correctly.

Through the chair to councilman, yes.

See.

And I'm not convinced that the stadium needs to come down, because I have not seen an independent study of the stadium, the conditions of the existing facility.

I don't believe the council has seen that as well.

So that's something that we're going to be asking, we should be asking that question.

With regard to your thoughts on the lease extension without any change in the lease for possibly two exist uh two more years, what's your comment on that?

Uh through the chair to Councilman Polentick, um, I understand why the Browns would want that provision given that uh through through the litigation that the city initiated and other actions that their schedule was getting backed up.

And uh it's understandable that they would want a safety valve uh in the event that their project is not ready uh for occupancy by uh the fall of 2029.

Um as to the terms of the the economic terms uh that would apply to those those two years, I really uh am not gonna uh offer an opinion on those um and uh basically I'm not gonna second guess the provisions on the on the two-year extension.

Okay.

I'm not aware, Mr.

Chairman, of any landlord who would have a tenant for 30 years, and then when at least expired, that you would just continue the same lease terms.

I'm not aware of that in in any environment, that the $250,000 they pay us a year would remain in place.

That to me is inconceivable.

Um, when you look at the terms, um, and you have indicated at the table, you believe the hundred million dollars is sufficient, and you also realize, I hope, that we still owe $33 million on the existing stadium.

We owe $7.871 million in debt service slash interest.

They expect us to pay another 12 million dollars on capital on a stadium that we're supposed to tear down.

And at this point, we already have spent 1.1 million on um the um the uh legal fees.

So when you add all that up, you come up at this point right now with a $3.97 million loss as of right now, based on the the agreement.

And this is where I'm at from stepping back for a moment.

We cannot continue to make bad deals in this city.

Um we cannot continue to take major hits.

As we sit here, we have the jail moving to Garfield Heights, 400-plus jobs, tremendous economic impact on downtown Cleveland.

I could go down through all the other projects that we have done over the years, and we wound up not uh they they don't they wound up not having the impact they were all promised, including the existing stadium, which is estimated that we have spent somewhere around 700 million dollars.

And when we have asked for what the additional um cost that we incurred, the roads, the sewers, the water lines, CPP, nobody could tell us because they say it's been too long ago, as we've made that request with staff.

So when I look at the the big picture, and I as I said public, I appreciate um Mr.

Haslan reaching out to me.

We thought we spoke two times on the phone.

Um I indicated to him I felt the deal as it stood that uh was insufficient, that I could not support it.

And when he asked me, well, what's your what's your uh what's your opinion?

What do you think needs a change?

I went over the debt service, I went over the what we still owe, I went over the capital repairs that I thought that the Browns needed to step up and at least help us cover his comment was to me um, I'm not gonna negotiate against myself.

So that told me right there that we could have got more out of them.

That told me right there that we could have got more.

Because I kept hearing this hundred million dollar figure for the last year, and I kept saying, no, it can't be, that can't be right.

It can't be right $100 million.

We got to get more out of this deal.

And that's the exact number that we came up with.

Because I heard that number was floated from day one and no change.

So as I go out and I visit my constituents, and I can tell you this.

When I was going door to door during this campaign, and I walked to my ward, I didn't hear anybody tell me that we should give more to Jimmy Haslin and the Cleveland Browns.

What I heard was we need police in our neighborhoods, we need code enforcement, we need help to fix our homes.

I heard all the litany of concerns that Cleveland expressed.

And here we are, we sit here today.

We're forced, we're being not forced, we're being presented with 18 more schools to be closed.

On top of the 28 that have already been closed on Cleveland's East side.

So it goes back to my original comment, Mr.

Chairman, my honorable colleagues and to the presenters here at the table.

I am a firm believer there should have been a full court press on the NFL.

Why there was not, why there was not an effort made uh with Roger Goodell in Washington.

I mean, in New York is beyond me.

Um, I think if had Mike White been here, there would have been scorched earth between now in New York.

In fact, I don't think it I know it.

I know it there would have been scorched earth.

I mean, there there was there's not been a full court press placed on Jimmy Hazlund nor the the NFL.

Councilman, could you wrap up?

Mr.

Chairman?

Could you um so here we are today again at the 11th hour, because we're being asked to pass this by the end of the year.

And Mr.

Chairman, as I said publicly, as the deal stands right now, as the deal stands right now, unless the pot is sweetened for the Cleveland residents, for our taxpayers, there's no way I can support this.

I can't go back and tell my residents and confront my resident with everything that they are dealing with in their neighborhoods that this is the best deal we could come up with.

I don't believe it's the best deal.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilman Pulitzick.

I am going to allow any remarks, uh, but once again, I want to make sure that everybody is clear that we are answering Councilman, uh we are answering Chief Silliman's questions.

We're then going to bring up Mr.

Skinner and Mr.

Ebersaw, and we'll have a chance to have a general conversation around the tenants.

But I want to make sure we get Mr.

Silliman's questions so that he can leave.

Through the chair to Councilman Polenzik on the point of whether we pressed the Haslums enough or the NFL enough.

Unlike you, in the 1996, I was in meetings with Mr.

Godell for three months.

I know how the NFL negotiates.

I know what their priorities are.

Mr.

Goodell is a very capable representative of the 32 NFL owners he represents.

And make no mistake, when they are in a room, they don't care about City of Cleveland issues.

Their priority is getting stadiums built for their owners at the most favorable terms possible.

And nothing's gonna, nothing's changed in that regard between 1996 and today.

Now, as far as how you negotiate with the NFL, under today's legal environment, it's very difficult.

That's why at the end of my book, I recommended congressional legislation to basically level the playing field between local governments and the teams, because they have made an art form of playing one city off against the other by threatening to move unless the first city anties up big dollars, and that's the game they play.

As to your earlier points about the uh debt due on the stadium and the capital repairs, I I I understand that those are still obligations that we have.

But those obligations date to the deal in 1996, which you voted no again.

That's right.

Yeah, so that the time to have corrected those situations was 96.

And if a majority of council had shared your view back then, we wouldn't have as high a capital uh you know obligations or as high a debt service.

We might not have a team either.

So uh in terms of trying to recover obligations that we basically committed to in 96.

Uh today, on top of you know, the the lakefront money, whatever, I just don't think you're gonna get there.

That's my opinion.

You certainly have a different opinion, and we're gonna agree to disagree.

Right.

Thank you, King.

As we always have.

And uh I'm gonna move now to Councilman Brian Casey.

Councilman Brian Casey, and remember, please keep the comments relegated to Mr.

Sillem's.

We do have another group of speakers that will be coming.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Childman to Mr.

Sillman, thanks for being here today.

In regards to your comments regarding the term sheet and um section 2F, which states use best efforts to assist Browns with public safety planning and utilities in connection with operation at the Brook Park Stadium mixed use project.

In your Mr.

Chairman to Mr.

Silliman, in your legal opinion, does that mean we would do stuff like put our best effort into assuring that they have security for game day, assuring that they have security getting in and out of that mixed-use project, things like that.

Um the chair to Councilman Casey.

I I think it would be a stretch to interpret the best efforts language to require the city to contribute money to Brook Park.

I I don't read it that far.

Uh but I do think that by by that paragraph F saying we're gonna use best efforts in terms of uh doing everything other than writing a check to Brook Park, I think it could commit us to that, and that's why I recommend that we strike F in its entirety.

So, Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Silliman, in other words, right?

We could provide the physical police bodies and just be reimbursed or have somebody else pay for them, correct?

Uh uh according to that.

Uh through the chair to the councilman, that certainly is a possibility.

Okay.

And then um, Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Sillman, you were obviously a big part of the negotiations when the Browns were coming back last time.

Can you touch on how you what the mindset was back then to protect us from what we're doing now, right?

With we know, according to the administration and the attorneys that the Haslam Sports Group are in violation of the lease, right?

By going through all this.

And it appears to me, Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Silman, they're just getting a pass on that, right?

Because we're negotiating this, and part of them buying their way out of this with their 100 million dollars is that we overlook the fact that they've done something wrong.

But what was the mindset back then to put this into perspective for us today as so that we wouldn't be sitting here going through what we're going through today?

Through the chair to Councilman Casey.

And his attorneys, I was uh Mayor White's um uh uh development executive.

Uh so I was part of that team.

Our mindset back in 96 when this lease was being drafted by Squire Sanders and by my uh uh friend and uh uh former colleague Dinda Thomas, the mindset was never again.

In other words, if we're gonna sign a new lease that's gonna apply to whoever comes in as the owner, one thing we're gonna have in there is something that prevents that new owner from while the lease is still in in effect, negotiating with some other uh state or city, the way Art Modell did when there was three years remaining on his lease.

And when Dinda Thomas drafted that paragraph, it was specifically targeted at never again will this happen.

You you're you will be hard pressed to find a paragraph like that in any other city's NFL lease.

And I think it gave us significant leverage as as far as the lawsuit based on the breach of the lease.

But again, you uh you can only get so much remedy out of a contract provision, and the remedy will, in my judgment, was not strong enough to prevent the move, but rather to postpone it.

All right.

And then um, you know, one thing that keeps coming up, Mr.

Chairman to Mr.

Silliman, was the fact that whoever owned that team, right, was go was paying $250,000 a month for the for the life of that of that lease.

Now we know that nobody here is ever going to buy anything, right, and have a 30-year lease on anything without the increase in rents, right?

What was the thought and the belief and the thinking behind allowing them to only pay 250 a month for 30 for 30 years?

Or 250 a year, I'm sorry, for 30 years.

Through the chair, the councilman Casey.

Um did did our negotiating team, again, led by Mayor White, think that 250,000 a year was a fair rental to pay for this brand new stadium that we were building for whoever the owner would be?

No, uh, not even close.

But you get what you can get given the leverage that you had.

And we were fighting uh to reclaim our team, um and uh when when terms like that are uh bandied about by the NFL, uh it was with all the leverage that they have by the first case threatening the move.

In our case in 96, they actually had done the move, and we were trying to get them back.

And again, uh in until federal law is instituted that sets some kind of ground rules uh for how leagues and their constituent owners deal with local governments and and and create a more level playing field.

We're all every every local government that sees its team lease nearing expiration is going to be subject to the same harsh negotiating stance.

And and and you it you basically you get what you can, but you don't want to lose the team.

And you don't want to push hard enough that causes them to do what Modell did to us in 1995.

Chairman and Mr.

Silliman and as per our panel that we that we held on this whole thing moving building this park playground right does not constitute any way shape or form economic as an economic engine right it's just moving it's moving dollars around a region right I mean it's not going to you and you know I think you know what I'm gonna what I'm trying to say but if you could just touch on that.

Yes uh through the chair to Councilman Casey um again the the the state zone legislative service commission study and the Office of Budget management study spoke very clearly to the points you just made um and yet the state legislature basically sidestepped those recommendations and chose to make tantamount to a $600 million dollar grant to uh the Browns furthermore um and this is a point that uh I I'm not sure too many people have made been made but I I will tell you that in the years that I was negotiating for the City of Cleveland on our various stadium leases in virtually every major negotiation there was a very real threat of the team moving outside the region not just from Cleveland to book but outside the region there was no possibility of that happening here with the Browns they had no leverage with the State of Ohio with the City of Cleveland or with Cuyahoga County because they were not going to move outside the region.

