Just make sure that we don't have a lot of people.

Before I gavel back in, I want to make sure that I let the media know that we have about ten pieces of legislation that we're gonna go burn through first with capital projects as well as finance and a small public works piece, and then we're gonna go into the uh the Browns piece of legislation last so that everybody's aware, okay?

Madam Clerk, do we have uh we got committee of the whole though?

Yeah, it's nine.

Still committee of the whole I know you gotta we'll make it work.

I know what you gotta do.

You gotta go in person.

Okay.

Um, if you could, I'm probably gonna need you to come back to make sure after.

Okay.

Yes, I will.

Jasmine, if Jasmine lets you know when it's about to call the roll on that, okay?

Well, that's that's no, it's supposed to, it won't be recommended, but it can still go to the floor.

Right.

Right.

But that's one of the things.

Let me make sure I do something real quick, because that's one of the things.

I'll be there one minute.

All right.

Once again, I'm going to ask council members if we could uh a lot of these uh have been vetted already.

I'm asking you guys to uh make sure you limit your questions because most of this has already been vetted, and we want to give um ample time to have a discussion around the Browns piece, okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So the first piece that we're going to hear is ordinance number 1082 2023 by Council Members Bishop, Harrison, and Griffin by departmental request, an emergency ordinance authorizing the director of capital projects to apply to the District One Public Works Integrating Committee for state funding for constructing improvements to portions of State Route 283, East 55th Street and St.

Clair Avenue to apply for and accept any gifts or grants for this purpose from any public or private entity authorizing professional services agreements with public and private entities and any relative agreements and authorizing the commissioner of purchases and supplies to acquire, accept, and record for right of way purposes any real property and easements necessary to make the improvement.

Not here, I'll take it.

Commissioner.

Thank you, sir.

Now this project is about 1.1 miles long.

Improvements will include pavement rehabilitation, new sidewalks, 88 compliant ramps, landings, new driveway aprons as needed, new water main.

Uh this will be an ODOT administered job.

It has a number of features we'll be looking into to add to it and to make it more complete and green.

Uh estimated project cost is somewhere north of three thirteen million dollars.

Thank you.

Uh I know it was relieved by Councilman Bishop or Councilman Bishop.

Your team has uh looked at this.

Uh yes, Mr.

President.

We've heard this in municipal services and we fully recommend it for us.

Thank you.

Councilman Harrison, you release this out of DPS.

Yes, sir.

But they uh did get a briefing from the um from the team about this piece.

Fully support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1082-2023 stands approved.

Please sign on.

Next is resolution 1407-2025 by Council Members Griffin, Bishop, and Harrison by departmental request.

An emergency resolution declaring the intent to vacate a portion of Mount Carmel Road.

Director.

Uh this particular project was originally awarded to the city of Cleveland through NOACA.

Uh at such point the county made a request to take on that sponsorship to extend it from that South Corp line over to Euclid Avenue.

Uh so the county will be participating in this project through the design construction and construction administration.

Uh they are captain and putting in 400,000 into this project.

The current estimate is about thirty three million dollars.

And you said it's going to go to Euclid Avenue?

Yes.

I think we're watching that.

Yeah, that's a different one.

Carmel Mount Carmel is uh in between Wood.

Oh, Mark Carmel, I'm sorry, yeah, too.

Between Woodhill and uh sorry, all the yeah.

Sorry, went to the wrong one.

That's 1082.

Resolution 1082.

Vacating a portion of Mount Karma Road.

1407.

1407, yeah, 1407.

1407.

I think we want it.

It's the Woodland Hills, um, Woodland Hills, Morris Black Street Vacation for Mount Carmel.

Um so, Mr.

Chairman, uh, this street vacation is just a partial street vacation.

And um, on this portion of Mount Carmel, there was uh head end parking.

Uh and it was for the residents of the housing project that's been uh removed and it's part of the Wood Hill Choice Project.

So they're looking to vacate this small part of Mount Carmel so that this this piece of right-of-way can be part of the development site.

And within the new project, there's gonna be on-street parking and parking lots for residents, so this head-in parking is no longer needed.

Very familiar with this dry pad every day, totally in support of it.

Uh municipal services of properties you have any uh comments.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman, we fully support this request.

DPS.

Yes, uh, who is support?

All right, thank you.

And once again, the council on record is me.

Uh so I support as well.

Seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1407-2025 stands approved.

Next up is 1471-2025 by council members Bishop and Griffin by Departmental Request and Emergency Ordinance, determining the method of making the public improvement uh repairing or replacing specific non-compliant sidewalks under the non-compliance sidewalk repair program, formerly known as the 5050 hazardous sidewalk program, authorizing the director of capital projects to enter into one or more public improvement requirement contracts for the making of the improvement for a period of up to two years, and authorizing the director to apply for any gifts or grants from any public or private entity to implement the program.

Director.

And it allows us to enter into one or more requirement contracts.

And the amount of those contracts would be between uh 50,000 and 300,000.

So just to remind council a couple years ago, we moved away from the large mega contracts for the 5050 program in favor of smaller contracts to help grow small businesses.

And so the last couple years we've had contracts that have been at uh 50,000.

Um we've had you know mixed results.

Some some small contractors um uh really didn't have the ability to do the quality of work that we are looking for.

Um others did did well, and um and as a result um of trying this for a few years, we're we're um allowing ourselves to award up to a three hundred thousand dollar contract to those smaller businesses that wish to grow.

Um, and so the idea is that you have a pipeline from a small contract to to try out and maybe um build your workforce, purchase some equipment up to um currently a $300,000 contract which will would allow you to do more work.

Um and so this is um uh you know, sort of the evolution of our our goal for growing small businesses.

And so as you referenced, the contracts would be up to two years, and this would uh we would bid it out over the winter time and they would start work in the springtime.

All right, thank you.

Councilman Bishop, you relieved this from uh municipal services.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chairman, we did relieve this out of municipal services, but uh I I do want to uh ask a couple questions about the program.

Um have we um thought about gave uh a lot of attention to um trying to communicate with our with our base with our with our uh residents about the change in the 5050 program and that it would this program is gonna take the place of this 5050 program and actually let uh our residents know that there is that we're not discontinuing the 5050 program, we're just renaming it, and we're trying to reset the table to this program.

Have we thought about that, Director, or if we did any outreach about that?

Um through the chairman of the councilman, great question.

Um from the resident side, nothing is changing.

So I'm not even sure that we're are we updating our paperwork that we're sending out to the flyers with and is it simply with just the new name of the program?

Yeah.

Because the the real change relates to how council interacts with the program, which is that council or church or a non nonprofit could put in the residents 50 percent of the cost of the sidewalk replacement.

And that was at the request of council so that um council could uh assist with the 50-50 program if there were residents that just couldn't um uh come up with the funds to fix the sidewalks.

And so um, but from the resident side, um uh, you know, the program runs the same where they l let us know that they want um a cost estimate for the sidewalk repairs.

We give them a cost estimate for everything that's non-compliant on their property, so that could be their drive apron or any of the panels of their sidewalk, or if the whole sidewalk is is non-compliant, then a cost estimate for that.

And then um they can choose to participate in the program.

Um these contracts that we're referencing would be the ones to do the work, but they would send a check-in for their 50 percent, or if there's a third party that wishes to contribute that 50 percent, then the city matches with with the rest of that cost.

And it's not really quite 50 percent.

Some um, you know, if there's a cost overrun, the city covers that cost overrun too.

We we take that initial payment up front and then we cover the rest of that.

So to answer your question, have we um retooled our our marketing?

No, but that's a good question that we're gonna think about and see if there are things that we need to do to make sure that our program uh requirements are clear and residents are clear on how they can participate.

Okay, um, thank you for that, director.

And through the chair, um, have we with this new program?

Could you explain how this new program will cultivate smaller businesses that's trying to get a foot in the door and trying to get some experience behind them?

Uh yes, sir.

So we we started uh so traditionally we would have uh a major uh concrete uh uh contractor uh that would accept a contract for a two-year period for all the all the sidewalk work throughout the city.

And what we found is that the larger contractors with um the amount of work that they have to do weren't really putting in um the TLC, if you will, to get work done um for these uh smaller res for the smaller projects which were resident based.

So two years ago we started working with the Department of Equal Opportunity to identify concrete contractors and issue contracts at 50,000 or less and and the idea was there's a lot of mom and pop businesses that could do concrete work.

Um and so if we broke up the major contract into small pieces, then you could you could award those contracts to many different businesses.

And um over the years, the hope was that if you only had uh the equipment and staff to do, say $50,000 worth of work, that after um that contract or maybe after the next one that you could purchase the equipment and hire the staff to grow your business.

So we we don't have um track record yet on is this are our businesses really growing, but we can tell you that we have issued um contracts to um any small businesses.

The first year we we didn't um have um good enough specs in place to make sure that the folks that were uh accepting the work really had the equipment and qualifications to do the work properly.

So we did have a lot of issues that first year.

Um this this year, 2025, we had better specs that went in in place, and so we had better uh small businesses that were applying and we we still have issues and and there's a lot of hand holding and education that happens in our process, but we do feel that we have a much better work product this year than last year, and we feel that the businesses are understanding the city requirements better.

Um, and so I I think the idea is that you you uh you know that that neighborhood businesses can take advantage of the city work and then grow their business.

So I think it'll take a couple years to really see if this is working to grow the business, but we do think that there's a benefit for not um lumping this all into one big concrete contract um for one big contractor.

All right, thank you, Ms.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilman Bishop.

Seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1471-2025 stands approved.

Thank you.

Next is ordinance number 1472-2025 by councilmember Starr, Bishop Harrison and Griffin by departmental request, an emergency ordinance to vacate a portion of East 73rd Street.

Director Uh, Mr.

Chairman, so just a reminder this is um for a street vacation.

There's three steps for street vacations.

This is the third of three steps.

First is a resolution of intent to vacate.

The second is Board of Revision of Assessments, and the third is the ordinance um to vacate this street, which is where we're at today for for East 73rd Street.

Um this is what we call a paper street, meaning this the roadway is no longer uh existing at this location, and you should have a map on your tablet, but it's um it's in between opportunity corridor and grand avenue.

And this is um a site that the Department of Economic Development is assembling for uh redevelopment.

And so uh the paper streets, if you will, that are in this area are are being vacated so that the land can be assembled.

Councilman Bishop and Councilman Harrison, both of you have relieved this out of your committees.

Uh yes, Ms.

Chairman will fully support this past.

Councilman Harrison.

Uh Councilman Starr, this is in Ward 5.

Support this initiative.

Thank you.

Uh seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1472-2025 stands approved.

Next is ordinance number 1470-2025 by Council Members Bishop, Hairston, and Griffin by departmental requests, an emergency ordinance giving consent of the City of Cleveland to the County of Cuyahoga for resurfacing of Nottingham Road from St.

Clair Avenue to the South Corporation line to a platform and accept uh an allocation of county motor vehicle license tax funds for the improvement, authorizing the director of capital projects to enter into any relative agreements in making of the improvement and to cause payment to the county for the city share of the improvement director.

Um Mr.

Chairman, so this is related to the resurfacing of Nottingham Road.

Um Councilman Harrison was uh a good advocate for um trying to get money put together for the resurfacing of this road.

Um the Cleveland portion is from uh St.

Clair Avenue to the Southern Corporate Line.

Um and we received NOACA funding for this project, um uh 2.4 million dollars of NOACA funding.

Subsequent to that, uh Cuyoga County uh agreed to take this on as a county project for county uh motor vehicle license tax funding, and they're gonna extend the project um south to Euclid Avenue, um, which um I believe is in the city of Euclid.

Is that right?

Yep.

And so um we're seeking authorization to enter into the uh required agreements with Cuyahoga County.

Um design would start next year, and construction is not until um summer of 2028.

Thank you.

Councilman Bishop, this was in municipal services.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chairman, we uh relieved this for uh fully supportive for past year.

Thank you, Councilman Harrison.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, fully support as a director indicated.

This has been a long time coming.

I've been uh hot on his heels for uh for uh several years now, and so we finally got this uh project uh together.

Thank you to our county uh uh our count Calgar County counterparts uh for working with us and supporting this um uh request here and so ask the committee for uh their support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1470-2025 stands approved, please sign on.

Next ordinance is ordinance number 1481-2025 by councilmember Star, Bishop Harrison and Griffin by departmental request, an emergency ordinance to vacate a portion of East 70 of Street.

Uh Director.

Mr.

Chairman, this is similar to the ordinance we heard a few minutes ago.

It's um this this uh paper street, if you will, is just um just off of Grand Avenue, and uh the street is not existing.

We're seeking to vacate the roadway so that economic development can assemble the land for future development.

All right, thank you, Councilman Bishop uh and Councilman Harrison, both of you re uh leave this from your committee.

Yeah, yes, Ms.

Chairman relieved it uh fully supportive for pass.

Councilman Harrison.

Yes, Mr.

Chair, relieved, fully support.

Thank you, Councilman Starr.

You in support of this project?

Yes, I do.

Okay, thank you.

Seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1481-2025 stands approved, please sign off.

Next ordinance is ordinance number 1486-2025 by Councilmember Star, Bishop, and Harrison by departmental requests, an emergency ordinance to vacate a portion of East 71st place.

Director.

Um Mr.

Chairman, so this this uh roadway is in the same uh similar location as the others.

East 71st place um is in between opportunity corridor and grand avenue.

The roadway is no longer remaining, and we're seeking to vacate so that we can assemble the land for economic development purposes.

Thank you.

Councilman Bishop and Harrison, both of these were uh they were relieved out of your committees.

Uh Mr.

President, we fully support this passage.

Councilman Harrison.

Yes, Mr.

Chair, fully support.

Councilman Starr, this is in Ward 5.

Yes, I do support.

All right, thank you.

Seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1486-2025 stands approved, please sign on.

Next up is ordinance number 1487-2025 by council members Moore, Bishop, Harrison, and Griffin by departmental request.

An emergency ordinance to vacate a portion of Redmond Avenue Southwest.

Uh please proceed, Director.

Mr.

Chairman, this is the final step of street vacation for um uh another what we call paper street, which is called uh Redmond Avenue.

And this um this is sort of a remnant piece of right of way from when they constructed the Jennings Freeway Ramp and the Steelyard Commons Drive.

Um currently the property around it is all owned by ODOT.

We have passed legislation that would allow ODOT to transfer the property to the city, and eventually this land would be transferred to Steelyard Commons.

And so um as we were preparing for the transfers, um the um eagle eyes of our surveyors realized that there was this uh street um in in the transfer parcel, so we're seeking to vacate the land so that the entire parcel can be transferred.

Thank you, Councilman Bishop and Councilman Harrison were these relieved out of your committees.

Uh Mr.

President, we uh fully support this for passage.

Councilman Harrison.

All right, uh Councilmember Moore, this was in uh in uh your area.

Are you supportive?

Thank you.

Uh seeing no other questions, what number was that even?

Um 1487.

Seeing no other questions 1487 stands approved.

All right.

Uh ordinance number 1488-2025 by Council Members Kelly, Bishop, Harrison, and Griffin by departmental requests, an emergency ordinance to vacate a portion of West Boulevard.

Director.

Mr.

Chairman, so um many years ago the city relocated West Boulevard um from in the middle of Kudal Commons to um the western side of Kudal Commons.

And um, this is the ordinance that would vacate where the old West Boulevard used to be located.

What's relevant here is that um the majority of the Timere Rice Memorial is over this portion of old right-of-way.

So, what this allows us to do, and that memorial was recently landmarked through the city council and city landmarks.

And what this ordinance will allow us to do is vacate um or release the uh encroachment permit that that allowed the memorial to be built there and replace it with a permanent easement to give the memorial permanent rights to remain in that location.

So we're seeking uh concurrence to uh vacate the old West Boulevard.

Okay, thank you so much.

Councilman Harrison and Bishop.

This was already uh relieved from your committee.

Uh Ms.

President, we fully support this piece of pasture.

Councilman Harrison.

Uh full support, Mr.

Thank you.

Is Councilman Kelly in support of this?

Uh it's it's Councilwoman Spencer.

Okay, so Councilwoman Spencer.

Yes.

Okay, can we make sure that Councilwoman Spencer needs to be added to this piece?

No, is it not you?

Is it Kelly?

It is right on the border.

It's like right on the border.

Could we please make sure that councilman Spencer is at it?

Okay.

1488, yes.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1488-2025 stands approved.

Uh last ordinance for public works is uh ordinance number 1496-2025 by Council members Bishop and Harrison by departmental request and emergency ordinance authorizing the director of capital projects to issue a permit to Cleveland Clinic Foundation to encroach into the public right-of-way of Alley in Court by installing, using and maintaining a concrete driveway and rip wrap erosion control barrier along the existing ravine.

Director.

Um Mr.

Chairman, so as as many of us know, uh Cleveland Clinic is building the Fairview Hospital.

Um boy, I forget the name of Fairview Hospital, New Medical Center building.

And um there's a piece of their driveway that needs to um cross over what is right of way, um, and it's called Allian Court.

And so this would be an encroachment permit to have that right-of-way cross um or to have their driveway cross um the right-of-way, and so it would be a concrete driveway and like you said, riprap erosion control along an existing ravine, which would allow delivery access to the new medical office building.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Bishop and Harrison, this was relieved out of both of your committees.

Uh Mr.

President, we fully support this passion.

Councilman Harrison.

Thank you.

Is Councilman Slife in support of this?

I know that most of this is in uh consent.

Okay, thank you.

All right, uh, seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1496-2025 stands approved.

Please sign on.

Thank you guys so much.

Oh, uh Mr.

Chairman, may I introduce Eric Westfall?

He's our chief surveyor for the city, and so many of us may not see his face, but he's the one that that does all the great work that helps all of us uh here every day in the survey section.

It's good to put a face with the name because uh I can remember four or five years ago I had to work with Mr.

Westfall around vacation of East 100 and uh First Street or East 13rd Street for the Meyer project.

Oh, right.

Yes.

Good to put the face with the name.

And the new council maps um that that was Eric Staff and also uh the SID districts, um, those all go through.

Yes.

Good to put a face with the name.

Thank you, sir, for all your work.

Please, if you could.

Just adding, Council President, that Mr.

Westfall helped us get the Gordon Square SID uh across the finish line.

So I'm very grateful it was a lot of work.

Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

I don't think so.

Okay, thank you guys, appreciate it.

All right, we're gonna go to Parks and Rec so we can hustle these, and then we got a couple of finance pieces, and then we'll go to uh our last piece, which is Mayor Bibbs uh proposal for the Cleveland Browns.

And if you could, Madam Clerk, could you pre please prepare the administration?

I believe the chief and his team is going to come over on behalf of the mayor and uh speak to uh the amendments, and we are going to let our guests, uh Mr.

Kucinich go first, okay?

All right.

Uh Director, first one is ordinance number 1461-2025 by Councilmembers Bishop, Harrison, Conwill, and Griffin by departmental request, an emergency ordinance authorizing the purchase by one or more requirement contracts of trees and labor and materials needed for urban forestry services, including but not limited to maintaining and planting trees and removing trees, stumps, and tree waste material for the division of urban forestry, Department of Parks Recreation and the Departments of Aging, Public Works, and Community Development for a period of one year with one year option to renew exercisable by the director of parks and recreation.

Director.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, I'm here today to request uh authorization for us to enter into an agreement with a supplier for uh trees for our community tree assistance program.

This uh is called CTAPs, and this program uh does support seniors um aging in place and having um money set aside for the maintenance of trees, which also includes uh removal and trim trimming.

Um we did seek competitive bids, um, and we are interested in entering into an agreement um as detailed in our ordinance.

Thank you.

Questions?

This is very, very important.

It's probably one of the biggest issues that we get is that seniors is very expensive to trim trees and cut trees, and many seniors, especially living on fixed income, have a challenge with this.

Um so I really really um I I would hope, even though I'm in favor of moving this, I I do want to spend time at some point in time making sure that we understand what is the waiting list, how long does it take for this to happen?

Because a lot of times this is probably the biggest issue.

Uh, just real one other question that I have before I kick it to my uh colleagues to discuss.

Uh, does this just include trees, or does this also potentially include large bushes that grow into trees?

Because I'm getting more and more requests that seniors can't even ride wheelchairs down sidewalks because of some of the overgrowth that some people have, as well as the safety issues that some seniors have by not being able to cut or trim back just trim back bushes.

Um many of us, a lot of people always give council people grief over everything, but many of us actually get our saws and our uh electric trimmers and just go and do sometimes ourselves.

Uh but it's impossible to keep up with the request.

But can you tell us um at some point in time?

I don't think we're gonna be able to boil the ocean a day, but I do want to kick this back to councilman bishop at some point in time, maybe with councilman conwill to have a joint committee hearing to discuss how this goes in the future, if you don't mind.

But I won't try to boil the ocean today.

I just know that this could be a hot topic.

Um, so I'm gonna kick it to the chairs.

Uh municipal services, DPS, and health have relieved this from their committees.

Uh, do you have any comments or any or are you fine with relieving this?

Uh Ms.

President, um I like to uh offer up an amendment to um ordinance uh one 1461.

Thank you.

Please proceed.

Um in section two.

Um after the director of parks and recs may sign all documents that are necessary to make the purchases and may enter into one or more contracts with the vendor selected through the that competitive process.

And I like to right after that sentence, I like to add that the director of parks and recs will uh alert the clerk of council when any uh agreement uh a purchase agreement is made uh to to uh to contact the to alert the clerk of council.

We we uh let hold on.

Let me just uh get this this uh this um this verse together says the notice to the clerk of council whenever any purchase is made through the cooperative project process, which notice shall include the details of such cooperative purchases you have it, madam uh okay.

Uh, do we have a second to councilman bishops uh to councilman bishops amendment?

Councilman uh Casey has seconded, or is there any dis is there any discussion on this amendment?

Councilwoman Rebecca Moore.

Thank you.

Um I just didn't play in English.

Could you share what that um the goal of the amendment I should please proceed?

Well, uh under the under this section, uh councilwoman, under section 108B of the charter when they make purchase under that particular section, they don't have to notify anybody of the purchase.

Okay.

So I wanted to make sure that this council is notified whenever we enter into enter any purchase agreements with any vendor.

Got it.

And I'm only I'm asking just because CTAPs uh we've sometimes struggled to get our seniors even like into this program, so I just want to make sure I understand the connection that this would essentially be the vendor contract for the people who would be cutting down the trees, because those would be the only people who we'd be contracting with under this under this legislation through the chair to the council member.

Um, uh the CTAPS program, we do work with an outside contractor to provide that support.

The um city's uh division of urban forestry has limited resources, and that's the reason why we have two different contractors.

One is for the CTAPS program, and then one primarily helps with storm storm damage.

Got it.

And so is the expectation that you do you feel like this is an administrative burden you're comfortable with notifying the council of when a purchase is made under this bill as amended through the chair?

Through the chair um to the council member, um there have been some um things that I'm looking at, and I'm certainly am not opposed to any additional um steps in how we make our purchases, and then we just have to plan ahead to make sure that we can do things that don't burden our residents.

Okay, that that makes sense.

Uh I'm comfortable with it.

And so that you don't have to put me back on the mic, I'll just say one one time that we've really struggled with Van Curen to get these trees done well, and in particular, as our like almost sole vendor for tree stuff, I would like you know, I think the future council should be notified if it ends up being Van Curen, because frankly, that means someone needs to be out with a pair of binoculars looking at the work that they're doing.

Um so that is my concern, and with that I'll support the amendment that uh the chairman proffered.

I agree, that's the reason that I support the amendment because oftentimes I think we gotta pay closer attention to this, and I think that's a good amendment to do that.

Uh councilman uh Camwill, this was also relieved from Health and Human Services, and then Councilman Harrison, this was relieved from DPS.

You know, um to uh council member Bisha putting the motion on the floor.

Will we pay attention to that though?

I mean, you can give her extra steps to do what she needs to do, or would it cost through the chair to the director?

I think it would cost you um time constraints to do what you need to have done to the chair from the through the chair to the um director.

Through the uh chair to the council member, um city council is really um very wise to support the hiring of a new urban forestry commissioner.

Um we hired top-tier talent out of another large municipal city.

Uh this person is already looking at some of our systems and processes um and identifying opportunities for us to make some improvements in our efficiencies.

Um as it comes down to different checks and balances, certainly it could impede our ability to serve the residents.

Um I'm not opposed to any additional um checks and balances.

I know that this person has the qualities and the capabilities to work around any additional um checks and balances that we would have to do.

So I'm not I we are already looking at how we can improve the quality of service to the residents and decrease the amount of time it takes to get trees trimmed and to have service provided.

Okay.

You know what?

Um through the chair to uh council member Mike Belessic.

Um I wish we had tree farms uh again because of the um the environment.

When you look at some of our wards or in uh Glenville, Collinwood, different areas.

We have a lot of problems and issues with air quality.

And we have to get ahead of that.

And um is there a way, director?

You remember that, don't you, uh, Councilmember Mike Belichin?

We had tree farms, and this was a forest city.

But when you go, especially in Glenville and Hoff and Fairfax, you don't see a lot of trees anymore.

And that that affects the environment.

It would affect our uh dealing with cancer, dealing with asthma and all those kind of things.

I really don't like when trees are I mean, I could cut back on the vegetation, those kind of things, but I don't like when trees come down really.

I know it hurts some of the residents with their sewer lines and and gas lines and those kind of things, which is a lot of dollars that it hurts, but you need trees and vegetation.

So would that go under you with the tree farms through the uh chair to the director?

Through the chair to the council member.

Um interestingly, our new urban forestry commissioner found a report um based upon a study from I believe 1987, 1986 that talked about when we had tree farms and had recommendations on how we can improve the quality of forest, um, our forest within the city of Cleveland.

So even as far back as the 80s, we knew that we had a declining tree population.

Um, urban forestry commission are finding this report um and leaning on it demonstrates the need for us to improve our tree canopy.

And uh certainly if a tree farm makes good uh financial sense as well as service sense for the residents, it's certainly something we can explore.

Um I don't know why the city stopped doing that, but we obviously are uh and city council um feel very strongly that we need to improve the quality of our tree canopy.

I'm gonna say this to yield.

Even when you don't have trees, some kind of way you have vegetation that uh in those open lots and side lots that you grow certain um um plants that would deal with the um the environment.

We're dealing with idling cars and all that, but this stuff is serious that we can't see, but we know that it's there.

And uh so I'll go with your amendment, um, councilman, if it doesn't cost any time constraints.

So I'm there.

And I hear I'm finished.

Thank you.

Next up I have Councilman Casey and then Councilman Balenzik.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Madam Chairwoman to the director.

Uh does this piece of legislation wait a minute?

Are we still in discussion of the amendment?

Okay.

So any other discussions on the amendment?

No.

Okay.

So um all in favor say aye.

Any discussion?

No.

Okay, so malt here we go.

No one opposed, right?

Okay, sorry, you guys.

I walked in here pretty frazzled.

Um amendment passes.

And then here's the council.

Madam Chairwoman to the director, uh, with this piece of legislation.

Does it include trees that are on private property, like in backyards and stuff like that?

Is this just right away?

Through the chair to the council member, I need to check to see if it's only right-of-way trees or if it does include private property trees that are in the yards of seniors.

Is that your question?

Right.

Let me check on that.

All right, can you let us know before this hits the floor tonight?

Yes, we'll do.

I think that would be a big um deciding factor because one of the things that one of the bigger issues is you know, we we've got seniors who've got trees in their backyard and they're just overgrown, and we have no way to the city has no way to assist our our seniors with trees that are in their backyard.

So I want to make sure that this does cover that.

So if we could know that before the vote on the floor tonight, thank you.

They have a point on that.

I mean, he's done, or do you want to be on the list, or do you want to respond to Councilman Casey?

Okay, go ahead.

All right, thank you.

Um I am 99% sure that the CTAPS program is exclusively to help seniors with trees on their private property.

Um I hope and believe that's the case.

Thank you.

That's good to know.

Councilman Casey.

Um, next up, I have Councilman Palenzik.

Thank you.

Uh, Madam Chairperson to um I want to follow up on Councilman uh Conwell and Councilman Casey's line of questioning.

Um I was here when we did have the tree farm and it worked real well.

Um I could get a tree in a week to two weeks.

I would make a phone call and tell them that where they were the a citizen where a resident wanted a tree, and they'd get the tree, believe me, that quick.

So I don't know if we I can't recall if we did the planning ourselves or that aspect was um was uh uh jobbed out, but we had the tree farm adjacent to the um golf course that we sold uh or that we turned over to Metro Parks.

Uh I I don't know if that was I think it was Seneca, if I'm not mistaken, years and years ago.

But it worked.

But my question is specifically on on this.

Uh we all know we have a truck problem uh with tree trimming.

Right now, we're told that the turnaround is approximately 20 years.

Is that still the case for tree trimming in the city?

Through that chair to the council member, yes.

And um, as sad as it makes me to say it, our tree trim program for mature trees is uh 26-year cut cycle.

Um our urban forestry commissioners already taking a look at ways we can reduce that down to a much more reasonable time frame.

Okay, uh then to my colleagues.

Uh that in itself, when you say 26-year turnaround for trees to be trimmed.

So, in the course of that time, trees that can be saved that might have a damaged limb, um, other severe damage, that tree thou becomes a tree that has to be taken out.

So this has to be a priority for us to be able to trim trees in a reasonable manner.

And so what I'm asking the director with this legislation that you're proposing to us, um do you believe that this will address the issue of tree trimming uh in a in a more adequate way?

We have, according to Director McNair this morning, we have 18,000 vacant lots in the city.

There had been suggestions in the past after when once we got away with the tree farm to utilize water department property because there are large tracts of land which are fenced to you to partner with them.

That's where we would initiate the tree farms on water water department property and utilities department property so the trees could be protected.

So I would I there needs to be again better coordinated efforts between all departments and divisions to create uh start growing trees again.

I'm fortunate in my own ward, we I have a group of tree folks and volunteers that have been planting trees right now in the neighborhood very successfully, and I commend them.

Uh but this is an issue that we need to get our hands on.

And my last question is this you mentioned uh Councilman Casey and others mentioned about uh um trees on seniors property.

There's the other issue with dead trees within not within the public right-of-way, but right on private property adjacent to the sidewalk.

And it's my understanding there is a city ordinance.

I do not have the uh in the codified ordinances, that the property owner is responsible for that tree if it poses this hazard to where you have children or pedestrians walking down the sidewalk.

So that's something else we have to zero in on because we have that in several cases where we have these massive dead trees right along the sidewalk line.