They said that to the media and furthermore anyone who studies NFL economics as you know season tickets are sold out every year at this stadium there's an 8,000 person waiting list TV ratings in Cleveland are among the highest in the country I mean for them to move outside this region would be economic suicide.

We knew that the state should have known that before they opened up the purse strings for 600 million.

And Mr.

Chairman and Mr Sullivan the only place to buy for entertainment dollars out in Brook Park would be downtown Cleveland because no other place hosts any type of concerts any types of plays and or anything like that.

So the only place that they're going to be pulling from in the stadium aspect they want to do their retail or whatever they're going to pull from South Park they're gonna pull from Great Northern they're going to pull from everywhere else but the entertainment dollar the only place that they can pull from is the City of Cleveland in downtown correct correct and as I said before three four years down the road when the Browns realize that their extravagant promises of extra events for example their attorney testified before the Ohio legislature that taxes at Brook Park will quadruple what they were from the lakefront.

Once they realize how wildly overly optimistic those projections were three or four years down they're gonna get more aggressive in competing with downtown venues and that's when we'll really feel the challenge.

Well and and I'll take it one step further Mr Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Sullivan I'll even say that this is going to be such a disaster out in Brook Park that whoever owns that team in 30 years will be coming back to the City of Cleveland begging us to come back downtown to the core.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman Thank you.

I have Councilman Jones and Councilman Moore remember I'm having everybody on a restricted timeline because I do have other guests and they have a lot of answers to the questions that we're asking so please keep it relegated to Mr.

Sillman.

Mr.

Jones Ms Moore.

Thank you Mr.

Chairman um to uh the distinguished gentleman Mr.

Silliman um first of all um you know a model was set um you guys did do a great job in creating the gateway um project for the proposition of bringing all our sports teams and keeping them in the city of Cleveland for the the thought of the time or the mission of the time as a a major class city I think that's how it was so way back then.

If he has such an upper hand, given the fact that the state has already given him $600 million.

What is the $100 million for, really?

Through the chair to Councilman Jones.

And so what as to what specifically motivated them to offer $100 million in exchange for this settlement, I can't answer.

I can I can say, and again, I'm not speaking to what the Haslem's actual motivation might have been, but I can speak to kind of an objective, you know, someone in the position of the Haslums with what they had in hand and what they were trying to achieve.

It would make some sense to make the city's lawsuits go away because of the delay factor that they were causing.

And the opportunity to make the lawsuits go away, number one, and to number two, we capture some positive PR because the hazms have been associated with the lake front in the past.

Those might from the outside looking in be logical motivations.

Whether those were the motivations the hazms had, I can't speak to.

If we could, I apologize.

Um he had an extensive conversation on that, and then you also have a memo that gives the recommendation.

Um, Mr.

Silliman, but I do want to make sure for the time's sake we don't have to go through the same.

So the chair to the to Councilman Jones, I think the paragraph you're referring to, Council Councilman is in the Browns lease, right?

Correct.

Uh and that I don't cover that in my memo.

Basically, what that paragraph says is that as an NFL franchise, the owner of that franchise shall not negotiate with parties to with the goal of relocating the team outside the city of Cleveland during the term of this lease.

And that term of the lease goes through the end of 98.

So is the city's lawsuit very appropriately uh um argued they were in violation of that provision the minute they started talking to Brooke Park, the move that when they went to the planning commission of Brook Park when they went to the state legislature.

So that's what that it basically and again the the reason that paragraph was in there is that's exactly what Art Modell did with three years remaining on his lease, and we we wanted to make sure when we drafted that provision in 96 to make sure that didn't happen again.

And and so now it has happened again.

Now we're in the midst of it, right?

With that paragraph being in there, what kind of strength does it really technically have in terms of um or would that potentially be the one of the reasons why we're looking at 100 million dollars?

Or should we, if we played this out, worst case scenario, um uh, you know, and fought this issue, could we get more?

I bet we get more money.

Can we get can we keep them here somehow?

Because never again was the paragraph put in there.

And the whole purpose was we did not want to lose our Brown's team in the city.

And from what I've heard, Mr.

Chairman, to um Mr.

Silliman, is that we're looking at $30 million uh uh where our businesses in the downtown city of Cleveland are going to be impacted, and we're looking at another 11 million in our coffers.

So the question on an annual basis.

So I guess the question is how would that help us now?

Well, through the chair to Councilman Jones, uh again, I think that paragraph uh being in the lease, put the Browns in a position of a clear violation of the lease.

I think that at the low if if we maintained the lawsuit, I think the uh uh the the lower level courts would probably have agreed with the city of Cleveland.

Uh the Ohio Supreme Court uh is more speculative.

Uh but I do think had we uh continued with that litigation, we would have significantly delayed the Browns project, but we would not have prevented it.

And in my judgment, given all the factors and all the lawsuits and that, uh in my judgment, a hundred million is a pretty uh fair outcome for the city given what leverage we had and what leverage we don't have.

And you also talked about earlier, Mr.

Chairman, uh about the Model law, and I've heard a lot about that, uh, how it was gutted by the State.

You know, we we have you know smoke shops here, and um then there's this such thing we could call grandfathered in.

Wouldn't this already be grandfathered in, Mr.

Chairman to Mr.

Sillman?

Well, wouldn't it still apply to them?

Well well, through the through the chair to uh Councilman Jones uh uh I I believe that was uh part of the arguments that the Jones State lawyers were making on behalf of the city, even after the the State Legislature emasculated the Art Model law.

That I believe that was our argument.

Uh I see the law director nodded that that the those legislative amendments were prospective only and could not apply to existing matters.

So I I think that was the argument.

But again, we've chosen to settle that.

I see.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Uh uh, thank you, Mr.

Silliman, for being here.

Appreciate um you uh fighting back in the old days to do for us to have the team as long as we have had it.

And it's really unfortunate to uh be here today, even talking about the subject matter.

Through through the chair to the councilman, uh I'm sorry, uh Mr.

Griffin and uh Lassie Mark and then I'm gonna give Councilwoman Mara the last question, and then we're gonna go into the broader panel.

Yes.

I just want to be clear about uh the remedy for a violation of the modell law.

First of all, we would argue that it still applies, but if we were to win 100 percent, the remedy is simply to allow six-month period for people to come in and possibly make an offer, and there is no obligation for them to sell the team.

Uh so that is also not a remedy of where we can keep the team here in Cleveland.

Thank you, Councilman.

I mean, thank you, Director.

Councilman Maher, last question for Mr.

Silverman, then we're going to open it up for the broader panel.

And then Mr.

Settlement, you're allowed uh welcome to stay as long as you are, because I can see a lot of people have interest and they may want to follow up with you.

So I'm going to ask if our policy team can get your information if there are follow-up questions for you, okay?

To the chair, uh I do have uh some flexibility, so at least for an hour or so I intend to stick around.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Councilman Mamor, and then I'll go to the broader panel.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I was grateful for the chance to hear you speak at the panel that Councilman Casey organized last year.

I've been really focused on the issue that you hit on, which is the unlikely event of the Haslems moving the team outside of the region entirely.

And I I absolutely agree with you that the economics of the NFL have effectively changed, where cities are no longer competing in this intense way that they were for these teams, and there's there's less of an incentive than there was in the past.

But I think something that's kept me up at night is the risks around the $600 million contributions from the state with it coming out of the unclaimed funds pool and the litigation around that.

Do you have any insight or thoughts about what would happen if the $600 million fund was barred from being dispersed to the Haslums or if that became essentially a non-viable pathway at the State House through the Chair?

Through the Chair to Councilwoman Maurer.

Um I have thought about that question.

And uh if if the if the litigants uh prevailed and basically prevented the state from doing that uh funding in the manner provided out of the unclaimed funds.

Um extremely cynical about motives of state legislatures.

I think what would happen the minute that decision took effect, the Browns would be back in Columbus pursuing other parts of money, maybe even reverting to uh Governor DeWine's original gambling tax proposal.

In other words, I am convinced that if that lawsuit is successful, that will not stop the Browns.

They will find a way in Columbus to get money from some other pot.

So I think that my assessment of that litigation is if it's successful, I don't think it will prevent the move either.

I think it will delay the move.

And I think that the uh again, I think that the Browns will get some other replacement remedy from the state.

As far as uh I I had heard before of your concern about the team relocating outside the region.

Again, for reasons I already stated the economics.

Furthermore, again, we we uh our negotiating team in 1996 spent an intense four months with Roger Goodell back in 96.

I will tell you without question that the last thing Roger Goodell will want is another fight with Browns fans nationwide.

He had all of that that he could handle back in 96.

Since then, the NFL has strengthened its ties to the region at the Hall of Fame and in Canton.

I I cannot imagine a scenario where if the Browns got so uh upset about not getting the 600 million and started to look uh nationally for a new place that they would not find the support from could Commissioner Goodell uh to bless that.

Thank you.

That that's really helpful insight.

I I appreciate it, and I know the the worst case scenarios are like what do they call the tail end risk?

It's it's way at the end, it's very, very unlikely, but it's very, very big.

But I appreciate your insight into just how unlikely it is.

I I think that is certainly insightful, and I really appreciate your time today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm gonna ask if I could, I'm gonna ask Mr.

Silliman to please stay, but I'm gonna ask if we could, um, even though I needed law director and um chief economic development to stick around.

I'm gonna ask if Mr.

Skinner can join us at the table and announce the organization that he's with.

Um, and then also if Mr.

Ebersaw from um Greater Cleveland Partnership uh can uh join us at the table.

And uh we're gonna go in this order.

We're going to hear from um Mr.

Uh Deemer, and then we're gonna hear from Mr.

Ebersaw, and then we're going to hear um from the future from Mr.

Skinner.

Okay.

And then after we hear from this next group of panelists, then we'll revert back to questions from the council.

Okay.

So Mr.

Demer, and tell us who you are.

I know who you are, but please make sure the council knows who you are and who you represent.

And I want to say this for the listening audience.

Ummittee will probably be delayed.

This is a very important conversation, and I want to afford the council members an opportunity to really talk to this group of external experts and external uh people that can give us insight on making one of the most important decisions that we need to determine that we're going to make.

Okay.

So, Mr.

Deemer, and then we'll go to Mr.

Ebersaw and then Mr.

Skinner.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm Michael Demer, President CEO of downtown Cleveland Inc.

I appreciate the opportunity to be with all of you today.

Uh I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this uh very very important issue.

Uh to everything there's a season, a time to mourn, a time to feel anger about the loss of tradition in the downtown anchor.

Uh I believe this is a time to build, a time to move forward uh with purpose and clear vision.

Uh and that's why on behalf of downtown businesses, large and small, property owners, residents, and workers, I'm very respectfully uh and heavy-heartedly uh urging this council to approve the 100 million dollar settlement with the Haslam Sports Group.

I want to say I come at this from uh a unique position, I believe, throughout this saga.

Uh our organization has stood shoulder to shoulder with this council, with the mayor, with the county executive, uh fighting to keep this team in the stadium in downtown Cleveland.

Uh I stand by everything we've said throughout the process.

Uh my uh the previous speaker talked about uh this being one of the worst economic development deals he's seen.

Uh I've referred to it as a generational mistake.

The move has consequences.

It creates competition for scarce private and public capital, uh, and it puts absolutely undeniable pressure on the city's core.

But the issue before us today, as I see it, is not where the Browns will be located.

The issue, in my judgment, is how Cleveland positions itself to compete and ensuring we use the next three to five years wisely.

And this three to five year window is critical.

The stadium concept in Brook Park is built around hotels, new office, new retail, that this region cannot support and doesn't need, can't support it without cannibalizing from downtown.

But the best protection Cleveland has against overbuilding on the outskirts is by strengthening the core and making downtown a place that people choose first.

We've worked with business leaders, residents, and civic partners to put forth a greater downtown vision that does just that by strengthening safety, connectivity, activation, and driving growth in the core.

This settlement helps clear the path to advance that vision now, when that timing matters most, that three to five year runway that we have to really improve our competitiveness.

And while I don't want to overpromise, I do want to acknowledge that state officials, while supporting the Browns move and opposing our position, have consistently stated that they recognize the state has a responsibility to invest in Cleveland and downtown specifically to make the city whole.

That again, in my judgment, the die was cast when the city, when the state uh made its decision to support this relocation to the tune of $600 million.

From that point on, uh, in my opinion, everything has been about uh the city getting the best deal that it can, and I know that's what we're here to talk about today, and from a downtown Cleveland perspective, making sure that we're doing everything that we can working with this council and all of our partners to make sure that we're strengthening the core.

Uh the settlement, uh hundred million dollars, uh, plus uh any cost as I understand it, over 30 million dollars for demolition in state prep protects taxpayers, it provides clarity and positions us to work with this body, the administration, on the policies and capital investments that we need to make downtown the place where people want to be.

So, for these reasons, we respectfully urge council to support the settlement.

Uh we appreciate your leadership, we appreciate your partnership, and I'll be happy to answer any questions when the time comes.

Thank you.

And once again to this council, we're going to hear from all of these panelists, and then I want to make it clear that I want to give an opportunity for some of the council members that haven't had a chance to ask questions first uh to ask questions, and then I will revert back to a couple of the council members who have asked to uh be added back to the agenda so that they can have follow-up questions.

I'll now go to Mr.

David Ebersaw and then ask the uh Scott Skinner, Mr.

Scott Skinner.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, Council President, members of council.

Uh thank you for inviting the Greater Cleveland Partnership to the table today.

Uh I'm David Ebersol, Vice President of Development Finance at GCP, and I'm here today on behalf of our president and CEO Beijus Shah, who's out of the country, but sends his thanks as well.

Um GCP supports this agreement between the administration and the Hasm Sports Group and encourages the council to proceed with approval.

Uh we commend the mayor and all parties with securing a forward-looking transaction that will continue to invest in the downtown Lake Erie waterfront and also allow the development of a dome stadium that will benefit the region.

GCP and its members are committed to working with our government partners and with the leadership demonstrated here at the table today to support growth and investment in downtown, the lakefront, and our city as a whole.

Our business community advocacy has supported the successful efforts to attract federal and state funding to the lakefront and riverfronts, and we will continue to do so in both Washington and Columbus to support the development of our waterfronts and our city.

We work together with the city in many spaces in talent through the Greater Cleveland Career Consortium and Inclusion through our support of the community benefits ordinance and in development initiatives, including the future of Burke Lake from an airport, innovation districts, and projects such as Central Via 25, the Hawthorne School Development, and Westside Market, where our affiliate CDA has invested.

It is no secret that our organizations on both sides of this table have had different views on a new dome stadium.

We believe that the construction of the dome stadium will stimulate tourism business in the city and throughout the region, including in Cleveland's downtown.

To support this conclusion, we looked at peer domed communities Detroit, Minneapolis, and Indianapolis, and the programming for their facilities in 2023 and 2024.

These communities average more than 10 major events annually, defined as events with greater than 40,000 attendees beyond NFL games and averaged a million and a half visitors annually, double what our current stadium draws.

In addition, these facilities also attracted additional events.

But most importantly, this activity did not impact those cities' arenas.

All those arenas saw more than two million visitors, comparable with what Rocket Arena sees today.

Live events are still showing strength and have been growing as a form of desired entertainment since 2020.

This includes concerts, wrestling, college and sports, touring competitions, and many other new performance experiences.

Many visitors travel to cities for these events.

Recent concerts and events here in Cleveland have seen more than half of attendees coming from out of the region, staying at hotels and enjoying more than just the event in our city.

With the easy ability to draw visitors from the rest of Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, and Western New York, Cleveland should expect to see similar performance with an economic impact for downtown and the city as it is, and will continue to be the largest concentration of hotel rooms and visitor amenities in the region.

At the same time, the development of our lakefront will create a vibrant community asset that will be used far beyond 10 events a year.

We don't have to agree.

Community members and leaders have different views on different things all the time.

But what we can do now is move forward together to ensure that our city and community are best positioned for future success, and this agreement is the path to do so.

In our view, this proposed agreement reached by the parties moves the city and the region forward, represents a substantial investment towards the transformation of the downtown lakefront, and also advances the development of a domed stadium, which will benefit downtown, the city, and the region.

Without these contributions, we will not be able to have the long-term impact that we all want to see happen for the community on the lakefront.

This agreement addresses critical challenges to move our region forward so that we can fully maximize the economic impact of these developments and total investment of more than five billion dollars into this region.

We endorse moving forward.

Thank you, Mr.

Eversaw.

Mr.

Skinner.

Hello, everybody.

Scott Skinner, President, Executive Director of the North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation.

The City of Cleveland created NCWDC in 2023 to transform Cleveland's downtown lakefront into a world-class waterfront that drives economic growth while providing equitable waterfront access to Clevelanders.

The city took the step to create NCWDC after extensive national research into best practices for executing waterfront development and infrastructure projects of this magnitude.

Working collaboratively with the city, NCWDC has made meaningful progress in just 18 months.

First, capital.

Supported by council's passage of the short accord to Shore TIFF District, secured 150 million dollars in federal and state grants for the City of Cleveland to build the North Coast Connector, allowing for a 2027 start of construction on a land bridge and a reimagined shoreway.

Second, organizational capacity.

Work with City Council to pass ordinances 561, 2025 and 1061 2024, establishing Cleveland's first new community authority, a vital public-private financing tool that will contribute to the construction of infrastructure and public space on our lakefront.

Third, public space, leverage the million dollars in ARPA commitments approved by council to build and program the North Coast Yard, a 1.5-acre pop-up park north of Brown Stadium that saw 25,000 unique visitors take advantage of recreation, entertainment, and small business programs from 70 different organizations, with visitors and partners both representing every ward in the city and 162 zip codes nationally.

Fourth, due diligence, completed significant due diligence and legal work to ensure that the downtown lakefront site is ready for development and enticing to developers.

And fourth, development interest.

We've released an RFQ for private development partners on the Lakefront site and are currently vetting 18 legitimate development partners, eager to invest and build a multitude of multitude of uses on our downtown lakefront.

We plan to announce development partners and plans in the near future.

We have tremendous momentum towards lakefront development, something Cleveland has pursued for generations.

Working together, our lakefront can provide opportunities for free and accessible public space, can catalyze population and economic growth in our downtown and can attract substantial private capital, driving regional and national visitors to our CBD.

Two things are critical to keeping up this momentum.

Certainty around the stadium and additional capital for infrastructure.

The settlement agreement between the city and HSG provides certainty that we will be leading the development of 50 acres with a pad ready former stadium site.

The $50 million contribution earmark for lakefront development and the demolition of the existing stadium will not solve for every single infrastructure and public space need on the site, but it will allow us to make significant progress in the very near future and to attract private investment.

Long term, it can catalyze growth in our downtown and allow Cleveland to finally achieve its goals of a transformed downtown lakefront.

Without it, we do not have a foreseeable path to stadium demolition and the nest and the necessary infrastructure needed to facilitate development.

The proposed settlement will facilitate near-term construction of permanent public space north of Brown Stadium, delivering on the lakefront goals we heard from an overwhelming number of Cleveland residents.

It will allow us to move forward with development partners to deliver a world-class lakefront.

It will contribute significantly to the many infrastructure needs on the site to facilitate vertical development, including bulkhead repairs, utility needs, and a new street grid.

Finally, it will allow the necessary planning, design, and activation work to continue.

And CWDC's sole goal and focus from our founding has been to develop a world-class lakefront in downtown Cleveland.

And we are closer than ever we ever have been to achieving this generational goal.

While we may prefer to develop the lakefront with the Cleveland Browns as an anchor, it is clear that in a few years' time the Cleveland Browns will no longer play football in downtown Cleveland.

This $50 million lakefront allocation and stadium demolition allows us to begin mitigating the impact of that move.

The development of our downtown lakefront will not solve every challenge facing the city of Cleveland.

But economically, it can drive growth to our region, increase our tax base while helping to keep downtown small businesses thriving.

And collectively, it can reconnect us to a valued natural asset while giving Clevelanders and visitors uh alike access to the publicly owned land they have the right to enjoy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

As I said earlier, I want to give an opportunity to the council members who are already who have not asked questions yet to give them an opportunity to ask questions and then revert back to the other council members.

So first and foremost, uh Councilman Christopher Harsh.

I have to put you back on the agenda.

Councilman Christopher Harsh, and then Councilwoman House Jones.

Do we have any other council members that would like to that have not spoken yet?

And then I will put some of the other council members who would like to be back on the agenda back on there.

Councilman Harrison.

Did you say something?

No.

Okay.

All right.

So I have Harse, House Jones, and then I'll go back to Casey Palency Jones.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

My first question just to whoever wants to answer this, maybe Mr.

Sullivan, through the chair, what is the Browns' current capital stack for constructing the Brook Park Stadium?

To the councilman through the chair, I am not aware of what their current capital stack is.

Anybody they originally they wanted 600 million from the state, they wanted 600 million from local government.

That made 1.2 billion, and they were going to put 1.2 billion in and build a $2.4 billion project.

With the county not contributing, they've got $600 million from the state.

Does anybody know where they're rounding out the rest of their development uh finance?

To the councilman through the chair.

My understanding from the public comments that Jimmy Haslam has made is that they have $600 million from the state, they are continuing to seek additional dollars, but that they will finance the rest of the project privately if necessary to see the Brook Park project through.

And through the chair, then does anybody heard about plans if they only have the 600 million, if they don't get additional government um uh contributions to in terms of like what the actual uh full scope of the plan is if they're only working with 600 million and uh tax money?

Again, to the councilman through the chair, this is just based on public comments I've I've seen um Mr.

Haslan make, but I believe that they would privately finance the rest.

Okay.

Um so uh it's it's a curiosity for me because it does get into the issue about whether or not Brook Park is ready on time and how long it takes them to build over there and whether or not we just end up with a a warehouse surrounded by parking.

Um through the uh uh uh chair to uh Mr.

Skinner, have the Browns uh agreed or refuse to take part in the NCA's financial uh uh fundraising capacity currently at the stadium?

Uh uh to the councilman through the chair.

Uh we have had preliminary conversations about what NCA participation could look like.

They have not agreed or refused to uh to that participation.

They agreed to establish the new community authority, uh, which was required to create the NCA district, um, but have not agreed yet to any NCA participation.

Through the Chair, are other uh tenants on the lakefront already uh uh contributing and agreeing?

Uh to the councilman through the chair, the only uh participants in the NCA currently are city-owned parking lots.

City owned.

So the city's found the ability to jump in and help out with this, but none of the other uh tenants on the lakefront have.