And they um uh the homeowners resist uh insisting they do not have the finance, the financed um or the finances to remove that dangerous tree.

So I think that's something else we need to explore as well.

We have to be very careful because once we start going into what there's 140,000 uh homes, residential units in the city.

So we have to be very selective and careful as to what we're doing because we could burn up all the money very quickly on private property and not address public right-of-way.

But I'm urging the director who seems to be taking a different approach on things, which I'm I applaud her on.

Um we just got to figure out what our priorities are and how we get back to some kind of common sense.

I never had a problem in the day getting a tree trimmed.

I never had a problem in the day getting a tree removed.

I it this is all foreign to me.

I never experienced like I've experienced in the last 20 years trying to get trees addressed here.

It wasn't that wasn't the issue.

So I would only ask this.

You really need to look at urban forestry.

Do we have enough people?

Do we have enough equipment?

At one time we did.

It was never an issue.

Now this has become a major problem in the city.

So again, I'll leave it at that point.

And director, I believe you're very competent person, and I hope you can get a handle on this, or certainly include the council members who are dealing with this every day in their thoughts and opinions and suggestions.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

We have any other questions?

Any other questions regarding this uh ordinance?

No, 1462.

1462.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions regarding ordinance number 1462?

Seeing no other questions.

Oh, Councilman Bishop.

No, it's 1461, right?

1461.

Okay, yeah.

Any other questions regarding 1461?

As amended.

As amended, as amended, 1461 stands approved.

Thank you.

Next one is ordinance number 1462-2025 by Council members Bishop and Griffin by Department of Requests, an emergency ordinance authorizing the purchase by one or more requirement contracts of various pool chemicals for the Department of Parks and Recreation.

Director.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, this is a routine item as well.

Every year we purchase uh pool chemicals to maintain uh the water quality and the safety of our summers and our 39 pools.

Um we uh had a contract um most recently with heritage pool supply.

Um they were the only sole bidder this year.

We were able to get two vendors to bid on this, um, which um actually revealed a $55,000 savings.

Um so essentially what we're requesting is authority to um uh in advance so that we can enter into an agreement with a provider of uh pool chemicals for this upcoming uh season.

Uh but anyway, this is just a routine item um to ensure the quality of our pools.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Bishop, you uh uh move this to committee at a whole.

Uh yes, Mr.

President, we fully supportive the pasture.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Mora.

Thank you.

Tell me why it's surfacing from the back of my mind that during um the budget hearing last year we discussed pool chemicals because the cost has increased drastically and just the overall cost of this contract is up.

So I'm wondering if you could share.

I mean, it sounds good that we have savings, but overall, year over year, this is become much more expensive.

This is to the to the tune of hundreds of thousands.

So share anything about sort of the cost of this.

Are we budgeting?

Are we going to be budgeting for it again for a large amount this year through the chair?

Absolutely.

Uh through the chair to the council member.

Um, we certainly expect to continue to have a competitive process.

Um, new deputy commissioner of aquatics is very familiar with a lot of the vendors and suppliers in the aquatics industry.

So for that reason, we were able to reach out in advance of going out to bid and invited several vendors to provide um bids.

Um we did have two, I believe, that provided in um uh who participated in a pre-bid meeting um so that we knew that there was greater um uh competition.

I would say that from a design perspective, our pools are designed in a way that requires us to have low quantities of supplies delivered at a time, which costs more money, and our pools are designed in a way that is in effective and inefficient for delivery.

Um we have basement chemical rooms, and then we have rooms that are in the central part of a building so that we can't have a company drive up with a truck and a hose and just connect and deliver chemicals.

So moving forward, we're looking at how we reimagine the design of our facilities so that in any new future facilities, we will find a way to design them so that we can have larger quantities delivered at a time and that it is more user-friendly for our chemical delivery companies.

Thank you very much.

So so thank you, Councilman Conwell.

So uh when you order these uh these chemicals, uh, you order the same amount through the chair that you ordered last year.

Because you remember it was a lot of pools not working.

So I don't want to order something and then just sit there in the inventory.

Uh through the chair to the council member, um, as we look at what we need to manage our pools.

Um, we are certainly making some changes.

Um our pools have a variety of different uh balancing agents to go with the chlorine, and we're looking at standardizing how we do that.

Some have CO2, some have um muriatic acid.

We need to standardize what we're doing.

Um diatomaceous is the third chemical that we're using to um in our pool.

So we have to standardize what we're doing in terms of how we operate our pools in order to get better pricing.

And I think the other piece is um we have a uh deputy commissioner of aquatics who uh is a certified pool operator trainer.

He understands the quality of the of the water and he understands the chemical balance that is required.

We are also looking at other methods and mechanisms so that we can better maintain our pools.

For example, uh looking at updating our chemical feeders to make them automated so that we can be more efficient in terms of how we feed chemicals to the water.

But um you guys start working on the pools that were down last year through the chair.

Yeah, a lot of children, and we received a lot of phone calls.

The pools were down.

Um Glenville Recreation Center, as well as at um Forest Hill Park.

I mean, I mean, that's sad.

Then you order over ordering, and you have nothing to put them in.

Do the chair to the director.

Through the chair to the council member, we certainly um have the same sadness that our residents feel.

Um our goal is to provide the best quality of life services to the residents all of the time.

Uh being closed Monday and Tuesday to me was a disservice.

Uh, this year we've already talked to our deputy commissioner of aquatics and said I want the pools open seven days a week, period.

Um we have to provide expanded and improved services.

That goes with my shameless plug of needing lifeguards.

And so we look to all of you to help support us and uh attracting uh lifeguards who want to come work for us, both indoor and outdoor.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, saying no more qu seeing uh no other questions.

What was that?

1462.

1462 stands approved.

Uh got too many trains are trying to move the day.

All right.

Uh last uh ordinance for parks and recreation is ordinance number 1492-2025 by council members Gray Bishop Harrison and Griffin uh by departmental requests.

An emergency ordinance authorizing the director of parks and recreation to apply for and accept the grant from the land and water conservation fund for the Luke Easter skate park project to accept cash donations from the MGK Foundation and the Skate Park Project for this purpose, determining the method of making the public improvement of designing and constructing a skate park at Luke Easter Park and authorizing the director of parks and recreation to enter into one or more contracts for the making of the improvement.

Director.

Thank you.

Uh to the chair.

Uh opportunity on the Southeast side.

We had some preliminary conversations with the MGK group that included the skate park project, which was formerly known as the Tony Hawk uh proje um Tony Hawk project.

And uh we realized that they wanted to help support uh skateboarding in the inner city, they wanted to help support the city of Cleveland.

Um and so we started having these conversations what we could do.

Um we are working um with um these organizations to seek a grant.

We are requesting to apply and accept a grant if we get it.

Um and then we would have a cash match from the city.

Um it would also include a grant fund from the MGK group as well as the skate park project.

Uh this would be a 10,000 square foot skate park uh located in Luke Easter Park.

It would be adjacent to the restrooms and the parking lot, so in a highly visible location.

Uh we think that this would be an attraction for many people throughout the region, and we could also even potentially host skate um skateboard type events in this location.

So um what we request is authorization from city council to apply for and accept a grant with on land and water conservation fund.

Um if we do not receive the grant funding, um this project might not proceed as planned.

We would look at other potential opportunities.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Bishop and Councilman Harrison.

Uh, do you relieve this to the committee at the whole?

Uh Ms.

Chairman, we fully support this request.

Councilman Harrison.

Yes, sir.

Uh same fully support.

Thank you.

Send uh councilwoman Deborah Gray.

Yes, I fully support this project for the you know, for the kids in all neighborhoods.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate you, Councilwoman.

All right, uh, seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1492-2025 stands approved, please sign on.

Thank you.

All right, finance, and then we'll go into whatever the conversation is about 1325.

All right, this is ordinance number 1508-2025 by councilmember Griffin by Departmental Requests and emergency ordinance to make additional appropriations of 1,200,000 to the special revenue fund.

Director to the chair of the committee members uh on the last page of the handout is the supplemental.

So it's 1.2 million dollars.

And it's uh to transfer money to the division of streets uh to support their resurfacing program.

They're gonna be about 1.2 million over.

Uh so this uh supplemental to the streets division will accommodate uh the slow resurfacing that the streets division did during this year.

It's the last page of the back.

Yeah, it's on the very back of the last page, these are double-sided okay.

All right, uh Councilman Mike Palency.

So chairman to the um to Mr.

Gentile um and to the director.

Um the 1.2 when you say um that was the actual cost of the streets or material, or what was what what led to that 1.2 million?

Through the chair to the to the council member, it's for the uh the employees that do it.

This goes into personnel and benefits in the street department.

So this will be transferred from the general fund into here, but streets is a special revenue fund.

Right.

So we have to accept the money in there so we can actually spend it in there.

So it was for the employees, nothing more than that.

No, through the chair to the council personality.

Exactly.

The employees that did the resurfacing.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Seeing no other questions.

Oh, councilwoman Rebecca Moore.

Oh, thank you.

Oh, I hope that doesn't spell.

I apologize.

That we have this is essentially like a routine end of year.

We have overages in some departments and savings in others.

And so this is the traditional end of year movement of materials of money from one part of the budget to the other.

Is that correct through the chair?

Through the chair to the council.

The council chair just read the supplemental, which is only the last page of this document.

We were going to get to the transfers, and I was gonna respond.

Oh, okay.

Oh, oh, thank you.

Sorry.

So this is we're we're only talking about the supplemental right now.

We aren't talking about the transfer yet.

Great, because all my questions are about the transfer.

So thank you.

All right, thank you.

I'll get on the list for the transfer, but otherwise, on the supplemental.

Yeah, yeah.

Could you elaborate on that one point two?

Um some more um council president.

I mean, like personnel related expenses.

What kind of related expenses through the chair to the council member?

The streets division is taking on more of the resurfacing versus outsourcing it.

So they've been ready.

They've been resurfacing more and more streets.

Uh we expanded our program this year to 20 million.

Uh so this is more work that they did.

So this money will come to the from the general fund to the streets divisions to uh support that program as the years coming to an end, they're gonna run out of money above the line for the employees and benefits section.

So it went in there and that goes to what kind of resources, equipment, supplies, uh what through the chair of the councilperson.

This is their their paycheck, so it's their their salary and benefits that they get.

So it's the employees that are doing the work in streets, mainly the resurfacing.

This this is how we're gonna pay them uh to finish out the year.

So there's no supplies involved in this.

This is all payroll.

Absolutely across the neighbor.

Okay, cool.

All right, thank you.

Seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1508-2025 stands approved.

Please sign on right.

The next one is ordinance number 1509 dash 2025 by councilmember Griffin by departmental request, an emergency ordinance to make temporary appropriations for the current payrolls and other ordinary expenses of the city of Cleveland for the period of January 1, 2026 until the effective date of annual appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2026.

To the chair and the committee members again, this is uh one uh an ordinance that we do every year required to cover expenses starting January 1 through uh the end of March.

When and by then we'll have the permitted appropriation in place.

I'm gonna hand it over to Nokal Nicole Gallagher uh to kind of go over the assumptions and then we can take questions after that.

Thanks.

Okay.

Um through the chair, as uh Mr.

Gentile said, this is just a normal um our temporary budget that we do from journey one to the end of April.

Um typically in our temp budget, we have um about six to seven payrolls to account for um from January to the end of March, so that's what we include for um payroll of employees.

Um the longevity is um a hundred percent in the temporary budget because that gets paid out March 31st.

Um separation pay, we just put in 25 percent of the budget um for separation.

Um hospitalization, prescription dental, all those benefits.

Um those are from January to March, so it's about 25 percent.

Um PERS is also 25 percent.

Um police and fire pension is also 25 percent.

Um workers comp is not paid out until May, so we don't include anything in the budget in the temporary budget for workers' comp.

Um unemployment is about 40 percent of the budget.

Um some of these payments are due in the first quarter.

Um so we put in 40 percent to account for that.

Um clothing allowance, cooling maintenance, anything that's um you know, contractually obligated through our negotiations, those get paid out mostly on March 31st, so those are included at 100 percent in the temporary budget as well.

Um everything below the line, which we say is other expenses like contractual services, materials and supplies.

We put in 40 percent of the budget.

Um there are some contracts that require full funding before April 1.

So we like to make sure we can cover those amounts um in the temporary budget.

The first thing you will see that is new for 2026, um, which we can explain further.

Um for projects based on the changes to the capital and borrowing programs.

Right.

And through the chair of the committee, I'll explain that a little bit more.

So we're in the new capital debt service plan.

We plan on funding the general fund money, the carry over to start capital projects as soon as uh MoCap gets a uh the capital projects are plan by council, approved by council, and that's supposed to be in January of next year.

Um then from that point, as soon as the council approves those projects, MOCAP can then start doing those projects right away.

First is usually we're into late summer or fall when we issue bonds.

Uh they'll be able to start much sooner and start these projects moving a lot earlier than what we plan on doing at the end of the year, like when we normally issue geodet, which we'll issue in late summer, early fall, and then we'll we'll reimburse the general fund those expenses with the bonds, and then the general fund will be made whole of this of this of this money that we're temporarily using.

Again, this will we won't uh start these projects twofold.

One, we won't start interest running on these projects because we'll be using our own funds versus borrowing money, and number two, when MOCAP were or a department that's doing some of these projects, we're waiting till they have the ready to certify a contract to actually certify these.

So this will also help the spend of bond proceeds, not issuing them way in advance, and then not spending down in the timely manner.

This will accelerate uh the sp the spending of bond proceeds in a more timely manner so we don't uh run into problems with the spend down of bond proceeds.

Thank you.

All right, we'll take questions.

I know I have councilwoman uh more and then also councilman Michael Panesi.

Oh no, to clarify, I think that this is um the temporary ordinance is 1509.

Oh, so you want to do the last I want to do the subject.

I want to go answer.

All right, Councilman Michael Panesi.

Okay.

Um chairman to Mr.

Gentile and to the team.

Um I understand um your willingness or what you're suggesting to us to move the um utilize the 40 million carryover to start capital projects.

Um we have not seen that list yet.

You're developing that list, correct?

To the chair of the councilman MOCAP is uh working on that list right now, so they're they're going through that.

Okay, so you're assuming that we're gonna pass that, or you want that passed by one.

The chair of the councilperson is supposed to bring that list to council in January at some point.

Okay, okay.

So your assumption is and I understand that.

So it's like basically you're indicating to us we should pay now versus pay later.

The question is that you're assuming that the bond market will be good at the end of the year.

How do you have that crystal ball to know that?

To the chair of the council person.

Um we're working with, I mean, it's very rare that the bond market's not available, but there has been a few times.

There's been a few times of the day.

I'll talk in interest, the rate of cost of doing of doing business.

Uh it's hard to tell.

So no one can really tell where interest rates are going right now, they're trending down.

Okay.

You know, no one knows what's gonna happen.

Okay.

Uh, what we're looking to do is to borrow the money as late as we can, and when we're ready to break ground on the projects, and then we'll have those bond proceeds for a lot less time because one of the problems the cities had in the past is spending them down in a timely manner.

Right.

Uh so now I think this will help accomplish both of those now.

The rates, we're not no one can tell what rates are really gonna be.

I mean, they may go up, hopefully they continue to go down.

Yeah, what are they right now?

Do we know?

Short term, like four or something.

Yes.

Through the chairman of the councilman, short-term rates right now, anywhere from say four percent, right around the four percent area in the short end of the yield curve.

And that's based on what year term through the chairman of the councilman.

That that is the again, this is approximate.

That's around the two-year area.

Okay.

So I'm just I'm just trying to, you know, I as I've I've said, um, going into next year.

Um I'm really concerned.

I'm really concerned, because I don't expect to see any money coming out of the out of the Washington uh to help us.

I don't expect to see any money coming out of Columbus to help us.

So we are gonna have to be very fiscally uh wise as we move into 2026.

Um because you know, we we we're we're losing the jail.

We have the Browns, that whole issue with the Browns.

Um we have we are anticipating uh we're we're looking at an additional 18 schools being closed in the city on top of the 28 they've closed already on the east side, which could affect whether or not could affect property values or people deciding to stay or go out of the city.

So I'm I'm really concerned as we go into next year.

So I want to make sure the recommendations you're making to the council that you're basing off of sound fiscal policies and practices.

That's what I want to make sure.

I want to say that now that you carry on into next year.

I can I I can understand the willingness to get these projects started now.

We all want to get projects started.

Um, but I want to make sure we don't find ourselves at the end of the year in a real pickle here.

That's what I want to make sure.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh and in Robertsville's order, there's really no point.

I will put you back on the list if you want to put it.

But if you want to answer, and then I'll put that.

Through the chair of the council person, yes, we've looked at this.

Uh we think this is a sound plan.

Okay.

Uh Director Barrett kind of brought this plan with them.

And uh we've kind of embraced the plan.

Um, and I mean, I fully think it's a good idea.

Uh, I think it accomplishes two things.

One, not issuing bonds as early as we did and sit on them too long.

No, I understand that.

That lowers interest that we're paying on the bonds, and two, the spend on, which we've had a challenge that also helps that.

So there's been a lot of thought in this process, so we're pretty confident that you know this is the right way to go with this.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Councilman Conwell.

Yeah, I just it's interesting when you what you're doing, and I like it.

I mean, I like it a lot.

What you're doing, I think you're putting together a contingency fund.

You're taking a 40 million dollars.

You know, in the long run, when you pass those bonds when you if you move forward, you get the bonds, then you get the money back, but you started on projects right now.

And if you start on projects, if costs go up with tariffs and things like that, you're saving with the contingency funds.

I mean, that's what I see.

That is one of the things most certainly materials go up.

I mean, they don't come, they don't come down.

So whether it's tariffs or just natural supply chain problems or everything else.

So by doing those sooner than later, we should save some money on the materials that uh it takes to do these projects.

Yeah, because if you already start uh executing uh on that 40 million the other one come in, you might just save some money and do some other things with it, or we could put it in a balance fund in the long run.

But that 40 million, it gets you start moving on your projects and you control your your triple constraints.

That's what I'm looking at.

Yes, that's what we're trying to do.

That's uh I was thinking it I like that.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any other questions regarding 1509-2025?

Sand no other questions ordinance number 1509-2025 stands approved.

Last piece for finance before we go to the uh you're gonna revert back.

We don't have one more okay.

Uh ordinance number 1510-2025 by Councilmember Griffin by departmental request and emergency ordinance to provide for the transfer and amendment of general fund appropriations in the amount of 19,555,000 dollars and 100,000 dollars within the small enterprise fund.

Uh Director.

To the chair of the committee members, uh, as everybody knows the budget's an estimate.

So the permanent budget we passed it passed on April 1st through the council.

That was effective April 1st.

Uh now that the year's about to end, uh, we do this every year because we get to smooth out the budget.

Some people are gonna go over their budget, some people are gonna go over.

So basically, we reshuffle the deck, move some money from people that save some money into areas where they've spent more money.

So again, this is what we kind of do every year.

Uh because the budget's an estimate, and it's kind of trues up everything.

So we're in compliance with state laws and everything else that that uh we have to comply with.

Thank you.

Uh pretty straightforward, councilwoman Mora.

I know that you had a question regarding this.

Yeah, thank you.

I'm always interested because I think it helps us inform um the budget uh process in the spring for the next council.

Uh just sort of what caused significant overages that we weren't expecting.

Um or sort of you you know you noted around vacancies, but a couple of these jumped out to me.

I just wanted to go through a couple of them.

Uh the first is within the Office of Capital Projects, 1.4 million in savings due to vacancies.

Uh, could you narrate a little bit about the um why we had so many vacancies open in Mo Cap through the chair?

I don't think yeah, through the chair of the council uh person.

Um just like everything throughout the city, uh there's difficulty hiring folks.

Now they've filled some of those positions throughout the year.

This is the savings from the bulk of the year, and they will continue to try to staff up to meet that.

So we've not reduced their budget.

Everyone's budget when we bring it back to the table will have the same amount that they had last year or more.

And they and we made some progress in hiring this year across the board.

Um we're just not all the way there.

And MOCAP is an example where they've just had a hard time filling a lot of their vacancies.

Again, they filled a couple throughout the year, but you still have that bulk early in the year where we've got some savings.

Yeah, thank you.

I I think I was asking that, and I can look up the numbers because 1.4 million seems like a pretty high percentage of their overall salary allocation.

And then the next one is Department of Innovation and Technology, where we had 1.8 million in savings due to vacancies, and that seems exceptionally high for the number of personnel in innovation and technology.

Um so I was wondering if you could narrate a little bit around that, uh, what what might be happening in that small division?

Yeah, um, through the chair to the councilperson, uh, we've actually grown that department pretty big now, so it's moved out from under finance, and I can guarantee you they were very aggressively filling positions down the stretch.

So starting next year, you know, I was informed by IT that they would not have any vacancies or very few going into the new year again.

This is more from the beginning of the year, they're really beefing up cyber security staff uh and all the uh technical staff that revolves around IT.

Uh so yes, they did have vacancies like a lot of uh entities did.

I know for a fact because we met with them on uh next year's budget that they've basically filled most of these, or they have they're in the process of filling these.

So uh IT should be just about fully staffed, if not 100% staffed starting next year.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then uh you're looking at over $2 million in polite savings under the division of police due to lower telephone exchange billing.

Um two million for telephone exchange billing seems high in the first place, and certainly uh a large savings amount there seems to indicate something was different for the telephone exchange.

So could you share a little bit about what's happening there through the chair?

Yeah, through the the chair to the council person.

Uh the telephone exchange who falls under IT department, they went through and did an audit of all the phone lines throughout the city.

Uh what they found out is there are there was a lot of lines that we budgeted for that were open that we you know initially were paying for years ago that were able to close uh a lot of lines.

Uh a lot of the lines too did not belong to police, so we reallocated those.

So the combination of those two.

Telephone exchange and internal service funds would have to balance.

So we take their total expenses and we spread it out across the entire city.

But uh this is just the point where we've over budgeted police for telephone exchange.

Now we're bringing it back down because the number of lines are much less than we initially had budgeted.

Thank you.

And and my understanding of the telephone exchange was that essentially if it's gonna come up as a charge somewhere, it's gonna show up as a uh invoice uh elsewhere in the budget book.

So if we have two million less, uh, where in here is is shown the change in the accounting for what came into the telephone exchange through the chair.

Uh through the chair.

Uh because that's an internal service fund, not a general fund.

I'm not sure that that's in here, the telephone exchange, that side of it.

Uh okay.

But wouldn't that indicate it it essentially the you're saying that well, let me let me narrate my understanding.

My understanding is that telephone exchange numbers, if you were to net out how much is being charged and how much is being received across the entire budget book, it'll net out to zero that were you know essentially all those charges are internal.

But you're saying that it's not internal to this document through the chair.

Through the chair of the council person, I think I understand your question fully now.

So the two million that we took out in savings out of the police got put into the transfer into another spot here to balance this out.

So it didn't go back to the telephone exchange.

It actually that budget in the general fund was shifted to another division to balance this out.

It it got it.

And I'm sorry, where where is that?

Where is that two million represented in here?

Through the chair.

It's I mean, it could be in several places.

It's um this is just basically the general fund.

So when we do our end-of-year projections in um my office, uh we basically we look at, okay, we know that fire got a 15% increase, so we know that they're gonna need 11 million dollars.

So I basically just go through every single division in the general fund and say, how much are they gonna save?

How much are they gonna save?

And that's why it zeroes out at the bottom line.

So it's not just I put two million from here and put it there.

It's like I first take out, I say, okay, fire needs this much, they need this much.

I do everything that needs something, and then I find where I can take it from.

So it's not a direct you know, one for one.

Right.

But I I apologize.

I I feel like I'm sorry.

I no, no, no, I I understand what you're saying, and I am sure that what's happening here is that I do not understand accounting um and that I have something to learn.

But it if in in my mind, like that two million dollars isn't something that we can give to anybody else.

It can't transfer to anywhere because it's it's disappearing from the balance books of the telephone exchange.

So this document shows that overall we have 19.6 million in transfers from and 19.6 million exactly to transfers to.

But if 2 million dollars of the transfers from is actually going to result in a gap in the telephone exchanges accounts receivable, then how I i i i I know I'm over my head on the accounting, so help me understand that gap.

I apologize.

To the chair of the council person, I I think I got your hope.

I got your question.

Yeah.

But uh I I think I believe because uh telephone exchange is in balance that their expenses came in less again because we had less lines.

So I think that may answer questions.

So telephone exchange is not going to be out of balance by the two million because their expenses were lower, so they didn't need the additional revenue that would have came out of that line to go back to the telephone exchange, which is an internal service.

So is the telephone exchange represented here in the um in the transfer ordinance?

Uh through the chair of the council person, no, because uh they were balanced.

There was no money to take out and then to put in because their expenses were lower, we were able to take what police was going to pay them and allocate and allocate or will this allocate their budget to a different line that that needs it.

Okay.

But the telephone exchange, because their expenses were lower, they're still meant they still balance, so they're not in here.

Got it.

I I still there's something about that math that is not quite working for me because if the telephone exchange didn't have as high of expenses.

Essentially, like this two million dollars is only like filling a hole for two million somewhere else in the budget, but here we're transferring it outside of the telephone exchange.

What I'll do is I'll take this offline with Joe Titron.

I'm sure I just need to study up on how accounting works, but if it is an internal transfer, it's a transfer within the telephone exchange, and it's a two million dollar savings.

I wouldn't have expected that we could then have two million dollars cash that we could give to another department because I would have expected us to have a two million dollar hole uh at the telephone exchange, but I will I understand I'm taking up a lot of time, so I will make sure that I understand that with Joe Titrand and for the next council for them to understand when they tackle the budget in the spring.

All right, thank you, Councilwoman.

Councilman Pilesig and then Conwell.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman Honorable Colleagues.

I'm gonna follow up on Councilwoman Moore's line of questioning.

Um the um as you indicated, um it was um and I don't want to quote you exactly, but you've indicated this was because of open lines and lines not being utilized.

Through the chair of the councilperson that are we just overestimated in telephone exchange how many lines we had.

Yes, yes.

Okay, combination of all that.

Okay, well then again, I want to just say this.

Are you looking at other departments and divisions for the same thing?

We went through telephone exchange, the reason our expenses are down is because we do not have as many phone lines as we've budgeted for anticipated.

So you're seeing that please because they have a lot of lines.

Yes, they do.

So but I hope you're again, I want to just say this, Mr.

Chairman, uh, to you folks, that I hope you're looking at each department and division or utilizing a telephone exchange as to potential savings.

Yeah, through the chair, definitely, because a lot of these hit the general funds, so we're definitely looking to save all the money we can.

So I want to uh touch on page two um division of urban forestry.

We just had the director here a moment ago on ordinance 1461-25 going out needing an outside contract.

And here we are with savings due to vacancies, $875,000.

Savings due to decrease in interdepartmental charges under $500,000.

Um again.

It's my last comment was to her, if you recall, you were sitting in the room.

Do we have enough staff people?

And it's clear that we don't have enough staff people.

Just based on this dollar amount.

So I would again, I'm going to stress to the administration.

You got to get a handle on urban forestry.

You're giving back $875,000 that you are moving it because due to vacancies, but we just had an ordinance here before it's going for to go out for a contract for tree trimming.

And tree maintenance.

You can't have it both ways.

Through the Chair of the Councilperson, these these vacancies will remain in there, and she is working diligently to fill those vacancies that they have.

But they will be a loss of the question.

But Jim, the point I am making, if we staff, if we have the proper staff, maybe we don't have to go out for requirement contract for tree trimming.

Do you get my point?

Do the chair, absolutely.

Okay.

Yeah, Ms.

Councilwoman mentioned about the 2.1.

Let me go drop down to division of division of fire.

11.5 million.

We were told at uh we were told at the table that with this last class that they were in good shape from a staffing level, but 11.5 is needed for uniform overtime.

And then a 15 percent increase.

I understand that, but I mean, why such a why why we have such a high overtime cost?

Well, we allegedly ramped up.

We were asked by you to fill those positions in fire.

Increase.

Yes, through the chair of the councilperson, the bulk of that 11 million is the retro on the increase of the case.

Okay, well then you're gonna be about a million dollars or a little bit more than a million in overtime.

Okay.

We can get you the bulk of the year.

Give me that figure.

Because that's that's what jumped out at me.

But the bulk of it again, is there retros?

They got a huge increase.

We have to pay them from April 1st.

Okay, then let's go down, let's jump down EMS.

We the council took the initiative and we filled the position, we put the positions in the budget to hire EMS EMTs and paramedics.

So now, again, high overtime due to vacancies.

We took the steps to fill those vacancies.

From where?

Other cities.

Yeah.

Uh to the chair of the councilperson, they have 32 vacant vacancies currently.

They are in the process of getting 25 lateral transfers from other entities.

So they they should close this loop again.

This is for overtime because they are short staff.

I understand that you budgeted for them to bring it in.

So they should make a big debt in their vacancies right now was 32.

They're supposed to be bringing it 20, they're in the process of bringing 25 additional EMTs.

Okay, because then, Mr.

Chairman, there must have been some bunch of folks retire because that was not the number that I had that the commissioner gave me.

So again, I make the request through you folks.

I want to know how many people left have left since the first of the year in EMS.

Okay.

And the actual number of vacancies in EMS.

Because the uh the council president and I spoke about making sure at the request of the Commissioner, no less, to fill those positions, to put those positions in the budget.

We did that.

So I want to make sure that they are filled.

And so um let me see my other question here.

Again, I'll I guess I'll sum it up in general.

Uh one department after another, savings due to vacancy, savings due to vacancy, savings due to vacancies.

I could go all all the way down here, and some cases some very critical departments as it retains to the delivery of basic city services.

So again, Mr.

Chairman, uh, to the administration going into next year.

On critical departments, especially departments where there is revenue collection, you have got to make sure those positions are filled.

I don't know what more we can say here.

The Chair of the Councilperson, I think HR and civil servants made some strides this year.

I think we have less vacancies heading into next year than we had.

Now that we have closed it, we have about 100 less vacancies going into the new year, but we still have a lot of vacancies to fill.

Again, we will present a mayor's estimate that has all those heads, head counts still in there.

But they have closed about a hundred net gain in the city employees in the general fund this year.

Well, I think again, when we budget and we allocate the funds to fill vacancies, and you don't fill the vacancies, then the question is do you really want to fill them?

That's the question that I ask myself constantly here.

Do the chair of the councilperson, I can definitely tell you the commissioners and directors of those divisions departments want to fill those positions.

Okay.

Let's hope that's the case.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, thank you, Councilman Kevin Connwood.