There are ongoing conversations with all tenants on the lakefront.

Um, and I envision that uh ultimately uh several of them will participate.

Um I'm optimistic.

However, with an and we we've spoken about this before with the new community authority, the the real intent and purpose and the real value captured from NCAs are in future development.

So as we talk to future uh builders of multifamily hospitality, entertainment, recreation, uh, they will come to the table knowing that NCA participation is part of the deal with whatever lease or development agreement they enter into, and that that is what can be used to fund infrastructure public space, et cetera.

Okay, the reason I'm asking, Mr.

Chair, is that you know, if the Browns are committed to the development of the lakefront, they have an opportunity right now to help us raise money for it, and they're they're not taking that opportunity.

They're actually skipping out on the opportunity to contribute money to the NCA, which would help us redevelop the lake.

Um, and instead they're just negotiating this 100 million dollars, which we've uh already cleared up is only 50 million for the lakefront.

Um you know, to Councilman Plunzick's point about the 100 million dollars uh being a figure that floated around here for a long, long, long time.

Um it just sort of like, you know, these are the other elephant in the room, which is a lot of people in this building don't believe that the administration ever intended to negotiate with the Browns to keep them here in the first place.

That the whole thing is just smoke in mirrors to coordinate the move out of town.

Um and that's why the NCA was brought up years ago as a way to prepare for their vacation.

Uh it's not like uh it's kind of an open secret, right?

A lot of people just don't think the administration ever really wanted to keep them.

Um developing the lakefront has been this sort of uh uh panacea, the silver bullet solution to what ails Cleveland for so long for almost a century, that the the belief that any development of the lakefront is going to be good for the city is just sort of like um taken hold in most people's imaginations, and uh you know, there's a big, big question that we all should have about whether or not you know what we actually end up with this in a couple of years when to Mr.

Silliman's point, the Browns have realized that they're not getting more than four or five extra events a year and they're poaching everything from downtown and our revenues trail and a handful of hotels or apartment buildings on the lakefront don't exactly generate revenue um on the scale that we thought they would.

Uh that we're left with a prettier view of the lake that very few people will ever take advantage of because uh by my estimation, Edgewater Beach is full in the summer and very rarely gets closed because of capacity.

It only really closes for capacity on 4th of July.

Otherwise, we are meeting the beachgoing needs of the west side.

And I know that there's another beach up on the east side uh that gets pretty good attendance and Voinovich Park is right here and see how many people are are enjoying it today down here to you know see the beautiful lakefront.

Um I actually don't see anybody down there at all.

Um but we've had that park for years, and it just sort of uh defies the notion that developing the lakefront is this uh you know perfect plan to to resolve Cleveland's problems.

I I I'm asking this and going off on a bit of a tangent because a lot of this just feels like smoke and mirrors.

It just feels like the dog and pony show, whatever analogy we want to use.

Uh it seems that the mayor made up his mind when he got elected that the Browns were leaving um the hundred million dollars notion got into this room so many years ago that it's hard not to believe the Councilman Plunce is correct.

Um that this has all just been the plan.

Um so it is discouraging.

I know it's not supposed to be emotional.

Uh it feels like that we're being backed into an alleyway and told there's only one way out, um, and either you take the way out or you die in the alleyway.

And I know some of my colleagues will die in the alleyway, even if it's not good for the city, even if it's the wrong choice for the future of Cleveland, uh, would rather make that decision um than take the only offer that uh we're being presented with.

So my last question, and I I do apologize, I do have one more question through the chair.

Um is there any capacity, and this might be for the law directory where to go?

Oh, he's over here.

Is there any capacity for this body to amend this ordinance knowing that it is in agreement with HSG?

Uh it has to be a two-party agreement, right?

Uh so what capacity do we actually have to amend this?

Uh or do any amendments we propose have to go back to HSG for their uh willingness to comply with them before we can make it legal.

Yeah, to to the councilman through the chair, I'll start with your question and then also want to address your kind of overall statement.

Um, any changes to the term sheet, any changes to the legislation because a negotiation is always two parties.

Any change that we make single-handedly will then have to go back to HSG uh for their review to see if they are still interested in entering into this settlement, given whatever changes are made to the term sheet.

And so I think that answers your question.

So whatever amendments we make have to be approved by them before they can become legal agreements.

That's correct.

Yeah, there has to be two parties to sign the agreement, and so any changes.

Just wanted to clarify that need to be approved.

I also do want to say that this administration has wholeheartedly tried to keep the Browns in Cleveland.

I understand your perspective and want to respect what you've said about you know your feelings about the matter, but the facts are that the mayor and his team, our team has worked very hard to protect the general fund and to keep the Browns in Cleveland.

We worked on a plan for years, assuming that the Browns would stay.

And so we are in a situation where they have chosen not to stay in Cleveland, but not that is despite our best efforts to keep them here.

Sure.

I I I I appreciate that.

I understand that that's going to be the response from the administration.

It's just gonna be uh a tough sale for a lot of us that have been in this building for the last four years and have heard you know contrary opinions that have borne out in terms of term sheets, right?

So this is exactly what they said was gonna happen four years ago.

Thank you.

I I'm sorry, I'm not sure.

Uh no, if we could um I think Mr.

Skinner wanted to uh respond to you as well.

And if any of the other uh panelists wanted to respond.

And to the councilman through the chair.

So there's three things I wanted to respond to with that.

Um I was not directly involved in any negotiations here um for the Browns to stay or through the settlement.

Um all that I can say is being sort of adjacent to a lot of the users, including both the Browns in the city who are represented on my board.

That is not the feeling uh that I would associate with those the the city worked very hard, and their goal was clearly to keep the Browns here.

Second, you mentioned the NCA as sort of a strategy um understanding they may leave.

Uh just want to clarify the NCA was envisioned in the formation docs of my organization, which envisioned which operated the assumption that the Browns were staying.

Um that's why they were represented on my board.

Uh the NCA was talked about and envisioned two to three years ago as part of the sort of initial process of forming the organization at as a way to partially sustain it in the long term and to facilitate some development of public space uh and infrastructure.

And then uh third um on the importance of sort of lakefront development.

I think I said in my statement, I agree with you.

Developing our lakefront is not gonna solve every challenge we face as a city.

But when I think of all of the challenges we face as a city, I think that a lot of them are downstream of a declining tax base and building up building on the assets that we have, uh developing our lakefront, our riverfront, making downtown a more thriving place that students at CSU in case want to stay, that companies want to relocate, those are things that I think developing the lakefront is not the only contribution to that, but can actually contribute to it.

And the last point I'd like to make, you know, Edgewater is a fantastic beach.

Voinovich is a great part, expertly maintained.

Um and there are other sort of uh beaches being planned along the lakefront, but we need to sort of stop thinking about the lakefront as a series of individual sites and think about it holistically and regionally.

And while this site will likely not have a beach, um, will likely not uh look like Edgewater.

There are other ways to bring people down to our lakefront through uh public space, promenade, seating, restaurants, hotels, and apartments, um, more sort of economic development focused.

So I just want to provide that context that you know we're not gonna have a beach at every single spot of our lakefront.

Um, but it does contribute to a broader regional vision of leveraging Lake Erie.

I I I understand that vision.

I think that it's just very convenient that the division that the vision for developing lakefront and moving the Browns go hand in hand.

They just they work very convenient to each other.

Uh Ms.

President, I don't have any other questions, thank you.

I mean to the councilman through the chair, I uh I would add that we started this process um developing the lakefront with the Browns.

Right?

Like they they were they were intimately involved in the master planning process, um, are are represented on my board for a reason.

Um and you know, we I I can say I personally very much wanted them to stay there.

Anything else, Cosmo?

All right, Coswoman House Jones, and then I'll go back to the panelists.

Okay.

Councilman House Jones didn't grade, then I'll go back to the panelists.

Uh thank you.

Um through uh the chairman uh to the team here.

Um I did have uh a question from a resident that wanted to ask.

I guess this is to the administration.

Um why was the uh Brown site not considered to be um an extension for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that way, you know, creating you know more opportunities to you know get into some of the you know musical festival scenes as well as you know hosting the Rock and Raw Hall um ceremonies, things of that nature.

Um they say they've never heard any total conversation, so um why has the administration not embraced that?

Yeah, to the councilwoman through the chair, and I might ask Scott to add in to this too.

Um I think the timing of when the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was doing their extension and the timing of I mean, we still aren't at a place with full certainty on the Browns because council hasn't passed the settlement um didn't quite line up.

But I think looking into the future, there is a future where we do want to think about how the site, the 50 acres of site corresponds with all of the existing assets, not only the rock and roll hall of fame, but also the convention center, the Hilton, all of our malls, to make it all an interconnected space downtown where we do leverage the relationship with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

So I don't think the timing lined up for an extension on this site right, you know, for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's needs, but that isn't to say that there won't be an opportunity in the future to partner with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and really try to increase their footprint and their impact in the city.

Um to the councilman through the chair, that's all 100% correct.

The only very, very small addition I would make is we are in the process of reviewing uh submissions from private development partners uh to work with on the site.

Uh there are multiple multitude of uses that include multifamily hospitality, uh recreation, and entertainment.

So ultimate decisions have not been made there.

But um the rock hall is represented on my board um as well, and they are very uh much included in all the conversations on what the future of that second look like.

Thank you for that.

And then a follow-up to the chair, um, actually to all of the panelists who are here.

Um so um if I am a single mom uh that lives in spring work apartments, my children, um I have a first grader that goes a first grader and eighth grader that goes to Mary Bridge Martin School, and I um actually probably am one of the seasonal workers that work at the Brown Stadium.

Why would I care about this today?

And why would I support it today?

Anyone want to give an answer to that administration?

Anybody sure to the councilwoman through the chair I can start and would would love to hear from our panelists as well.

Um I think your question is why would sort of the very and a resident in Cleveland, like you described care about this.

Um to the extent that they work at the Browns Stadium, I think that they would have an interest in where the stadium is located.

But I think generally every resident of the city of Cleveland has an interest in seeing our region and our city grow.

They have an interest in us bringing in more businesses, more people, more resources to the city, because when we increase the number of resources coming into the city, that means we're able to provide better services.

So I know it's an extension of you know what we are looking at with our economic impact, but being able to invest in a world-class lakefront is an important strategy for being able to be the type of city that we all want Cleveland to be that provides good services for every single resident.

So let me give I'm gonna give you a context because again, the average worker um here in the city of Cleveland, a lot of times that it is in this office kind of retail space, fast food worker.

And again, when I gave this very specifically, this is a uh parent who has two children, one in a school, and I said two children, one in um a time where their school is closing, and then you have an eighth graduate have to decide where they're going to high school next year.

Um, and when you think of many times their mode of transportation, so in my community, I think about 35% of people do not have a car.

So they depend on public transportation.

And a lot of times people are talking about a vision that is um five, ten years away.

The reality of the residents that I represent, they have to think about today.

They don't have the luxury to think about tomorrow.

And so as people are putting out from the haslums and everybody else that serves on these boards and everything else, it is cute to think about tomorrow.

I mean, you know, like years in advance, but the reality is they do not have that luxury to think about five to ten years from now.

They gotta think about today.

They gotta think about six months.

So you talk about yes, oh, we're gonna have improved services.

That's not the reality.

You know what I'm saying?