Thank you very much.

To uh Mr.

Gentile, how much is our cost of labor for the whole budget?

Was it like 81%, 80%, 81%, something like that?

The total cost of labor budget.

To the chair of the councilperson, it's around approximately around 70 percent.

70 percent.

So let me ask you this.

Another question is burning in me.

When you do the fund transfers, sometime you get bills in it might be in arrears.

What do you do with uh with those bills?

Might come in.

To the chair of the councilperson, the OBM goes out and projects what each department's going to need before we present this transfer.

So they contact the budget analyst talk to each department division where they have savings, and they talk to them and say, Do you have anything that's coming?

etc.

So before we take money out of their budgets through this process, there's a conversation with these divisions to make sure they're not gonna need it after we know come to council and pass, you know, get a piece passed.

Uh so you have some bunch of communication down the stretch before this is put together and brought the council.

So I see each department have an accounting system in there, and the accounting system flows to the other ones when you do fund transfer.

To the uh chair of the council person, they're always the same accounting system, but they have their own fiscal people.

So like they have budget analysts throughout the the city and all these different departments, division or their fiscal person.

So that's who OBM talks with and says, you know, what are you gonna spend between now and your end?

And then when we see that we have savings and we need to you know move it out of there to somewhere else, that that's when they put that's when the OBM department puts this document together.

Now you start working on your um on this form and through the chair, let's say in the in the third quarter, you think, around September?

Because you kind of know which direction it's going in.

Uh through the chair, we start working on this at the beginning of November.

In the beginning of the Yeah, we use our um October monthly analysis to uh do the transfer and supplemental.

Right.

So with labor, with the cost of labor being 70 percent, so I could come in line.

Let's say if I only need um 20 people, do you think uh a department would say 25 or 27 people that way you have some contingency funds with um with your dollars?

And then if and if and if I hit my mark and I have dollars left over, labor labor dollars, then I can transfer it out and I won't look bad when it comes down to controlling cost.

Do you think that to the chair of the councilperson?

Um we take a look at their historic trends, and if they continue to have vacancies over a long period, we will reduce their head count.

Um, we've we've actually reduced it probably a few hundred over the last several years.

Um to a point now where we want to fill the vacancies that we have.

If we keep looking at these for year after year after year in the same divisions and departments, right?

You know, then we will take a look at that.

You can't kind of pad your budget anywhere.

Uh OBM is all over the place.

Yes, exactly.

Because OBM looks at that, and no, we don't we don't really we don't allow that.

You have to need those expenses.

So do you charge them to the chair for attrition also?

So when you lose workers and all of that, do the chair to the chair of the councilperson, they're allowed to backfill anyone that it treats because they already have the head count and the budget approved through council.

So if somebody retires or just leaves city employment, they're allowed to backfill that position.

So like uh position like amount, like dollar amount.

I was just getting trying to get trying to figure some things out because I know that when um council member Mike Polinsic and I, we have seen time and time and time again, and you know, Councilmember Mike Palency that we always it's staffing and staffing and and with your cost of labor, you can um do without you know I don't want to cast the blame on anyone, but you know what I'm saying.

Do the chair to the councilperson, yes.

Because I don't know, I'm just asking.

I don't want the directors to be mad at me, walk around here, but I'm asking the question because I know how to look for it.

So I just asked the question, and that's all.

Thank you very much.

But I'm not blaming, I'm not casting the blame if I don't know.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Seeing no other questions, ordinance number 1510-2025 stands approved.

Please sign on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I'm now going there and I'll read this into the record.

Uh and our first guest that we're going to hear from regarding this will be former mayor, former senator, former Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

This would be ordinance number 1325-2025 as amended by Mayor Bibb and emergency ordinance authorizing the mayor and the directors of law, parks, and recreation, port control, and/or the Office of Capital Projects as appropriate to enter into one or more agreements and or amendments to the lease by way of concession with the Browns or their designees to effectuate the terms and conditions in the settlement terms regarding the relocation of the Cleveland Browns to the City of Brook Park and the demolition of Huntington Bank Field, determining the method of making the public improvement of designing and performing demolition and site preparation of such sports facility and other structures and designing the construction, various lakefront improvements, authorizing other professional service contracts, accepting gifts and grants, and establishing the community benefits project and the lakefront development subfunds.

And former mayor, former Senator, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, please join us at the table for your prepared remarks.

Yes, please sit down and have a seat and address it today.

Thanks, Mr.

Kelly.

Good to see you, sir.

Please proceed.

And then council members may have a couple of questions.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

So, Honorable Members of City Council, I have a great deal of sympathy for the position that many of you find yourself in a matter of the city's agreement with the Browns ownership, because this council has been largely kept in the dark for the better part of three years.

Well, the administration met secretly with Brown's officials and then proceeded to deceive the council, cleavanters and the media about their true intention, which always has been to let the Browns leave Cleveland without a fight, pretending there was nothing they could do about it, pretending they had no other choice but to let the team go, pretending that this deal before you is the best they could do, even pretending that it's actually worth 100 million dollars.

It's all in the service of what I believe has been a hidden agenda.

When council cannot get information, when the administration continually ignores open records requests and taxpayer demands, opting for secrecy instead of transparency, and now comes before you joining hands with the Browns owners over two Cokes, the taxpayers should hold on to their wallets.

What you have before you, I believe, is a fraud upon the city.

The administration wants to drop their lawsuit, which was a wet noodle of legal action.

The Browns openly violated a lease written to protect taxpayers and fans against owners, against owners who want to pick up and leave.

But the administration will not enforce the lease.

This is a benefit of the Browns owners.

The Browns were not permitted to discuss moving throughout the term of the lease, which ends in 2029.

The city will lose 30 million a year in economic benefits from the Browns playing downtown and another 11 million in tax revenue for a total of 41 million dollars a year lost.

Since the violations go back to 2024, the city could claim five years of damages.

That lawsuit is worth over 200 million dollars.

But the city does not want to pursue it.

This to the benefit of the Browns owners.

C once a drop the lawsuit, even though council passed ordinance 391-24, which required the law department to make every effort to keep the Browns in Cleveland.

This to the benefit of the Browns owners.

I wrote the model law.

So the city would not have to go through the trauma of losing the team again.

And the law gave the city the right to buy the team.

The city has not claimed that right, nor is it tried to organize local investors.

This to the benefit of the Browns owners.

The city wants to demolish a stadium, which is 26 years old.

That stadium has real value.

It would cost at least a billion dollars to rebuild what we already have.

The city wants to pretend it's worth nothing.

No appraisal has been done.

Instead, you're being told take 30 million now, or the city will have to pay later to tear it down.

This simple-minded type of deduction is a typical swindle.

Conjure only one scenario, an empty stadium, and don't permit discussions of alternatives.

The proposed demolition of Cleveland's Lakefront Stadium waste nearly $600 million in prior taxpayer investment and eliminates, in my estimation, nearly $1 billion in potential economic and tax revenue.

Replacing a functional structure with a speculative promise is not redevelopment.

That stadium has at least 24 good years left.

No responsible fiduciary would write off such an asset, especially not when renovation is less costly and a revenue stream can be strengthened.

If there was a determination to serve Cleveland taxpayers instead of serving the Browns owners, the Browns want an extension of the lease they broke.

I propose, Mr.

Chairman, charging the owners a hundred million dollars rent through 2031.

They broke the lease, charge them that for rent.

That would immediately add another $500 million to the taxpayer side of the ledger.

I mean, who in the world's been doing the go the negotiating for the city?

You want, you know, you want projects for your wards.

A hundred million dollars, look, you get 100 million dollars for every ward if you know how to negotiate this.

The Browns should pay hundreds of millions just for the lease violation alone.

And even if you don't care about football, even if you want the Browns to move, don't give away the store to a billionaire renter.

Take a stand, fight back.

This deal was cooked up by people who don't care about football, don't care about the Browns in the city, don't understand the lease, don't understand the modella, and don't want to protect the taxpayers' interests, but oh how they want to develop the lake front.

They want to develop the lakefront so much, they forgot to appraise the value of the land.

Check for yourself.

You do your own calculations.

Lakefront land is we took at least worth a million dollars an acre.

50 acres at the stadium front, 450 acres at Burke Lakefront.

What great plans, what great vision they have, all built from the myth that people don't have access to the lakefront.

Um, the administration should stop telling people they don't have access to the lakefront because there's a dozen places along the lakefront, from one from Mr.

Polencick's ward all the way to Edgewater, that people have access to.

The only people who think there's no public access to the lakefront are those who've never been to Cleveland's Lakefront.

Now, what's the alternative, Mr.

Chairman, as I complete this?

Members of council, the alternative is this.

Reject this legislation.

Demand that the administration fight to keep the Browns.

Make the owners pay more.

Enforce the lease, enforce the city's rights under the Model Law, keep the stadium where it's at, put forth the plan, which was countenanced when I put the Modell Law forward, put forth a plan to buy the team through public subscription.

Green Bay, Wisconsin has over 500,000 owners.

Now I'd be happy to work with council and work with each one of you to show how this can happen.

And I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to make this presentation, and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that members have.

Thank you, Mr.

Cusini.

We have a couple of people that would like to ask questions, and I think uh Councilman Richard Starr wants to start out by asking any questions.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, to the former mayor.

From your standpoint of the overview that you have with just different tax um dollars that you mentioned, programs, plans, and just from your experience, um, you read a lot and gave out a lot of different information, a lot of different variables, and to the viewing public, because some people don't know the history and some people don't understand what we are dealing with through the chair.

I will ask, could you break down just some credibility that you have when you're saying this stuff because others will play the devil's advocate and say on what's your stance or something when you were the mayor and they said the city went broke when you were the mayor?

So do finances today through the chair, can you explain a little bit more about your history as the mayor and that point just to do that?

Thank you very much.

Coming out to the chair.

Thank you very much, Councilman Starr.

Uh some of you at this table may not even been born when uh December 15, 1978 came around.

Uh I was mayor of Cleveland then, youngest mayor of any city in the country, and I was faced with a decision.

Cleveland Trust Bank and the Cleveland Electrical Lunami Company demanded that I sell Cleveland's municipal electric system.

And uh what they did, they they we had a lawsuit that was involved, and they wanted the city to extinguish the lawsuit.

They wanted to us to sell the system for a fraction of what it was worth, okay.

And they gave us a deadline.

I mean, you know, this rhymes with a lot of things that I'm seeing here.

I don't I don't necessarily see the future in terms of the past.

But this was the city was put into default by Cleveland Trust Bank because I refused to sell a municipal electric system.

And I wrote a book about it that expels it out in great detail.

But here's my concern.

That this based on my experience, hard fought experience, I didn't knuckle under.

I didn't cave in to the banks.

That's Cleveland Public Power is here today because of that.

And I and you know, just not me.

I mean, I took a snap at that people back me up.

This is too important a decision for this council to be stamped into a uh into a hasty decision that you may regret later.

What is the hurry?

Think about this.

What's a hurry that they're dangling 25 million dollars over your head, take it now or what?

And and thank you uh to the chair.

Um thank you, mayor, for that.

Uh also I would definitely ask from the standpoint of the lens of this deal in the negotiation.

As a person who served as mayor, how would you have negotiated this deal in favor for them to stay?

What pointers can't you explain?

I know you brought up different di values and dollars.

What is a different stance when negotiating this?

Well, let me just say this.

To the chair.

That um every mayor has a different approach.

Mine was a little bit hard-nosed, people might say.

But see, you're in charge here.

The council is a coequal branch of government.

Now the Browns seem to have just discovered that lately as they want to talk to various members.

But under the we're this charter is under the federal plan of the government.

You have just as much power as any state legislature or the Congress.

Only if you exercise it, though.

And and this is where council's importance come in.

Because you're the ones who actually speak for the people in the neighborhoods.

I didn't leave town as some people did after they were mayor.

I'm still living off 117th Street.

In the same house that I bought in 1971.

You know, I know about the neighborhoods.

I understand why you're in council.

That's the motive that brought me here.

A real love of community and a commitment.

And a commitment first to the people.

These other interest groups, happy to talk to them.

But if they want something that doesn't belong to them, you don't give it to them.

So through that through that standpoint, uh, within this hundred million dollar agreement that was um a deal that was agreed on between the administration as well as the attorneys, you're saying that given the fact that they made an agreement to um in terminate the lawsuit and accept the 100 million dollar deal to your standpoint from your experience to the chair.

If we, as counsel uh decide not to pass this legislation, I guess it's coming tonight, right?

Is it come to the table tonight, Floor?

We're discussing it now, and it will potentially go to the floor tonight, yes.

Okay, and I know that when it first was brought to us, we said we wasn't going to rush it, but within the last three two weeks we had about five or six committees, four meetings about it.

So I guess we are rushing it.

So through that standpoint, through your lens, um, if we vote to not pass this, where do we go if you were the mayor?

What does what's the next step?

What you do is you go back to the drawing board with counsel at the table.

You have the power to really redirect the future of this city away from a deal that was cut privately.

You know, in law, there's a I'm not an attorney, I just play one on TV, okay?

In law, there is a concept known as ultra virus.

The mayor met privately with the owner of the Browns, as we've all read, and made a private deal.

That's not legal, frankly.

He couldn't do that without council being part of it.

This council has real power here.

And you're not, you're not, you know, that rubber stamp that's next door, that's not about the council.

That was an uh a sculpt.

I know my that was a sculptor's idea of a joke.

And thank you to the chair, and I know my time is starting to wrap up.

Um, I definitely understand your frustration.

I have some frustration as well.

And sometimes when you go to a fight, you need all parties involved.

And sometimes going to a fight when it's just 50 percent, it makes you look weak at times.

So I do understand where you're coming from, your experience, uh, your wealth of knowledge that you brought today.

And also I just asked to my colleagues, this is a very important decision.

Um, like like many said, you said you was young when you became the mayor.

You said you was young when you became the mayor.

Some things you stood on, some things you fought for, some things you want.

Some battles you you came out even on top of time.

But at the same time, a loss is not a loss.

But what you gotta understand is the decisions that we decide to make today is going to have rather positive or negative effect on the future of the city of Cleveland.

And I'm quite frankly, I don't know where I'm at where I stand today as a as a vote, because this is something that is very important.

Like you said, everybody can tell you how to negotiate, everybody continue the contracts, but some other people ain't even studied this type of stuff.

They just go off of what someone else has told them, and then what they receive, and then actually know we get something put forth us.

Now I've been able to um study sports management um through my undergrad years at Border Wallace, where you know the Browns is right there.

Um and also being able to work and get to understanding what stadium contracts look like.

I do believe that there's more that we're leaving on the table, but sometimes when you're not in leadership, you gotta play your role and understand.

But it's something that is very important that I just don't want to see is the decision we make today is going to have people coming back 30 years from now saying, well, I was the only one who didn't vote, or I was the one who said this was gonna happen, and then our city is still left on the hook.

So there's a lot of things that go into vision when you're talking about a lake front, when you talk about 500 million dollars, when you talk about the overall terms and agreement where you see it is 25 million the minute we pass it, then you see another 30 million set aside for a demolition of a stadium with which I believe inflation is going to take effect.

Then you talk about 20 million over the next 10 years.

And I said it's all sound good and dandy, but what about the residents in our neighborhoods?

How much of that money is going to really make an impact?

Are we talking about a couple dollars or are we talking about no impact?