And so that's what I'm saying is like you if you're trying to have me sell something of some sort, what you all are selling, they're not buying.

They're not going to buy in any form or fashion.

So I'm asking in a very real way.

Why do I care today?

Because that's the reality.

Yeah, to the councilwoman through the chair.

I mean, I think my response, and I this would be my response is we're looking at a situation where the city could be left with nothing.

And we want the city to be left with a hundred million dollars of value that we can invest in the city of Cleveland.

And so why we should care today is we're looking at a situation where we could end up with nothing.

In fact, we could end up with a 40 million dollar liability with the stadium that then we'd have to solve for at some point in the future, or a hundred million dollars in our pocket.

And I think every resident in the city of Cleveland would understand why we would rather have a hundred million dollars in our pocket than a 40 million dollar liability on our lake front.

Councilwoman Jones, through the chair, I I I would I would add that uh I think one of the things I've been most concerned about throughout this saga, if things went the way uh that they are and the Browns relocated, is who ends up with the bill for dealing with the stadium.

And I I know there are diversity of opinions about whether the the stadium could be uh repurposed or reused uh in some way.

Uh in my opinion, what one of the greatest risks to the city was that the Browns would leave and the city would be saddled with the responsibility for uh tearing the down the stadium, prepping the site uh at the expense of tens of millions of dollars that that goes straight to the heart of uh city services.

And I know you know that in some ways is is more forward-looking than the constituents that uh you're hearing from are thinking about.

And I know you know that in some ways is is more forward looking than the constituents that uh you're hearing from are thinking about uh but the the impact on the city's ability to divide uh provide core services is one that I know I've thought about a lot throughout this process.

I know it's one that uh you all are hearing from your constituents about and you know one of the the major virtues I I see in this settlement is uh that the city of Cleveland and the taxpayers and residents of the city of Cleveland are relieved of responsibility for what happens to the stadium, and that has real impact on services uh and what the city is able to do.

So um I I'll just I'll add um I'll end with this.

So for Clevelanders who are listening to this, I hope you all really understand how politics plays a part in our lives for every Cleveland who is upset about your baby school closing, be very clear.

This was a state decision where in the state of Ohio, we value investing in billionaires versus everyday working people.

And so if you do not do anything else, I hope you are registered to vote.

I hope you absolutely vote and understand how people are working hand over foot against everyday working people.

Be very clear who is sitting on these boards making decisions for you, but don't live around you, don't shot where you are, and don't work where you are.

Everyday working people absolutely need to get a plan because baby, the billionaires and millionaires are in this city making all the decisions to ensure that your dollars work for them and not your dollars working for you.

And I'm gonna say that and I'm gonna leave it there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman House Jones.

Uh, I'm gonna go to Councilwoman Deborah Gray, Councilman Anthony Harrison, and then once again I'll revert back to the other members.

And Councilman Bishop, and then I'll revert back to the other members after that.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanna, and this is a leeway from Councilwoman House statement as she closed and I'm gonna open up.

I would like to ask one question.

Who will receive all the revenue chair to the Penn team?

Who will receive all the revenue when uh when the stadium goes to uh Brook Park?

Where is the revenue going to go?

Is it gonna go into Brook Park uh is it going to go into Brook Park neighborhood or high uh and or will it go into um you know will all the revenue go to Hassel?

Also, you know, would the revenue go back to the businesses and they don't have many businesses as Cleveland?

So who will get all the revenue per se when this move to when they move to Brook Park?

Ms.

Crack at that or the Mr.

Ebersaw anybody.

Because the city is losing the revenue as Councilwoman House said, who's gonna receive all the revenue and is there a breakdown for that?

Thank you.

I'm gonna ask if um Miss uh I mean I'm sorry, what is it executive director Tribisano or Ms.

Tribassano and also uh Chief or Mr.

Ebersall if they both can respond to that.

Yeah, to the councilwoman through the chair.

I don't have all the details of any, I don't have any details of agreements between Hasm Sports Group and the City of Brook Park.

My understanding though is that um this is a private enterprise where things like ticket sales, parking revenue would generally go to Hazm Sports Group as the owner of the facility.

I am sure that there are um tax benefits uh by virtue of where that stadium is located, that would also benefit Brook Park and presumably the county.

Um, but I don't have the details of exactly how the revenue will flow in the Brooke Park Stadium.

Mr.

Ebersaw, yeah, I don't really have anything much more to add to that.

It's it would be, I mean, it's similar to how it it works today.

The tax revenue goes to the taxing jurisdiction, the ticket sales go to the uh organization, parking goes to whoever owns the parking lots, uh, concessions go to concessions.

So to answer the councilwoman's question, and councilman Mr.

Sullivan, if you want to, because I was just gonna cut straight to the chase.

Well, what I can speak to is the uh right now with the existing stadium to the chair to councilwoman.

Right now, the stadium generates income taxes, it generates admission taxes, it generates parking taxes, those all go to the city general fund right now.

And the city's economic study says that those total 11 million a year.

Okay, when when that stadium closes down, all those taxes will be assessed by Brook Park instead of the city of Cleveland.

And what the Browns have said to the state of Ohio is that the extra revenues from those taxes, and when they say extra, they're they're assuming a lot more activity than we get today.

Those will be pledged to the state of Ohio to reimburse not the unclaimed funds, but the general fund of the state for the 600 million that they're allocating.

Is it is that everybody's understanding?

So just speaking as to tax revenues, not as to other things.

That's my understanding.

So councilman, we don't get anything.

Right.

Let's just be clear and let's not be let's not sugarcoat this.

This is part of the conversation.

And then you asked probably one of the most important questions in this entire conversation.

We get nothing.

And that is the problem with this discussion, and that's the reason why this 100 million is so critical for us to discuss.

Exactly.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you.

Think that's an important question.

And like I said, there's conversations that people are going to say if the 30 million residual impact come from hotels and other visitors from outside the region.

I guess there was a big concert that was a two-day concert, and they estimated that approximately 65% came out of the region.

Um, however, at the end of the day, if that money goes out to Brook Park, most of it will go either to the state and some of it will go to Brook Park.

I actually think Brook Park is a little bit um at risk in this conversation too.

Um and I don't think everybody's looking at this with a very, very thorough lens.

Um and I'm glad that you asked the basic question, what do we get out of this?

Not much, if anything.

All right.

Uh we're gonna go to Councilman Harrison, Bishop, and then I'll go back to the list.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I know we start finance it in three minutes, uh, so I'll try to be the brief as brief as I can.

Um just through the chair to uh Ms.

Travisano and whoever else from the administration.

Uh correct me if I'm wrong before the discussion came up about the Browns leaving the Brown, and as you all were coming into City Hall, that there's was a plan submitted by the Browns that looked at a waste uh that the lakefront can be developed while the Browns uh if the Browns were still in in the city, correct?

Did the chair?

That's right, to the councilman.

There was a comprehensive renovation strategy for the existing for the lakefront stadium that would have activated the stadium beyond just Brown's games days and would have made it a more active use and then development around that site.

Sure.

Thank you.

And through the chair to Ms.

Travisano, uh the Bibb administration um, if I also recall some of the um the interactions that you all were uh supportive or at least in in conversations and discussions around the plan that they had submitted right to see whether Fed your uh you're all future uh of the of the lakefront enhancements, correct?

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, not only um were there conversations, those negotiations started in 2022 to discuss how the city could support a renovated stadium.

Uh we also took steps to then do a comprehensive master plan with the community for a lakefront stadium and secured 150 million dollars in state and federal money to build a land bridge uh that will you know continue to support lakefront development, but would have benefited a renovated lakefront stadium had Hasm Sports Group chose to stay in downtown Cleveland.

Got it.

Um thank you for that, and and through the chair to Mr.

Bassano, whoever uh we'll probably guess you're the only person for the actual administration uh here.

Um I recall that's as you came through my committee as chair of development planning uh sustainability that we had a fallout a bit about uh overspending of a contract that city planning had uh contract with the outside um uh agency to help us develop plans that uh it was either uh some sort of um renderings that looked at the stadium being here and also looked at the stadium not being here.

Is that correct?

Mrs.

Tribassano.

If I could that James Colmer field, that's right, to the councilman through the chair.

Um there was a piece of legislation brought to DPS uh to allocate additional dollars to um JCFO, uh, who was the uh consultant who worked on the master plan, um, in addition to working on the master plan, they did uh kind of initial study to see if the land bridge would still make sense, even if there was not a stadium on the site.

The answer is yes, it does still make sense.

Um but that was part of the conversation at committee.

Sure.

And if I recall to the chair to Mr.

Bisano that the initial uh work that you all had them complete was centered around the stadium and the team still being at the site, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Uh and then subsequently, once the news broke and the and the team decided to make a decision through the chair that they wanted to leave, we went back to the table and asked them now to help us develop a plan, or not when the news broke, but as we the chatter continued uh that there was a plan should they leave the uh the the lakefront uh and we did not want to be left without any sort of uh idea or or or path forward about how we can uh develop that uh site there should they decide to leave, correct?

That's right.

To the councilman through the chair, we kind of took a parallel path.

One was the litigation strategy to try to do whatever we could to keep the Browns on the lake front, but then also simultaneously uh did some planning to think about what could happen on the lake front if the uh Browns were to leave, and in fact partnered with Scott's organization, NCWDC to release an RFQ seeking development partners for up to 50 acres of land, which includes the land where the stadium is.

Got it.

Okay.

And through the chair, and I'll wrap up uh shortly.

I just asked his questions because I I'm I you know I I hear comments, I you know, I I I hear all the the talk about whether this is the dog and pony show, this is smoking mirrors, this is all these wild accusations that I keep hearing by uh so many people.

And when you think about where we started to where we are now, I will say that's not the case.

That in fact there were genuine conversations happening from uh the administration and the council and uh our partners on the um on the outside of finding ways to keep these the stadium here, the team here, uh, and also develop uh the lake front.

Because if I recall, we were also discussing uh when uh how maybe if the airport should be closed to add more uh space for uh uh uh greater development along the lake front uh to the chair.

Is that correct?

That's correct, yeah.

Uh again, I'm just asking these questions to make sure I'm understanding.

You know, I've been here, you know, I've been a part of a lot of these conversations to make sure I haven't uh uh misunderstood or or whether my understanding of this these situations are are are are not correct.

And so I guess I stand corrected correct today that you know uh it seems to me that there has been genuine conversations uh to try to keep the Browns here.

Unfortunately, uh when business uh owners make their decision, they make their decision no matter who likes it, right?

Uh in in some ways is unfortunate, in some ways, you know, um, you know, do we do we agree?

No, we don't agree.

However, uh I think that we we also um have to understand that it, you know, we're here to make tough decisions as well, right?

And not every decision is gonna be uh the decision that folks want us to make, but you know, that's what you do when you're when you serve in these roles.

And I think that it does the conversation does not have to continue to be uh uh this or that.

It can be it can be we can have both conversations.

How do we support the development of or of key engines that that helps drive our city economically, but also support the the neighborhoods as well, right?

Uh and we've seen that.

You know, our time, you know, our our committee has helped um drive a hundred million dollar, drive the hundred million dollar housing investment fund, fifty million dollar sites fund for good jobs, right?

I mean, those those are real things that are taking place right in our neighborhoods.

And so to sit here uh in and and spew that, you know, we are only caring about um uh one group of people in our community, I think is just just not right.