And then you talk about how it's written, it is written stating that the the Browns will determine how the funds are distributed.

It continues to exclude council.

So when I talk to my when I'm saying now, and I ain't saying talk to my colleagues because I haven't talked to anyone, and no one has really talked to me about this, but at the end of the day, I just want everyone to know is um I don't plan to be here uh for 30 years or 40 years, but I know the decisions of my vote today is going to affect whatever council that is in place and what they may have to deal with.

And you never know.

Some teams in the NFL have left their cities, and then those teams are calling and crying back to go back to their cities after they've done some of this thing.

So I I'm up in the air, and I thought we were going to slow process this, but I guess this is something that we need to get through with this council session.

So I'm here to learn and go through report.

And I yield, Chair.

Well, I want to thank you, uh, Councilman Starr.

Um, Mr.

Chairman, Councilman Star brings up a good point.

Uh there's a lot of pressure being put on council right now, and I understand that kind of pressure.

Go back to December 15, 1978.

I I was told either either sell Muni Light or the bank was gonna put the city to fault.

Now it's just a young mayor.

But I had to look into the future and see what was gonna benefit the people of Cleveland.

And the fact that that light system is still there, that has saved hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars for the city and for the taxpayers.

Now you're called upon, if you vote on this tonight, and I assume you will, to look into the future and see where the benefit is.

And you know, I just have to say this.

Isn't it interesting that the owners of the Browns are willing to give almost a quarter of a billion dollars to a single player?

But they look at at the city of Cleveland.

Oh, we'll give you, we'll call it 100 million, but not really that.

I mean, there's something so wrong about this whole thing.

It's so wrong.

I'm driving down here.

I see people at the at the at the freeway edge on the west side, begging for food, begging for money to stay warm.

What's happening here?

We gotta think about the city, not about this, the Browns owners.

I love the Browns.

I want to see them stay here.

Of course, that's my position.

But you know what?

Thank you for asking those questions.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Deborah Gray.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I just want to uh make a comment as well as um Colleen Costusman Starr.

I am also um I am also very closer to the mic than came.

Okay, I am close.

He said he couldn't hear it.

Okay, you couldn't hear.

Okay, sorry.

I am also uh very uh complex about this whole Browns deal myself.

Uh I also have not made a decision, but to say the least, yesterday, I read and read and read a lot of history about um the Browns' history about uh the stadium.

I read about the deals that had been made over time.

I am a true Browns fan, but I have not um understood this whole agreement lease contract deal as so far.

So I just have a question to uh you um former mayor.

When the Mondell law was created by you, um was that 1999, when was that?

I mean the Mondell law was created.

Go ahead.

Modell law.

The Modell Law was created when was that?

Okay, when was the Mondell law created?

Modell.

Modell law.

If you could just do the chairs, she wants to know when the Modell Law was created.

Okay.

Uh it was it was uh created, uh I was a state senator, I put it, I was able to, I wrote the law and got it in the General Assembly's uh uh budget.

It was for uh uh it was passed in 1996, it became law in June of 1996.

That and and that, and by the way, the this the Browns owners, no matter what anybody says, because the people of Cleveland have invested nearly 600 million dollars in this team with the construction of stadium and repairs, the city has a vested interest.

Again, I'm not an attorney, but the contracts clause of the U.S.

Constitution says that an act of the legislature and amending the Modell law cannot take away the city's interest.

And so that that law was passed in 96, was amended uh this year, but I will say that that amendment, it's my opinion, and you know I I have to uh say as a disclaimer here, I have two lawsuits in on these questions, okay?

And in common please court, where you know it's gonna be up for the court to decide uh these issues.

But but I've that's my position, and that's when it passed.

Okay, when it passed then and during the time when that passed, and uh no, I read in 2012, uh Haslan bought the Browns and the Browns Stadium in 2012 for one billion dollars from the Sun Learner uh uh in 2012.

I I remember that because matter of fact, I worked for his father when his father ran the credit card company out in Chagrin, and I met them then.

And when his father passed, that's when the son made the deal with Hassan to buy the Browns per se.

So saying that during all that time from 2012 up to now, has Haslan ever hasn't ever thought about overseeing the Mondell law other than you know, then about him going to the state to uh you know, the state to oversee the Mondell law saying that, uh saying that he now has the right to do what he's doing now when he did buy the Browns, the Browns name in the state in 2012.

Has he ever came to council during that time saying that he's going to oversee that particular law during that time to up to now since he wanted to move this stadium to the city?

This is such an important question, members of uh council.

The councilwoman asked him such an important question.

Let me explain why it's so important because I apologize.

Because when the Hazms bought the Browns.

You're right, they bought them for a billion, a billion dollars.

Now that team, according to Forbes magazine, is worth 6.4 billion dollars.

Okay.

The law that the Modell law became an issue in Columbus, Ohio, when there was an attempt to move the Columbus crew out of Columbus, out of state.

A Franklin County judge basically said it wasn't up to him to overturn an act of the legislature when a request was made for him to nullify the Modell Law.

During that period, someone bought, someone bought the the crew team.

They used the Modell Laws to buy the Columbus crew.

Does anyone here know who bought the Columbus crew?

Right, Haslan bought it.

He knows the law.

He knew it when he bought when he bought the um uh Browns, and he knew it when he bought the crew, and they just don't want to talk about it now, and why?

Because the NFL, this is much bigger than Cleveland.

The NFL just goes crazy with the thought of a city owning the team.

They grandfathered in.

Green Bay.

The NFL was in Columbus lobbying members of the state legislature for the $600 million to build a stadium outside the city.

Now let me tell you something.

I think the city has a case against the NFL.

Because when you look at the initial agreement, the NFL gave the city an ironclad agreement to keep in Cleveland.

So not, I mean, what we're giving up here, if we if this is passed, is an ability to really play at the highest level that any city council could possibly play.

And just because someone has a lot of zeros to the right of their uh bank account doesn't give them the right to make decisions for the the plain, the simple, the humble, and the working people of the city.

It just doesn't give them the right to do that.

And so I you're raising that question, is is so important because and there's one other point I want to make, Mr.

Chairman, based on what the councilwoman said.

Did you know why there's such a push to build another stadium?

Because the owners of the team will put the value of a new stadium, no matter who pays for it, no matter where that money came from, they'll put it into the into the underlying value of their team.

So if the Browns were able to shaft Cleveland, go to another place, build a three billion dollar stadium or development, they could add that and their team would be worth 9.6 billion.

This is why this decision about by the council is so critical.

If the city was able to buy the team, you get the advantage of the appreciated value, and people say, well, that can't happen.

Oh, yes, it can.

But it's gonna it would take a, you know, it's gonna take a hellacious legal fight, and council ought to be hiring its own attorneys to do it so that you have some leverage here.

You have leverage that goes beyond what any council has had in recent memory.

And you have real power here.

And and the whole the whole country's watching this, and the NFL's watching it carefully.

They are scared to death of this model law because if it's enforced, they lose the power, and they're they're they're vulnerable to an antitrust investigation.

Think about it.

Antitrust, if you exclude people from participating in a business deal, right?

They want to exclude communities from being able to participate.

So, you know, I'm telling this thing is is so big, and I think uh, and I'd be happy to work with you.

Look, I didn't come here to criticize you know, I disagree with the mayor for sure, but but I'm not here to to rip him up.

This is a this is a proposal that requires careful consideration.

And if I was sitting on where you're sitting and and had limited access to the information that you've been spoon-fed lately and have been denied for three years, I I don't think I could vote for it.

Uh, even if I wanted to.

I don't think I could vote for it.

So just give me some more information.

So that, you know, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

I have Councilman Pelusi.

Oh, I'm sorry, one more councilman.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, just say the least.

I um me reading so much chair to um the uh former mayor.

I read so much last night over and over and over again.

I know cities have to move forward.

I know cities have to build a brand new different type of infrastructure as well.

Uh it's unfortunate that uh the Brown Stadium and the Berkeley Airport was chosen for the lakefront.

That was the only space that was seen to be recognized to build the lakefront and back rock.

I get all that.

That's for the future of the city.

And I understand that.

Cities has to grow.

Even when I travel to other cities, the first place I go is downtown.

I'm seeing what downtown look like.

Beautiful.

Yes, we build out our city because everyone goes downtown first, and any anywhere you travel, everybody go downtown to see what their downtown looks like.

When you go into the communities and you hang out in the communities, you're hanging out in communities because your family and friends taking to you, you know, taking taking you to Pacific restaurants or places that they are aware of, so you can see what their neighborhoods look like.

But downtown and every city downtown has to be built out, invested in so it can grow, and that and eventually that um eventually that type of infrastructure does come into the neighborhoods, but it takes time.

But right now, we I feel that we dealing with a simply so I don't see the amount of money that has been accepted.

It's not enough for the city, for the fans, and for us to reinvest in our community.

We're giving up a team that we've been loving for many, many years.

You know, he was the cardiac kid.

After him, was that coza was a cardiac kid.

I remember the stadium when I went to the dog pound, it was $10 in the cold.

You froze your butt off for the Browns.

So I know we can't hold on to history.

We can't hold on to that.

And as my colleague Harrison said last week, yes, we have to make a decision of growing, investing, negotiating, and seeing what other things that we can do for our city.

But we are the council.

We are powerful, and I don't see that amount of money can pay us off to move forward to let to let this deal go through at the end of the day.

I'm just saying to my president council.

We gotta find some type of amendments, some type of negotiation to bring it back to our neighborhoods.

I know we have to push forward, change downtown.

I'm not against the lake front because when I go to cities, I hang downtown.

I love it, and we all do.

I see the effects of other cities have grown, and they're beautiful, and I know what our mayor is looking to do.

I'm not against that either.

But I'm at the age to understand that this is not this is not financial uh deal that's going to benefit the city and the fans who are fighting and listen, and my and and I talk to the constituents and my area.

They understand too, but they said this is all we get.

Even if we stay at home watching the game, is this all we get?

Because they're not going to Brook Park, they can't afford it.

So I'm just saying this.

I understand it both ways, but it's not a good feeling about uh about this deal.

I I I think we're rushing it as I agree with my colleague.

It's only four, we have four uh this discussions.

I have not seen any agreement, any contract, any lease or anything myself as a counsel.

I've read everything out on the internet.

I have read what was sent to us, but I am I'm also a small business owner.

I run my business for 17 years, and I traveled the city and I travel abroad.

So I understand about dealing and willing and selling and you know, selling.

I get it on a smaller level, but I know for a fact that's something else that needs to be offered to the fans, at least to the uh citizens of the city of Cleveland, that we should have our council president.

I believe that he should have been at that table in that room, understanding the process of this agreement, whereas he could have came back and talked to the council about it, and we would have had a better idea of moving forward on this on this uh uh ordinance today, but he didn't have the opportunity even to be in that room as well.

So I'm just saying, as a council as a whole, this is going until my second term, and I'm more wiser than I was four years ago.

Oh no.

At the end of the day, at the end of the day, listen, I'm just gonna just just end it on there, Council President, because there's some uh some some shenanigans going on here, okay?

So I'm just gonna end it like that, Councilman.

And you bring up some very good points, councilwoman, and I will tell you that um there are some amendments that are going to be put forth.

Um there has been uh tremendous amount of discussion about priorities that have been taking place, and those are things that we'll hear about when administration comes up.

I wanted to give Councilman or the Congressman Kucinich.

I do have two more people that have questions.

If I could, let me let them ask their questions, and then you could respond to both.

So then that way we could um try to make sure that we were yours.

I got Palency and then Casey.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chairman, my honorable colleagues.

Um to see uh former mayor and former colleague at the table.

Um to my colleagues who are here, so there's no confusion.

December 15, 1978 was strictly a political decision.

I was here.

I know what I was told.

Um that the council had to agree to the sale of Cleveland public power, if not uh the short-term notes, I believe it was 15 million, 12 or 15 million would not be rolled over.

So I was here.

It was bad.

I I was here, I know what I was told.

So there's no confusion, it's been documented.

The fault was a political decision, political decision.

It's a documented.

So there is um let's get we can get beyond that.

Um because we would not agree, the majority council would not agree as well to the sale of clean public power, and I was one of those people.

Um so let's get into the issue with the Cleveland Browns.

Um I want to go back to your comment about the um what's the hurry?

Uh why do you maintain that position that there was no hurry here?

We have plenty of time to deal with this issue.

Would you touch on that?

And you're speaking about the term sheet and 1325-25.

Right.

Yeah.

Um council didn't set that deadline.

Council has had nothing to do with putting this together.

Now you may amend it, but I would respectfully submit that if you amend it within the parameters of a hundred million dollar quote deal that's not a hundred million dollars, and and you pass it, you don't uh you lose all the leverage that you have.

Your your leverage, and you know, the Councilman Starr raised the question before about negotiations.

Your leverage is being part of the negotiations.

That's where you have real leverage.

That's where council has an ability to be able to redirect this, and you won't you, you know, and you want to talk about you could still keep a team here and direct benefits to the neighborhoods if if the city actually owned the team, it'd be a moneymaker.

Uh these billionaires don't buy football teams because they're losing money.

They're making a ton of money.

Think of the value increase in the Browns, from one billion to 6.4 billion.

They're making money out of that.

Now, your job is not to make money for a team, it's to make economic progress for a community.

So what I'm saying is that this is a false deadline, that there is the what they're doing, they're dangling 25 million, and they basically are saying, gotta do this now.

And I say, or what?

What are you gonna do?

They can't move that stadium, they can't tear it down.

They're stuck there through at least 2031, and probably a lot longer.

And that's why I say increase the rent.

They broke the lease, increase the rent.

They want us to put two more years on a lease, even if that part of the lease was enforced with respect to the rent, charge them 100 million a year.

You want to start to see the money start to mount.

And you could tag that for distributing it to the neighborhood.

I mean, there's so many different possibilities here, except for one thing.

If you if you if you bind yourself to an agreement right now, and you're rushed to vote on this, you lose all your leverage.

Every every idea that you have in this council, and each one of you brings something to the table based on your experience.

You just give it all up.

For what?

For who?

I mean, you know, no one died and left the Browns owners, God, okay.

Their word doesn't go.

Their word doesn't, isn't more important than a single vote in City Council.

Should not be.

Mr.

Chairman, to the um Mr.

Kucinich.

Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Balancick.

Okay.

Um the lawsuits, and I've read the terms.

I've read them as nauseum.

Um the lawsuits that we have pending, you believe there's merit to the three lawsuits that we have pending, the city has pending.

If there was a willingness to fight, yeah, but I mean, if you look at the lawsuit, the way it was structured, there was a lot of back and forth discussions, but there was no real effort to put the Browns to the wall.

You know, instead, it's like playing a game of patty cake through a court.

Read the cases yourself.

See how many conferences they had.

They want to go back and forth and discuss things.

There was very few filings that put and put the put the Browns on the spot and think of it this way.

If the city really wanted to put the Browns on the spot, why would they come before you with an agreement that extinguishes a lawsuit?

Why would they do that?

It doesn't make sense.

This is a deal that was cooked up without the council, without your input, and as a result, it's a bad deal.

And they need, and you need time.

You know, to be you should be bringing in, and you have access, Mr.

Chairman, you have access to bring in, apart from the City Law Department representing you on this, to get your own attorneys, your own accountants, your own appraisers, and really find out value here.

Get people experts.

Find out what's happening in other cities when they've been held up by, you know, at by team owners.

I mean, this is this is a time to do it.

There's no Russia.

They can't move for six years or more.

So what's a hurry today?

It's they want to get the deal to put it out of the way, at whose expense?

At whose expense, at the expense of your constituents, at the expense of people in my neighborhood where I live.

Again, I served in this council.

I served three different areas of the city.

And the reason and and and having been in council, it's what gave me the knowledge to go forward in politics.

Being a councilman is what enabled me to be clerk of courts.

Being a councilman is what enabled me to be mayor, enabled me to be a state center, enabling me to be a United States representative.

I couldn't have done any of that unless I understood how it worked in Council.

This is probably the most important job in politics that you have.

I mean, I really, and that's why I'm here.

I really I respect the work that you do.

And that's why I'm appealing to you.

Don't be rushed into a decision that uh that will not work out for the people.

And if your motivation, as I know it is, to take care of the ward, you you are in a position where you have maximum leverage right now.

If you vote with this, you give it all away.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, um, you know, again, I've read the term sheet.

Um and so um and I'm waiting to hear what the amendments are today.

But you know, the if we agree to the and again, I I don't feel rushed at all.

I don't feel rushed at all.

And I will tell you, no one has lobbied me.

No one has lobbied me, both inside on, and I have spoken to Jimmy Haslin twice.

Didn't lobby me, stated his position, et cetera, et cetera.

And I appreciate that.

It was a core it was a very frank but cordial discussion we had.

Um but when we if we agree to the term sheet, this if we agree to the term sheet, if we pass that, the stadium is gone.

The stadium has to be demolished, which I am not convinced, as I stated publicly at the stadium.

I have not seen an independent report nor study on the on the condition of the stadium.

I have not seen that.

I don't believe the council has seen that, or has been presented to us.

The uh fact of the matter is that they will also have input into the uh community benefits.

Now that I find extremely objectionable, that they would have input and have a say so on how 20 million dollars is spent in our neighborhoods over a 10-year period, over a 10-year period.

If they were coming up with the 100 million now, now, and the stadium, it would be up to us in this body to determine whether or not the stadium would come down.

I would find it more flexible.

What I do find interesting as well, and I've indicated this to the council president, approximately two years ago, I was told by an insider that the deal would be a hundred million.

This is two years ago.

And I said at that time, you can't, that can't figure can't be right.

How why would we settle only for 100 million dollars?

And here we are today with 100 million, the same dollar amount I was told two years ago.

That's what they were going to give us a hundred million dollars from an insider.

So at the end of the day, I'm looking at the provisions.

I'm looking at the agreement.

That's what I'm looking at.

I'm looking, does it make sense?

My role here, our role is here is to look out for our taxpayers, look out for the people of the City of Cleveland.

That's my role.

And I'm trying to understand, and I'm trying to make, I think the council president, sorry, we're trying to make uh lemonade out of some bad lemons that have been served of us at the last minute.

And it's fine, I find it uh increasingly concerning to me that we're we're dealing we're dealing with uh projects all the time at the 11th hour.

Not the 1155 hour.

That's what we're dealing with constantly here at the body, which to me is not the way to do business.

So the other thing I find troubling, Mr.

Chairman of my honorable colleagues, is that in the whole course of this discussion, never once did our attorneys appear at this table from Jones Day.

Never once.

The people who were allegedly representing us never were here at the table where we can engage them, where we could talk to them, never never engaged.

We were never engaged with supposedly the folks that were representing us in the negotiation.

So, Mr.

Chairman, as I've indicated to you when I indicated publicly, unless there is substantial change to the agreement to the term sheet, I can cannot in good faith support it.

Um I couldn't even hold my nose and vote for this.

I couldn't hold my nose and vote for this, the way this has been laid out to all the money has to go to the lakefront.

What about our neighborhoods?

What about our neighborhoods?

I mean, I show me one neighborhood.

I can tell you right now without any fear of contradiction, there will not be one dollar of improvement going into St.

Clair Superior, Glenville, Collinwood, Euclid Green.

There will not be a dollar going into those neighborhoods that I have grew up in or that I presently represent or will represent.

Not a dollar out of this deal.

So those are the things that concerns me greatly.

How does this impact our neighborhoods?

Um I am I read it, you know.

I take my time, I do my due diligence.

I looked at what we owe, still owe on the complex.

I still contend that if you add up what we owe on this complex, we still will be in a whole $3.9 million based on just the simple mathematics here.

So again, um unless I hear significant changes today, and I do want to say I appreciate the council president trying to um reach out and um and express the concerns of the council to the Haslan group.

Um I think that's important.

I do agree with you that um we should have gone after the NFL.

We should have gone after the NFL like dogs in heat.

That's what we should have done.

But that didn't take place, and I can't for the life of me figure that one out why that did not be able to do that.

Still could take place.

Still could go at the state.

So I stopped there.

I I again I'm I'm not but the Council President, the Council President knows where I'm at, and I appreciate him and willing to listen to me.

And we have discussed this.

Um again, I will say I would have not been lobbied by anyone.

Um I'm gonna my vote today will reflect my own interpretation and my own understanding of the term sheet.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

And I'm gonna let you make final remarks.

Let me get uh Councilman Casey's questions and close out.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Mr.

Chairman to Congressman Kucinich, thank you very much.

But I just wanted to touch on a couple of uh things that you had mentioned.

Um for this council, not only were we presented something with a take it or leave it, but we were presented something with the take it or leave it.

Oh, and by the way, you you have to do it by this date, um, which was a little insulting because City Council sets our calendar.

The administration doesn't set our calendar, nor does any outside organization or entity set our calendar.

So to be offered this deal and then be given a deadline for it uh is is is a little insulting.

Um but there's something within the model law, um, Mr.

Chairman to to Congressman Kucinich, that people just seem to keep bypassing.

And that's the term tax-supported facility.

Right.

Right within the model law.

Forget that the State changed it to move from city out of the State.

They didn't change the tax-supported facility.

That's right.

That was put in there to protect the individuals and the entities who have been paying for that facility for well over 30 years.

And if the State wanted to come by and change the fact that you can move out of the city, but you can't move out of the state, okay, so be it.

But they didn't change the tax-based facility.

The minute, now we all know that the Haslums understood the model law because they used it in their favor when they bought the Columbus crew.

The minute they purchased the Cleveland Browns and accepted one tax dollar for that stadium, that model law kicked in.

That's right.

Can you touch on the reason behind using the term the tax taxpayer-based uh in order to protect the people who have been investing in that facility for over 30 years?

Thank you very much, uh, Councilman.

Can I answer both then?

Please do.

Um let me take uh respond to Councilman Casey first.

Uh when I wrote when I wrote the that law, uh, I was aware of how much the city had invested, hundreds of millions in the first iteration of the Cleveland Browns uh under Modell.

And I I didn't want the city to go through it again.

This is 95, 96, we those of us who have been around remember how how tough it was.

We lose the team and we're we're sunk.

The team's gone.

So I wrote this saying if we you know once we got the team back, it's never gonna happen again, and what's what's the hook?

Tax supported facility.

In other words, if the taxpayers put money in to a team, they support it, build a stadium, keep it up, that's tax support, then the people have a vested interest.

And I linked that vested interest that if a team decides to move, that vested interest would enable the city to have a position and a right to begin negotiations about the team.

So this idea of a tax supportive facility is very important.

Now, if the Browns hadn't received any money at all, we don't have none of this discussion would mean anything.

But because they took almost $600 million in taxpayers' money, this council has a right to see those provisions enforced, but the administration hasn't done that for whatever reason, they'd have to explain to you.

But I'm I'm suggesting that this moment that we're in has c has consequences.

Because if the if the council were to approve this, let me make a prediction.

This will have an impact on the guardians and on the Cavs, because if there's no way to protect the city's interests, then you can kiss those teams goodbye too.

Don't tell me it can't happen, because you have a vested interest in the Browns.

And if that's not enforced, the vested interest that you have in other professional teams, the Guardians and the Cavs, that can't be that won't be enforced either.

This is really a big moment for Cleveland.

And back to what Councilwoman Gray said about coming downtown and the in and the connection between revenue downtown and revenue in the uh uh neighborhoods.

If that team leaves and that becomes a hole in the ground, Haslums will go after the rocket venue and take things away from rocket arena, anything that's at public hall, they'll take away though though every venue we have downtown will be like a magnet drawing it over to the Haslums and away from the City of Cleveland.

We're talking about a real effect on a local economy here that you have to consider what this will mean for the neighborhoods.

That's why I'm saying this could be, since way back, Councilman Polencick, in 1978.

This is absolutely the most important decision that a city is going to make uh in in the last almost 50 years.

So um uh so councilman um uh Casey, uh your question uh goes very deep in terms of understanding the rights that taxpayers have here and the right that the council has to enforce the taxpayers' rights if the administration won't.

And then finally, with respect to what Mr.

Polentick said in the NFL.

See, when I look at this council collectively, I see I see major league players here.

You have the ability to go toe-to-toe with the NFL.

You understand the basics here.

And frankly, no other city has done what this council is capable of doing.

You could change the way cities respond all over America to these owners who say, you know, our way or the highway.

Uh and and that's what I'm hoping you'll do.

And I uh uh should you decide in the alternative to wait and to take time, uh I'm I'm fully available to use every knowledge that I have uh on your behalf as as uh as a friend of the council and as someone who uh has the same interests that you have about protecting our neighborhood.

I want to thank you um uh council president Griffin for uh this opportunity to present this point of view, which I believe is held by a number of Clevelanders.

But whether it is or not, uh I I want to thank each one of you for your service to the council and to the city of Cleveland.

I understand the journey it takes to get here, and I'm uh and I'm humbled by this opportunity to address you.

Thanks again.

Thank you.

I did want to give uh Councilwoman Welch, she did want to um make a comment.

Yeah, I just want to say thank you for your comments.

Um they really are um they carry so much weight, especially considering all the work that you've done uh around not just our city but around our state um and beyond that, and I just want to um just say that um to your point, you know, whether or not you understand politics or you understand sports management, um, I think people fundamentally understand systemic harm.

They understand what it means when there is an unequal power dynamic, and what happens when there's systemic harm and an unequal power dynamic, which HSG has given to us, is you strip people of agency, you strip them from the opportunity to say this is how I want to speak up about my city, and this is how I want to advocate on behalf of people who are like me who are in these neighborhoods.

And so what ends up happening is like we keep using these relationships and these conversations about HSG with your girlfriend or your boyfriend, you know, similarly, trust doesn't just erode in one moment, it will erodes over time until you wake up like you did and come to council today and said something is happening here that isn't right.

Um, and I think for the sake of our residents and the people who elected and support the people at this table, I hope that they give us time to uh make a decision that doesn't just support the few of us but supports the collective.

So I just want to thank you for your words.

I thank you for the council president for bringing us back together again for this.

I know that everyone in 601 is working hard to come to an agreement, but I really think HSG should really have a little bit of a shame on you for putting us in this predicament.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, uh, Congresswoman, and you're uh welcome to stay um for the administration's remarks, but I'm going to now bring up the administration to the table to uh make any following marks.

But thank you so much, Mayor Congressman.

Appreciate you.

So just for the record, um myself, Councilwoman Santana and Councilman Charles Slife have been working overtime over the weekend to try to work through potential amendments and to make some recommendations uh regarding uh this piece.

Uh I will tell you that there has been um an agreement on most, and uh I will um allow the administration to present.

So the way that I would like to structure this conversation is that uh if the I know a member of council would have to make amendments, I believe, one of the council members would have to make amendments.

Um, and then once we uh second those amendments uh so that we could have a broader discussion.

I know you heard former congressman's points.

Um, and if you guys want to elaborate on any of those things as you go along in your presentation, but I do believe we should uh at least hear the amendments first before we go into everything else.

So um did you want to prepare any amendments or talk about any amendments that uh you guys are recommending?

Uh thank you, uh Council President Griffin.

Um previously we talked about the big picture parts of the um agreement, the settlement agreement between the Browns, and so I'm not going to go over those uh rather than kind of get right to um the issues that were raised.

One of the things that I want to say is is I think this is now our fourth or fifth time where we've had a chance to speak with you, and I want to say that we have listened.

And so we have made some changes that are already in the term sheet that are being proposed.

And I want to let you know that we heard when you said uh we need to protect the general fund, that we need to make sure that demolition is at the Browns' cost and their risk and not ours, uh and also to make sure that we are going to follow all of the city contracting guidelines for that demolition.

So there are uh five important changes that I want to talk to you about.

First, in terms of demolition contracting, and I think everyone here expressed their view, but I I want to tip my hat in particular to Councilwoman House Jones, who who asked us to make sure that we are fair to Clevelanders.

So, as part of that, uh in our settlement agreement, there's going to be a 30% requirement of Cleveland businesses, uh 20%, which is higher than our normal requirement.

Uh 20 percent will be Cleveland small businesses and MBEs.

Uh there was also a requirement or a desire to make sure that we make sure that we are following our equal opportunity rules.

So uh in the settlement agreement, uh there will be a requirement that any demolition comply with um Cleveland codified ordinance 1861, I'm sorry, 1876.22B, which is our EEOC piece.

Uh and then, of course, important to all of us is fairness on wages.

So we're gonna make sure that prevailing wage uh is included as that requirement as well.

We also heard uh at the table previously that there's a question about what is what is pad ready mean because as our goal is to make sure that this is developable, you asked us for more specificity.

And so we did that.

And so uh pad ready means that the stadium site is cleared of buildings, major foundations, debris, full and graded, uh, and very clear that that is more specified.

So um you spoke and we listened.

Um you also asked that with respect to the 20 million dollars that we're talking about for community benefits, that there not be a veto by the Browns.

And so those uh expenditures in the 20 million, I think we'll talk about how that that uh amount may change, uh, is needs to be approved by council.

So that will be council's decision with respect to um 20 million, which is two million over 10 years.

Um so you ask that we make sure that we that we do that.

Um also we heard uh Mr.

Silliman, uh, who obviously is known to all of you talk about uh best efforts and whether there could be a risk that because of the settlement agreement that we're required to put the Browns' interests before ours when it comes to uh the capital campaign with respect to the state of Ohio.

That has also changed.

Um he spoke, you spoke, we listened, and so now there's clarification that Cleveland comes first, and that there's no question that with respect to a decision with the state capital budget, uh, that there is no expectation that we prioritize anything with the Browns before our own.

The City of Cleveland is our first obligation, it comes first, and I think this body made a good point that we should make that clear.

Uh so that that is there as well.

Uh I think that there was also some question about do some of these best best efforts suggest that we're gonna pay any money.

So we've also added to the term sheet clarification that there's nothing here which is going to require the city of Cleveland to spend any money on behalf of the Browns moving.

I uh I believe that that um uh Councilman Polencick suggested that this is ridiculous, you know, we're a landlord, we're not gonna help anybody move.

So uh we listened, and so there's clarification at every level that we're not spending any money.

Uh and then uh the last piece that I want to talk about is the lease extension.

Uh, I think a number of you raised questions about uh, you know, why would we grant them a possible uh options on two years to extend under the same terms?

And so today I can bring to you another change.

We went back to the Browns and said we need this to be corrected.

And so um there is an amendment to the term sheet there as well, which means that for uh the first year of options, they will pay uh an extra one million dollars for community benefits, and that will be for council projects that you can decide.

And then if they extend for a second year, it's a two million dollar payment for the purpose of community benefits, again under the the decision and disposition of of the Browns.