I think that we shouldn't, and I'm like I'm one of the council members who's not gonna sit here and and make the claims that we are only considering and taking care of those who uh have uh the most of everyone else because that is I don't believe that to be the case.

That we are we are making parallel investments in in certain parts of our city uh as we are doing in others, right?

Now we can argue all day whether they're at the same level or not.

Hey, you know, uh we won't always agree.

Uh you know, and uh you know, Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Through the Chair to Mr.

Bisano, I think we we set the mayor out and your his team on on the path and we asked him to do a job, right?

Now some of us may agree with the job that he's done, some of does not agree with the job that he's done.

You know, and as for uh for the debate to continue with that, but I think that you know, if we give somebody a task and they they come back and they've done the task, then we need to find ways to to to support the work that they've done, right?

You know, uh with without the the harsh criticism, I guess, uh for the work that in the deal that they were able to cut with with the with the forces we had against us.

I mean, I just I I don't understand how you know folks just don't want to believe that we just were up against you know some some serious forces in through the state.

Right?

The state legislator clearly was not on our side.

The Supreme Court was is not on our side.

They they haven't been on our side, right?

Look, look at how they they addressed us when we tried to uh invoke our home rule, right?

I mean, there's just so many examples and so many instances that we can point to that that that tells us that you know we do not have the support, right?

And at the moment that the 600 million dollars was was given, we knew there.

We knew there.

So at that point, you have to do what?

You have to pivot and find a way that the taxpayers of this city are not left holding the bag, right?

And and I guess I'm curious to the chair to who whomever want to answer this, whether on our side or or your side, you know, if we don't believe 100 million dollars was enough and that we could have gotten more, we could have gotten more.

Well, I'm I'm oh I'm all ears to understand how we could have gotten more and in the ways in which that whoever believes we could have gotten more was go it was going to achieve that.

Yeah, to the councilman through the chair, I think the mayor said it best when he was here a couple weeks ago that if there was more to get, he would have gotten it.

There was no more to get.

And through the and through the chair, you have you all have uh shown us what you've gotten, how you were able to get it.

So I guess I'm interested for those who keep saying that we could have gotten more and how and but does not tell me how that we what we could have gotten more.

How tell me how have we how could we have gotten more and how much?

Exactly.

It's all talk, all talk.

So again, well a great man, uh a great wise man once said it is what it is, right?

And you know, uh the facts are the facts, reality is reality.

No matter how much you try to distort the truth, it's the truth.

And either we are going to work together to try to make the best of what you know we have here, or we're gonna continue to to uh spew and create division uh instead of trying to come together and move this community forward and and continue to work on relationship uh with a regional partner of ours and helping that and working with them to make our city better.

And so Mr.

Chair, I I'll end it with that and thank you uh for the time.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you for your comments.

You have some very good comments.

Uh Councilman Kevin Bishop, and then I'll go back to the list.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Um Mr.

President, I got to and all of the guests for the finance committee, please be patient.

This is a very important conversation.

So I'm gonna wrap this up after we have a few more questions in here from our panelists, and then we'll pivot immediately into finance.

Please proceed.

So thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh first I'm gonna thank the uh panel of experts for coming here and sharing us uh their vision and their uh suggestions for us to move forward with this very important uh topic about the Browns.

Uh one question I have to clarify in number three um uh of the of the term sheet.

Uh it says the parties um agree that the lease between the Browns and the city expires February 1st, 2029, but the Browns will have an option subject to an amendment to the current lease to extend the lease on the same terms or period of one year.

So what is the subject to an amendment to the current lease really actually mean?

Can anybody clarify that for me, please?

Yeah, I I can try, and if you need more, I will ask our law director to come up and respond.

Uh but as we can't just use the settlement agreement to uh come up with the terms of the extension, we need to actually amend the lease to allow for two one-year extensions.

So the Browns have to give the city one year notice if they want to extend for a year.

So if they decide in 2028 that they want to extend their lease from 29 to 2030, they have to tell us in 2028, and then they'd have to do that cycle again to do another extension, but they can only extend until 2031.

Okay.

So um now we have uh heard here today about some potential amendments to the current term sheet for um 2e and 2F.

Is there any suggestions for an amendment to the number three, number three on this lease about the terms uh if the Browns were were to um extend the lease, is there any suggestions on any amendments that we can make to make this deal a little bit better for the city through the chair?

Through the chair to the councilman, I think that some of the items that we've talked about as it relates to the lease amendment have really focused on the city's capital repair obligations during that lease extension and up until then.

Um changes to the term sheet, as I mentioned earlier, uh, would have to then kind of it would reopen the negotiation.

So we know that what's in the term sheet, the Hasm Sports Group has agreed to.

Any tweaks to that term sheet could make them walk away from the table.

So I don't know the impact of any changes, but I do know that any changes would you know reopen the deal and could subject them to say, never mind, we aren't going to agree to this hundred million dollars.

I don't know this specifically, but I do know it's important to them that they have these two one-year options.

Okay, all right.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Well, and and I will say to that, and I thank you for bringing that up.

Please give any recommendations for amendments to our policy and research staff, and with all due respect to the administration as well as the Browns, we all should have thought about that before we agreed on the term sheet.

Because then it would have been easier for this council to be able to say this is what we agree to.

And I think that's the rub where a lot of council members, and I've expressed this to the Browns, and I expressed this to uh the administration that if we were included in the conversation and say we mutually uh as we did in uh instances like bedrock, it would have gone a lot smoother and we would have had a lot more uh to go along with.

But I know that um whatever whatever reason that didn't happen, but that's the reason why I think we find ourselves at this crossroads as we are right now.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilman.

Please give any recommendations for amendments to Mr.

Titran, and then also we'll go over them and we'll have that discussion, that discussion uh when myself and uh and our leadership um have conversations with the administration.

Okay.

I'll now go to the quote.

Yes, you want an amendment at the table.

At this time, right now, I would rather get all of the amendments that we recommend because there are some other things that I am going to look at as far as uh as uh my colleague, Councilman Slife said as far as in use of some of these dollars.

Um I am not trying to dramatically alter a lot of things.

I know that a lot of people have said take it or leave it.

I think Councilman Hart said that um as well, and I think that is unfair to this council.

Therefore, we're going to do our due diligence to at least get any request that we have, and then we'll have that discussion and uh within our right to negotiate what we believe is the best thing for the citizens of the city of Cleveland.

On that point, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, and really there is no point in Robert's rules as we approach 2026.

I am not going to continue to allow that because councilman, you actually do have um time on the agenda, so I would ask if you could um just um acknowledge um your remarks in the time that I'm putting you back on the uh list for.

Um I'll go to Casey, Polencick, and then Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, before I I get into my remarks, I want to address something that was set at the table, and that is as elected officials, we don't always have to agree, but I think part of how we govern is that we can look at things differently, disagree, but come to a mutual understanding.

I don't think I would ever sit at the table and tell anybody that they were wrong in believing or fighting for something that they believe in.

I'm gonna be one of those guys who die in the alley uh on this situation, but I guess that's the difference between being born and raised and being a true Clevelander and being a transplant from somebody else and representing the city.

With that being said, Mr.

Chairman, um, councilman, I would ask if you could refrain from those kind of allegations.

I think everybody loves Cleveland the same.

I just want to do that.

I'm not saying they're not saying they don't.

All right, with that being said, objective, but please proceed.

Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Ebersaw, um does D Jimmy Haslam or anybody in the HG HSG group sit on the board of the Greater Cleveland Partnership?

Yes.

All right.

With that being said, we know why the greedy corporate partnership is taking their stance, but I'd like to move to uh the downtown Cleveland um Incorporated and a press release that was put out.

And if I can just read real quick, downtown Cleveland Inc.

is disappointed with the Greater Cleveland Partnership Executive Committee's decision to support the Browns relocation.

We strongly disagree with their position.

DCI is uniquely qualified to speak on this issue, as our sole mission is to strengthen the heart of the city and region.

This is about more than who supports moving the Browns from the Cleveland to Brooke Park.

It's about what the move would cost the city, the region, and Ohio taxpayers.

Here's the bottom line.

Building a new stadium in suburban Cleveland is a risky use of taxpayer dollar that undermines the public and private investment already transforming the city's core.

Renovating the existing stadium isn't just viable, it's vital to the region's continued growth.

There are three core issues at stake.

This move isn't a di isn't additive, it's a shift.

And three reinvesting in downtown delivers more or less.

That came as a from a press statement from downtown Cleveland Alliance.

And then in May of 2022, Mr.

Deemer, uh Mr.

Chairman to Mr.

Deemer, you put out uh an op-ed in Crane's.

And in it, to paraphrase, um, that's what makes the Cleveland Browns push to move the stadium to Brooke Park so baffling and so dangerous.

This isn't just about football, it's about dispersing density, weakening the core, and undermining the very momentum we've worked so hard to build.

Downtown stadiums drive foot traffic to nearby businesses, connect people across neighborhoods, and generate tens of millions in tax revenues that support services citywide.

Removing that anchor and the economic ripple effects it creates from downtown Cleveland is a deliberate step backward for downtown.

The city, the city of Cleveland and the entire region.

It's not an additive investment, it's the cannibalization of a core regional asset at the expense of shared prosperity.

The decisions we make today will undoubtedly shape our future.

We can choose to deepen our investments within we can choose to deepen our investment and what's working or walk away from it all.

For the sake of the regional economy, our identity, and our future, we must choose to build on our momentum, not abandon it.

Let's keep Cleveland's core strong.

Let's double down on downtown.

And Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Deemer, you are the spokesperson for, as you said in your opening remarks, businesses, downtown investments and everything.

Maybe sometimes we need to remind people how supportive this council has been to people that you represent who now are supporting the move of the Cleveland Browns.

These are just members of downtown Cleveland uh TCI who have received with the support of this council TIFFs to invest in downtown.

KD group, bedrock, which you represent.

GX GBX, Sanvic Architects, the Millennial Companies, the Landmark Companies, the Frangles Group, Skyline Investment, Prime Properties LTD, Geist Properties Management, West Town Inc.

NRP group, Ozone Construction Companies all came to this council in this city looking for tax increments to stay and invest in downtown Cleveland.

And now you're sitting here.

Even though just as recently as a couple of months ago, we passed ordinance 1456, 2025, taxing our own city property for the SID for downtown, and given the downtown Cleveland Alliance or Incorporated an additional $500,000 to help us build downtown.

And then Mr.

Chairman to Mr.

Deemer, I understand why the Greedy Corporate Partnership doesn't like the City of Cleveland and they got they're more into the G than the C.

I understand our our our water alliance because you have a job to do, right?

And that's your goal.

I know Mr.

Silliman, but for downtown Cleveland to say to us, after taking that stance so strongly the way you did against GCP and having those police, for you to sit here at the table today, you have to explain to us, Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Deemer why, why this why the shift, why the change in heart, why are all of these people who've invested in downtown and we've supported now saying yes, take one of the core pieces to downtown and move it outside the city.

Well, Mr.

Chairman, uh Councilman Casey, uh I'll go back to my opening remarks, and as I stated at the outset, we stand by everything we've said over the last several months and the last year or two as this saga has unfolded.

And uh, I don't believe for a minute that we've uh changed our position and our desire to uh maintain the stadium and the Browns in downtown.

If I saw a path to doing that, we'd be having a very different conversation.

Uh as I said in my opening remarks, uh, when the state of Ohio decided to uh support the stadium relocation to the tune of 600 million dollars from our perspective, from my perspective, the die was cast.

At that point, it became about it became about making the uh the best deal possible for uh the city of Cleveland uh in the event of uh a relocation.

And I think that we're having spirited discussion at the table today about uh the nature of the agreement.

Uh in our opinion, the uh the the mayor and his team uh were in the best position to decide that point of maximum uh leverage to evaluate the strength of the various uh the various lawsuits that were pending and uh get a financial settlement uh out of the Haslam Sports Group that would uh support the City of Cleveland.

Uh I think the choice for the city wasn't you know 100 million dollars or some higher number, it was uh zero or some number.

And again, we we can debate the uh the the strength of the number, we can debate the uses uh in uh our judgment and my judgment, the the mayor and his team were in the best position to uh decide that point of maximum uh leverage and strike the deal that's been brought uh forward uh today.

Uh but I I don't think for a minute uh that we are uh as an organization or as a downtown or me personally uh are supporting the move of uh the Browns in the stadium uh outside of downtown.

We have fought this every step of the way.

We've left everything out on the field.

Uh and if there was a different path forward that we saw, again, we'd be having a very different conversation.

Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Dieman, I guess that's the difference between, as I said earlier, dying in the alley.

Because I don't want to, I don't want to I don't want to outspake, right?

So that's the difference between dying in the alley.

And as we have to sit here and we have to support everything that goes on downtown Cleveland.

And we do a lot.

And internally amongst council members, we have our disagreements because we understand the vital, how vital downtown is to the city of Cleveland.

But what the other side of this table, aside from the administration, doesn't realize as there's a whole heck of a lot more to this city than just this downtown.

I said, aside from you you guys, there's a whole heck of a lot more.

And I'm gonna tell you, tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., I will be on West 138th and 39th off Lakewood Heights Boulevard.

And you know what I'm gonna be doing?

I'm gonna be myself leaf blowing a street full of leaves, because we can't get leaf pickup over there from the administration.

And that's me taking care of the other residents who live in the city of Cleveland.

And that's what you guys seem to forget about.

Are the people who live in Glenville, the people who live in West Park, people who live in Old Brooklyn and Fairfax, as as Councilwoman House said, people who who have no desire to see it to see uh uh uh a developed downtown because they're living paycheck to paycheck.

So when you go home to wherever it is you go home, know that we do have people in the city, people on this side of this uh of the table that actually want to take care of the nuts and bolts of the city.

So go tell your little billionaire buddy who's buying everything around town to to go play in his own sandbox over there, and if you think getting a hundred million dollars is gonna make you sleep better at night, take your hundred million dollars and let him continue to do what he wants to do.

But for somebody like me who's just too blue-collar to look at him and say, you know what, if it's take it or leave it, keep your money.

I'm I'm gonna sit here and I'm gonna take care of the people because none of that hundred million dollars, as we've already heard, are going to the streets of the city of Cleveland.

Not one dime of it's gonna end up going to the streets of the city of Cleveland.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilman Casey.

Uh Councilman Michael Palency.

Thank you, um Mr.

Chairman Monable colleagues.

I want to concur with Councilman House and Councilman Casey.

Uh but I want to say to the folks that are here at the table to both the Greater Cleveland Partnership and to the um downtown Cleveland Alliance.

At any time uh did either group recommend the city move on the 170 acres next to the stadium in Brook Park for the airport?

Did any of you groups ever look at the global picture how that 170 acres right next to Burke, uh right next to um Hopkins International Airport, a landlocked airport?

Did you ever make any recommendations about the city acquiring that property?

Any group?

Uh Mr.

Chairman, Councilman Flensick, our organization has not, with regard to the stadium, our entire focus was wherever the site may be, whether it was the existing site or another site that could be found in the in the greater downtown area, our focus was on keeping the stadium.

I understand that, but I'm talking specifically with a landlocked airport, looking at this globally and from a metropolitan's perspective, did either group recommend that the city acquired 170 acres out there in Brook Park?

No.

No.

No.

Okay.

Okay.

I want that for the record.

Councilman Casey touched upon the your statement, Mr.

Deemer, and the comments of other individuals as it pertains to the possible relocation of the Browns out of town, out of the city.

What I'm told, because we keep hearing about the $600 million in the lobbying that took place in Columbus by the Haslam group, and we know they have fat checkbooks, so we understand the ability to mobilize supporters in Columbus.

But what I what I've heard from people in Columbus is that there was outside of what we are hearing here in Cleveland, there was really no lobbying effort in Columbus by the Graylor Cleveland Partnership or the Downtown Cleveland Alliance against the 600 million.

And I've heard that from people in Columbus.

There was no lobbying effort that we were up here, we were holding our you know what, our rear ends, and um, and there was no we heard these public comments, but there was no lobbying effort in light of the alleged influence we have on both boards against uh support coming out of Columbus.

And then also on the along the same lines, uh was there ever an official vote taken by the greater, by either group, by the general membership, um, whether to support the Browns going to Brook Park.

So I will ask you, Mr.

Deemer, was there ever a vote taken by the general membership to support that the uh Mr.

Chairman, uh Councilman Polencick, the uh boards uh of uh downtown Cleveland Alliance, Downtown Cleveland Improvement Corporation, and the Superior Arts Improvement Corporation, all are which part of our organization uh all voted to uh support keeping uh the stadium in downtown.

Okay.

So again, and I'm asked um David, did as it pertains to was there ever a vote taken by the full board to support the move to Brook Park?

Um the councilman, the executive committee uh made a vote.

The executive committee.

Yes.

But the full board never had the ability to do that.

Not to my knowledge.

Okay.

So, Mr.

Chairman, my honorable colleagues, um we could talk about one bad misstep after another here.

And again, um I was here for the I'm the only one left here from the full court press that was put on then by the council and the administration to keep the get the Browns uh the name naming rights back here, the colors back here, and to get the Browns back here.

It was a full court press by all involved, by the council, by the corporate community, business community, um, the civic community.

It was a full court press.

I gotta tell you, fellas, there was no full court press in Columbus here.

There was no full court press to oppose what was taking place, and and Stevie Wonder could see what was going on Columbus.

I mean, the lobbying effort that was underway in Columbus by the SH3 group.

Um and I'm I'm just mind-boggling.

The back up what Ken Sullivan said, as I've said it repeatedly over the last several months.

Not only are they going after Rocket, because I talked to him on the phone, he told me he's gonna build a 500-room hotel out there.

That's what he told me.

Jimmy.

And that he wants to, but I think the tr I think it was 50 events, if I'm not mistaken, out there.

Well, you know where those events are going to come from?

They're coming from Rocket.

They're coming from Huntington Convention Center, and I'll tell you where they're really coming from, is Playhouse Square.

And why there was not a full court press by all of these institutions and businesses who are all now privately moaning, you know, and squealing like uh like uh you know uh extras from a deliverance movie um just whining about the the possibility of losing jobs and losing all this investment downtown.

It's just where was the lobbying effort?

Where was the full court press in Columbus to say you can't do this to the county in the city of Cleveland?

I did I I did not see it.

When you you know what I learned growing up in Glenville, born being born in Glenville and raised in Collinwood, when you go to war, you go to war.

When you go when you're gonna fight, you go to the mattresses.

That's the way I was raised.

Nobody went to the mattresses here.

Nobody made a full court press in Columbus to say you can't do this here.

With all the people, influential people sit on these boards and an executive committee.

Where was the fight?

There was no fight that I could see.

And I was told that repeatedly in Columbus.

Where are they?

They're missing in action.

If there's a fight going on, it's a stealth fight.

There was no fight in Columbus by two of the critical groups here, the Greater Cleveland Partnership and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance.

There was no fight.

So here we find ourselves today, confronted with this deal.

Mr.

Chairman, I will make recommendations to the staff.

As I've stated publicly, as the deal stands, I cannot support it.

I felt it could have been negotiated differently.

I think we've all touched upon that.

The council was left out of it.

We are totally left out in the out of the discussions.

And um and so here we find ourselves today, and I look upon this downtown plan, and again, I will I will say this again, and it's it's been set at the table.

Um I don't see any east side neighborhood.

I can't speak to my west side colleagues, but I I don't see any east side neighborhood benefiting or receiving any of the dollars that are allegedly pledged to the lakefront.

I look at what's transpired in our with our east side neighborhoods.

Again, 28 schools closed, massive disinvestment.

Um we've lost uh Glenville's lost 22 percent of its population in less than 10 years, the Glenville neighborhood.

Um we're going from fifth, we're going from 33 wards to 15.

The numbers speak for themselves.

The proof is in the pudding.

Unless there's a real concerted effort to steal the destabilize our neighborhoods, specifically the east side, we'll go to we can write today's date and time down.

We're going to go to 13 wards because we're going to start the redistricting process again right after the census in 2030.

So the handwriting is on the wall.

I I see no I see no benefit to the East Side with this, with uh allegedly committing additional hundreds of millions of dollars to the lakefront.

I see no stabilization efforts.

I haven't even seen a lakefront plan, Mr.

Chairman.

If there's a lake front plan, I don't want to see it.

Doesn't the people of Cleveland have a right to see what the lakefront plan is?

Nobody has seen it.

It's again a stealth plan.

So, Mr.

Chairman, I'm very disappointed.

I'm of course, I'm disappointed Greater Cleveland Partnership.

I'm disappointed downtown Cleveland Alliance.

Um there should have been a full court press put on here to keep the Browns in Cleveland, um, or at least to deny the $600 million.

Uh that was pivotal in my opinion.

And now here we are again faced with someone tell me, is it 180 million they're requesting out of ODOT to do the roads and and infrastructure?

Is it hundred?

I see Mr.

Shaking 180 million.

What projects in Caga County or in the City of Cleveland are going to get bumped for them to spend that money for the road work and bridge work around the new proposed um stadium.

Get ready, my brothers and sisters.

Projects that you have long anticipated or lobbying for, they're gonna get bumped.

They're gonna get bumped.

You're not gonna see them in our neighborhood.

So, Mr.

Chairman, I'm extremely frustrated with this whole process, what has transpired.

Things should have been different.

Council should have been briefed.

We should have been brought into the fold.

Uh, and we weren't.

And now we're supposed to buy this deal at the 11th hour.

And so, Mr.

Chairman, as it stands, I'll make my recommendations to staff, but as it stands right now, it's presented, I will not vote for it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

We have uh last on the list is Councilman Joe Jones, and then I'm gonna close um any closed remarks, and then we'll be uh closing and go moving into finance.

Councilman Joseph Jones, and then we'll move to the last.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, I will, you know, this has been a very um unique season.

Um, and I agree with some of the comments many of my colleagues have made.

Um it would have been nice if we, the council was made partnership within this entire process.

It would have been nice to know as it was in the process of negotiations where we were.

I haven't heard anyone really talk about why the Haslums left.

So what was the contention on the Haslums leaving?

A lot of that information really, I haven't really heard anything of substance.

Why was why did they leave the City of Cleveland?

To the councilman through the chair, I don't know all the reasons that they're leaving the City of Cleveland, but my understanding is that they paid I think 76 million dollars for 176-acre site or 170 acre site in Brook Park so that they could have more control of the land, the parking and mixed-use development surrounding that site.

But I don't know all of the So in negotiations there was I mean I'm quite sure there had to be some kind of sticking points because at one point council was led to go out to the Browns Stadium to take a look at a presentation of them being able to build buildings all around the existing site location, and then all of a sudden silence.

So I don't know what happened in the previous administration.

Uh Mr.

Chairman had worked with the feds and the state to put together the 150 million land.

What happens to that?

To the councilman through the chair, a c a couple things I would say um in response.

One is your experience is similar to ours, in that we had been having robust discussions.

The administration had been having robust discussions with Haslem Sports Group about a renovation.

Uh the city had put forth a financing package that would protect the general fund and still allow the Browns to renovate the stadium.

Uh and then they pivoted and uh decided that they wanted to go to Brook Park uh to pursue their their dome in Brook Park and the ancillary development there.

Um as it relates to the land bridge, uh the land bridge is still important and maybe actually even more important than ever in order to connect our downtown to the lakefront to see the 50 acres of space redeveloped.

So that's still going.

Um if we could run everything through the chair so that we could have decorments coming.

Mr.

Chairman, is that that's still in in process?

To to the councilman through the chair, that is still in process and set to begin construction in 2027.

I see.

And and Mr.

Chairman, um, you know, again, we were negotiating with the Browns.

So you're telling me you have was there anything that was there in these negotiations?

Because see, I always I'm an optimist.

I do believe that you can always make them possible possible.

I believe that you know you can always turn the process around.

And so, you know, is there any hope here, or is this this is just a done deal, and just like one of our colleagues said, this is just a process, and now we just take the vote.

To the councilman through the chair, what I can tell you is that what's in the term sheet has been agreed to between the city and the Haslam Sports Group, and so if council wants certainty about what happens next, a positive vote on the legislation that's before you would give us certainty about the 100 million dollars that has been agreed to under the conditions in the term sheet.

That is my only path that I can tell you for certainty about what comes next.

If council wants to make amendments to the term sheet, then I am not able to sit here and give you the same certainty that I would about what is in that term sheet that's in front of you right now.

And Mr.

Chairman, to um Mr.

Trivisano, I I appreciate I know it was a very difficult process negotiating and stuff like that.

But we we're making difficult decisions here, Mr.

Chairman, to the administration and to all the viewing audience here.

You know, we have a couple more sports franchises here.

Um I don't want to be sitting here uh watching the same pitcher play for those sports franchises as well.

So this is the reason why I asked the question, Mr.

Chairman, to Mrs.

Trivisano, we should learn something from this lesson.

So right now, I don't know what I've learned because I don't know what happened in the negotiations.

Why is it that the Browns decided to at one point negotiate and then change their minds?

So that's something that you know I would would love to hear the other side of the story, you know.

Um, and you know, why all of a sudden we're in negotiations and then the next thing you know, they're buying land somewhere else.

So if if so, what I'm hearing here is that no one sitting at the table could tell me anything at all.

To the councilman through the chair, those I think are questions for the Haslam Sports Group, and I'm not able to speak on their own.

Or why they wanted to leave, or they couldn't get what they wanted, or whatever that was, was or is is to the councilman through the chair.

I think uh there has been a lot of reporting on on the Browns and their decision to go to Brook Park.

I think there are lots of factors, including uh site control, including the expediency of being able to build a domed stadium, um, but I can't speak to all of their kind of internal motives for why they switched.

Um, but I can't speak to all of their kind of internal motives for why they switched.

Okay.

And Mr.

Chairman, um, and and to the administration, um, you know, it just seems like this is a no-brainer in terms of the decision to be made.

Um, and um I yield the floor, Mr.

Chairman, to um thank you.

I'm gonna make closing remarks, and then uh first and foremost, I want to thank the panel for coming today.

If there are any follow-up questions you have for any of our panelists, I think all of them were great.

Um, I think all of them added value to the conversation.

Um actually I learned some things today, and actually um I thought was very helpful through this whole conversation.

Um I'm gonna say a couple of things and first of all, give instructions to this council.

Um it's gonna be very difficult to renegotiate the terms that were put forth.

However, I do believe that there are some tweaks.

Mr.

Silliman gave us very clear um tweaks that uh the administration even said that they believed that that was not the intent, which means that it should be relatively easy or low-hanging fruit to look at some of the um language that we might need to look at.

I think that Councilman Charles Slife brought up a very good point about in use of dollars and making sure that council has the flexibility and that uh not any outside entities but council and the administration has the flexibility to make the investments that are important for these dollars when we have things like Gen Academy, John Hay, JFK, Sheridan Hotel, uh West Park Regional Station, housing demo and repair, not to mention what how Councilwoman House Jones said, uh, how do we make sure that we take care of the workers?

Many of these are single mothers that are working at these stadiums and making sure that we have provisions in place to make sure that they are made whole and that they are considered in this conversation, as well as formerly incarcerated individuals.

I do not think that that is solely the responsibility of the Browns to cut a deal to do this.

I think Councilman Starr actually brought up a good point, which I as to my understanding, and Mr.

Ebersaw can verify this, that they are still committed to provide the jobs and really work on a community benefits agreement to make sure uh that that uh MB FBE and Cleveland Small Businesses benefit, even if this does move into Brook Park.

I have talked to people like the Black Contractors Association and Norman Edwards, and we're going to organize and make sure that those things are done.

And I'm really going to lean on Councilman Starr to really kind of help outline a lot of those kind of efforts.

Um I will tell you that if I'm hearing this correctly, and people can tell me if I'm wrong, that we don't have a tremendous amount of leverage.

That legally there's not a tremendous amount of leverage.

When the state did us the disservice of this $600, $600 million investment and stripped the modell law, we were limited in our leverage.

The leverage point is was the were the lawsuits and the leverage point is maybe something with the lease.

So I understand that this is an issue that's passionate.

I understand that people are looking at this from a lens of, you know, people want us to fight, um like Councilman Casey and Councilman uh uh Polency, even though Councilman Casey, I tell people I might be a transplant, but I've been living in this city longer than I've been alive.

So I'm transplant days are over.

Um I'm a Clevelander, so I care about this just as much as anybody else.

Um the thing that I really want to make sure that I help everybody understand is that um you know this is a deal for future councils.

And I think that to Councilman Polisic's point, I think that we've been put in situations where we're trying to rectify oftentimes things that happened in past councils.

And if we're in a position where we can only delay but not prevent this move, then I think we need to begin to start thinking about what does Cleveland get out of this in order for us to have a net gain instead of a net loss.

I think we need to start thinking about how do we pivot in order to do this.

Once again, Councilman Casey is the the the king of quotes this week.

He said it's like dating a girl who doesn't want to date you anymore.

At some point in time, when do you say, okay, how do we make sure that we know end up whole that um this amicable split um still make sure that we don't end up in a net negative.

So I want to make sure that we think about that, and I have some suggestions on how we can uh look forward to this.

I did want to address what Councilman Mike Polencick said.

I agree with you.

I don't think that there was a unified effort.

And I will tell you one thing this last four years have taught me is that leadership is lonely.

Because I will tell you unequivocally, I did talk to the governor several times.

I did talk to the state legislature several times, even up to the 24th hour that they were about to vote for this and lobbied on the Sunday night before they were about to do this at 10 o'clock.

I remember it vividly, and basically asked them to raise the cap on the syntax and also to not pass that 600 million dollars.

So there were efforts that happened, but I think jointly it didn't happen, which was unfortunate, and that's your point that I really think you're trying to get to.

Um I I regret the fact that this was brought to us in the 24th hour as we're transitioning from a council that I've been proud to uh lead for the last four years and transition to a council that we have for the next four years.

Um and unfortunately, we're put in a position where we're trying to fit 25 pounds of potatoes in a five-pound sack within one month term.

Um, but this goes against, and you gotta understand this to all of the administration and everybody.

This goes against everything we've been trying to do to promote our region and have a strong central core.

It's the reason why the Cavs moved from Richfield to come to the central business district.

I don't buy, and I apologize because I for full disclosure, I sit on the uh the North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation.

I don't see how this replaces the money that we're gonna lose with the Browns.

And I have talked to business owners to Mr.

Demer's point, where the business owners are petrified and believe that the last one out turn out the lights.

So this is a very, very critical moment.

Um this is something that I really think what our pivot points are is you know, if we as a council truly believe that we can't prevent, we can only delay this from happening.

We do have to be responsible stewards of the taxpayers' dollars and not just put up a Pyrrhic victory just to say that we stood up against this big corporate juggernaut, but at the end of the day, the citizens of Cleveland are on the hook with an empty building boarded up downtown in about five years, that nobody will be able to cobble up enough money that costs 30 million today, but can potentially rise to 50 million in a couple of years.

So I I I know this is a tough decision.

I don't envy um I know people don't care about what I think or how I feel, but I don't envy the position that each council member is in.

But this is big boy big girl stuff right now.

This is really so a sobering moment, and I'd ask everybody to really look at the tenets of this, spend your next week doing your homework.

Um, I am going to talk with my leadership team and really try to understand if this is something that we think we need to pull the trigger on.

Um, I am going to talk about some investments, and I want to keep saying this.

I know Mike Polency might think I'm being biased.

I think we got a champion in Tay Ginn Jr.

That somehow in this mix, why aren't we talking about how we can maybe keep Collinwood open by making a major investment out of some of these dollars or adding some dollars to this deal in order to have an anchor where we can have a dormitory-style school where a person who is showing that he can drive success for young people in the neighborhood?

Why can't we put money into an economic development fund in order to try to make sure that we have investment in some of the catalytic projects throughout our neighborhoods?

So when we're asking for more, it's not because we're being greedy, because quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, none of us get anything out of this.

Matter of fact, I'm gonna get a headache either way, whether we vote for it or against it.

But at the end of the day, I'm a I'm a leader, and I believe in making tough decisions when you have to make tough decisions.

I'm not trying to lean on anyone.

I'm trying to make sure that everybody knows.

Look at the facts.

Mr.

Silliman probably has given one of the most rawest testimonies around this conversation that I've heard.

He disagrees with this, believes it's going to be horrible for the region and the city.

We all believe that this is a bad decision.

That as I told the Browns, because I don't say anything that I can't say to you that I won't say to them, that I believe that this is gonna be a decision that people are gonna wake up in 20 years and say, wow, what a huge mistake we all made.

But at the end of the day, it is what it is, as Councilman Harrison said, that my friend and mentor used to say the facts are on the table.

I am now pivoting to what can the city get.

And I don't think that is just the Browns that need to come up with that.

I think all of you that are here today need to make sure that we have formally incarcerated people that are going to make a commitment from your organizations that we're gonna make sure that we're hire, single parents, single women especially that we hire, and catalytic projects in our neighborhood.

So, yes, we're gonna probably come back with some things.

I'm a reasonable council person, but at the same time, I'm a council person that believes that we are simply trying to get the best we can for the city of Cleveland.

So, that being said, ladies and gentlemen, I'll adjourn this hearing and we'll move towards finance.

Thank you all for being here.

Yes, we're gonna take a break and then we're gonna get a restroom break and then we'll go into finance.

The 1987 leadership?

No, I don't know.

I just want to make sure I just had a potato.

I got an unfortunate conduct.

Number zero.

I just score is good.

Monitoring the behavior on the field.