And so uh when we originally brought uh this to you, um we've done a couple things.

One is we've tried to respond to this body's requests and interests, uh, but then also increase the money that goes to the community, uh, and also clarify that it will be this body that that makes those decisions.

Um I also want to say this, which is uh we we want to say thank you and appreciate all of these things because I think that your participation has made things better.

Uh, you know, I would also say that you know, when when we worked that we've been working on this for over three years, and uh there was never ever uh a dollar even close to this uh until several months ago.

Um and so certainly we hope to get at those levels, but but um this is really a win for the city.

The other piece is that you know some people said, oh, the law director can settle anything he wants.

That is not true.

We have not taken that position, and we have absolutely said to you that you are important partners in this.

And so um we think what we have here is a deal that is historic that will be the time where uh instead of us paying to subsidize professional football, they're going to pay us.

And so we think what we have here is a deal that is historic that will be the time where uh instead of us paying to subsidize professional football, they're going to pay us and we protected the general fund and I think we have a historic opportunity really to to open things up yeah Council President members of council I I truly hope today find you rejuvenated in a way that only time with family around the holidays can provide we have met four times in as many weeks to discuss this and the amendments that have been put forward by uh Director Griffin I I hope express our deep commitment to this body to to hear you and ensure that your leadership is reflected and the final amendment that was just announced um to Mark is certainly material it has the potential to move an 100 million dollar deal to 103 million dollar deal um should they need the extension as many in this body have made clear I also want to make clear that that amendment uh sends monies uh directly to neighborhoods and is not specific to the lakefront folks continues to increase the flexibility and the cash available to our neighborhoods um while I respect um former mayor Kucinich um uh I unilaterally and unequivocally disagree with his entire statement except two pieces the first is that it is your responsibility now it is your choice uh you do have the power and as a co-equal branch of government uh this decision now rests in your hands for the last three years this administration has worked hard to deliver a deal that we believe work for the taxpayers in all of your wards all of our wards uh and ensures that the general fund is made whole we have done that plus and now it is this body's choice to accept the framework of that deal.

What I hope this body comes to agreement around is that we have a hundred million dollars on the table to deliver for the City of Cleveland and on the other end of that potentially nothing.

And I know the weight and responsibility of that is clear for all of you as it has been for us for the last three years.

The second thing that I agree with Mayor Kucinich around is that you do have the chance to be the first in the country you would be the first in the country to create an exit package bigger than the one that we've created because no other exit packages exist.

The unfortunate reality with stadium funding is that clawbacks exit taxes penalties don't exist where they do exist and where they have existed those penalties have been paid back to the league.

So if we look at other deals around the country where teams have decided to leave a community the money is typically remitted to the league.

In an instance where it hasn't in Seattle with superscience if any MBA fans here some 75 million dollars was delivered back to the city but it was as a result of a lease break.

So if you were to go forward as Mayor Kucinich described you would be doing what no one has done before and that is because no council body city municipality state legislator has made it compulsory for teams to pay an exit tax upon their leaving and while I appreciate the desire to do so the time to do it is not today.

The time to do it is not today.

Bar Barack Obama has a great quote in Dreams from my father about the responsibility of inheritance essentially you may have inherited many things from your parents and your forefathers but you have to live in the context of right now.

Unfortunately Mayor Kucinich previous council bodies others have not legislated requisite clawbacks and so while we would like a world in which sports teams were paying to leave towns forefathers haven't made that a reality and so as we present today's amendments and as we continue a conversation about what it will mean for the City of Cleveland to make whole upon leaving upon the Browns leaving uh I hope we do it in the spirit that this is historic.

It is not just verbiage that describes it as historic.

It would be the first time a city the size of ours with the kind of lease terms that we had would be sealing a victory for our residents and it is now on this body to decide whether or not we move forward we implore you to do so and we believe strongly that we have put the city of Cleveland in a position that it wasn't previously in.

We look forward to questions.

And that's something else that we'll be discussing with.

But will Councilman Slife like to present that?

Sure.

I have a number of other comments, but I can hold off on those.

I will make sure I put you on, but I just want to give you amendments in that.

But you know, I think uh at risk of speaking for my colleagues, but I think that it's it's a sentiment shared is uh certainly a feeling that um the cost that the residents of the city of Cleveland have paid over the years, directly and indirectly, uh, is is something that we hear a lot about and are very sensitive to.

And I think many of us, including myself, understand and are in many ways excited by the prospect for uh a reinvigorated downtown lakefront uh uh for for a variety of reasons, but also recognize that it is not a cure all for all the problems that we face uh in Cleveland, large and small, just as every catalytic project that has come before us, you know, has done great things for the city uh but has not cured all of our ills.

So to that end, uh the council president, councilwoman Santana and I uh really focused hard on um finding ways to ensure that uh we're able to maximize the benefit uh that is felt in your day-to-day Cleveland neighborhood, whether you're on West 165th in Lorraine or East 165th in St.

Clair or anywhere in between.

Uh very excited by an appreciative of the administration's ability to uh open up the opportunity for three additional million dollars that would come in for citywide priorities beyond the central business district.

In addition to that, uh the final amendment would be uh having 25 million dollars be uh budgeted specifically for neighborhood improvements uh with uh the that that delta coming from money away from the lakefront, so that we are understanding that there is a need to reduce the scale of dollars going into the downtown lakefront to the benefit of the rest of the city so that we can create the balance that we need for both to succeed.

Uh so that is the final amendment.

I will admit to you, Council President, that I'm not entirely sure procedurally of the process of uh how to make an amendment on a term sheet uh that's more of a Roberts Rules question, I suppose, but uh just for my colleagues, uh that is the final amendment that the council president alluded to.

Um just want to make sure if we could do it in principle, we can proceed, right?

Uh yes, but I think what is going to happen is that there will be a term sheet that is being drafted as we speak uh by Ms.

Scalish that will include um the extra five million dollars for uh committee uh benefits projects, and that will be attached to the legislation, which I believe is is being drafted as we speak.

So uh what Councilman Slife is talking about is a 25 percent increase in the amount that um had been allocated for uh committee benefits.

So just so everybody can know when we looked at this, and and I want to commend councilwoman Santana and Slife over the last few days has been a lot of sleepless nights trying to figure out what we could do.

And and I too want to make sure that everybody knows that there were no shortage of attorneys, no shortage of business people, no shortage of of um of former elected officials that I didn't talk to to try to do my research on this.

So I want people to know that I didn't just sit back and take somebody's word for it.

We spent an enormous amount of time talking to several people, getting several independent opinions about uh this.

And and and mu everybody I talked to really um gave me the same advice that is very challenging and going to be very challenging for us to uh get more than what we're getting out of this uh out of this right now.

I know that it is um gut-wrenching, but um you know I can tell you out of talking to if I would say 25 people at least 20 23 said you need to make sure that you just do this on your terms and try to do what you guys can and stand this up the best possible.

So the one leverage point that I did feel that we have, which which was somewhat addressed, was uh the lease extension.

That if there was a lease extension, because it would delay us having projects being able to get done, whether it's the central business district or downtown, or whether it's the neighborhood, uh, that it would cost money.

Time is money.

Uh so we did put in uh some pre uh some preference uh preference that if it is a lease extension that there will be more dollars.

Also remember that once we um do end our maturity date with our lease and all of our finances, it would be the 28 year 28, which means starting in 29, we actually will, if they do have a lease extension, we actually will still get admission tax as well as other um fees like income tax and other things like that.

So believe me, there's been a lot of work that's gone into this.

I know that there's a lot of opinion.

Um it's difficult to have 17 people negotiate.

Um everybody has tried to give different ideas.

We've tried to incorporate as much as we can, but um, as you know, these things are very difficult.

But um what I'm gonna do is before I close out anything, um, I'm gonna hear uh comments from our colleagues, because once again, I believe if we do this in uh um what is what is it called again the the as an amendment?

As an amendment, yes, but that's the the term sheet that she's bringing to us, right?

Correct.

And so just as a matter of procedure, so section one of ordinance 1325-2025 references a term sheet uh which is 1325-2025 A, and that will be substituted with A1 with the amendments that we've just uh discussed, including uh the five million dollars from Councilman Slife and the other the other amendments that we uh discussed previously.

Okay.

I believe that attorney Scalish is working very quickly and hard to get this done.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so this is who I have on the agenda so far, Santana Harsh Star Slife.

Um, but I want to start off with just a couple of questions before I go into those.

Um we I want to make it clear to everybody.

If counsel does not move this forward, then this goes back to litigation.

And litigation.

And tell me how much we spent on litigation and how much um would we have to um continue to spend if we were to continue to litigate this?

Uh council president, we've spent so far uh over a million and a half uh on attorneys' fees during a period where uh I think Mayor Kucinich believed that we were not aggressive enough.

And as this goes to trial, those numbers get higher.

So we're looking, I think at least a million and a half uh next year, probably more.

Did our attorneys at Jones Day at any time make a recommendation, hey, you guys might need to negotiate, or was there any um conversation with them to say this thing is um because of what happened at the state level, this changes the dynamics of the lawsuit.

I don't want to disclose attorney client privilege, but I can tell you that uh Jones Day has always in in every case you have discussions because you can never predict what a judge will say or what a jury will rule upon.

So there's always a risk.

Uh but I will I will say this without going into detail.

Um our Jones Day attorneys are are actually very supportive of uh this decision and this settlement.

Uh they think it's a good and fair settlement for the city.

If we were to pass this or if we were to not pass this, will it keep the Browns in the central business district?

No, it will not.

So whether we pass this or not pass this, they're still gone.

That is correct.

Only other way that we would have any relief is if they would um if they broke the Middel law, which would be debatable because the state has gutted it, and then the lease breaking the lease, which were the two things we were in court with, um, are the only two actions that we have to be able to hold leverage in order to negotiate with the team.

That's correct.

And neither of those can result in a um court order to keep them in the city of Cleveland.

Neither one can result in a court order to keep them in the city.

So I want to make this clear that this is not about we're keeping the Browns by voting against this.

See, I mean part of this is miscommunication with the public.

Okay.

The last thing that I want to make sure that I'm clear about is that if we um don't do this and we lose the court cases, um let's be clear.

As you said earlier, there is no exit strategy or anything else to hold them accountable to pay one cent unless we win those lawsuits.

That's correct.

I would add one more piece, which is under the lease agreement.

If you lose that argument, the losing party pays the other side's attorney's fees.

So not only would we be paying Jones Day, but we're at risk of paying the Browns attorney's fees as well.

Um I think we have a good case, but I can't guarantee you, and there is risk.

And what I can tell you is we can't keep them here beyond 2029.

And right now the case is in federal court or common please court.

Yes.

Both.

It is in federal court, it's in common please court, and it's before uh the Ohio Department of Transportation.

So we are in three different places all at the same time.

Okay.

Um your director at one point in time said that there will be interference and potential disruption with the airport.

Why is that off the table and how has that been determined that that's not an issue anymore?

Yeah.

So one of the uh parts of the um term sheet uh is that we are we are allowed to continue to work uh with them to make sure that there is safety.

So uh Section 1 F requires the Browns to um cooperate with and assist the city in ensuring the interest of public health or safety with regard to any effects on the operations of Clean Hopkins International Airport caused by the Brown's new stadium in Brook Park, Ohio.

So we are going to continue to make sure that that stadium does not interfere with aviation or with the safety of the public.

Is there any way with the Dan Lawsuits, the Dan Crossman lawsuit, and any other lawsuit, because their lawsuit is on the unclaimed funds, or any other lawsuits like uh Mr.

Kucinich's taxpayer lawsuit that can potentially force the Browns to abort their decision to move to Brook Park and redirect them to the City of Cleveland?

In other words, what if we pass all of this and then somewhere along the way, their support at the state, or their support falters in some kind of way, and they have to come back to the table to negotiate to come to the city of Cleveland?

What protects us, or is there any scenario that that can happen?

Um I can't predict how a jury will will decide or a judge will decide, or how the General Assembly will decide.

Um I don't have that crystal ball.

Let me say this, which is uh first of all, we're guaranteed 25 million dollars.

That doesn't change.

Uh the strength of a different uh lawsuit, uh I think those are questionable lawsuits, but I don't want to undermine those plaintiffs uh except to say this, which is um I don't think the taxpayer lawsuit is valid.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Skinner, what is the total cost of the lakefront development estimate?

I know that they're still being developed and still being um you know, still being discussed based on scope, but what is the total amount expect expected and how much do we have of that so far?

Sure.

So I'm gonna put that into three buckets.

Uh the first is the North Coast Connector Project, uh, which is the shoreway transformation from West Third to about East 12th, as well as the construction of the land bridge.

That's a 284 million dollar project that is uh funded with 150 million dollars in federal and state grants, uh and the balance will be some sort of debt project leveraging the city's downtown TIFF district.

Uh the second bucket is private development.

Um that is multifamily hospitality, entertainment, recreation users that if we make the lakefront a desirable site, uh, will want to invest in and build on the land north of Brown Stadium, uh which is about 25 acres of surface parking, as well as the land the Brown Stadium currently sits on, assuming the stadium is demolished.

So that's private development that is not coming from the public in in any capacity.

The the third and um most relevant uh bucket to this conversation is infrastructure and public space on the waterfront.

Uh on the infrastructure side, we have a number of estimates uh based on uh number of different scenarios, and it's hard to give you a specific number because we don't know exactly what's going to be there.

Um anywhere from 40 to 80 million dollars, that is utilities, that is sidewalks and roads, that is bulkhead repair work, all those are uh uh infrastructure needs that the site will have that we cannot realistically count on private developers to support.

Um the second is public space.

Uh that depends a lot on how much public space and how we do uh how how large of a public park we have down on the waterfront.

Um you can see it being anywhere from 25 to 50 to 75 million dollars as well.

So in terms of funds the lakefront site needs without the stadium there for development, you're looking at somewhere north of a hundred million dollars.

Um that will be uh if this settlement passes through, uh a large portion of that will be covered by uh the settlement, uh, as well as uh new community authority contributions from private development partners, um, and then potentially um direct investment from developers as well.

Thank you.

Director McNair.

Have we done any economic analysis to show if the city pivots to this new strategy of thinking about parks and lakefront development?

Help me understand how is going to be place the 30 million in economic impact and the 11 million in income taxes and other fees that we receive that the administration's own report determine.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh so one, I look at this frankly, we have these conversations all the time in here, right?

And we're constantly talking about not enough money for anything that it is that we do, right?

This is the city of infinite need and very limited resources.

As I look at all this, the two greatest opportunities we have to truly increase revenues in the city of Cleveland, one of which is being done through the site readiness fund, right?

Which is create 63% of the budget that you said every year is paid for by income taxes, right?

And so we need more jobs and high quality jobs in the city of Cleveland.

So uh I think that bet on taking vacant land and turning it into great job producing sites is part of it.

The second most valuable asset that we have is the 50 plus acres of downtown waterfront that is available to us.

Um unfortunately, right now it's not worth much because without, as Mr.

Skinner just laid out, roughly 100 million dollars going into roads and sewers and making that developable, right?

We're not gonna be generating any income off of that.

So to me, I think this is a huge opportunity for the city of Cleveland to actually write the long-term, like right.

This is this is where we're curing the uh disease and not the symptoms.

And most developers would want to have clarity or to have predictability of how many acres that they're actually going to be responsible for developing.

So they won't want to go into this trying to understand whether they're going to have 25 million or 25 acres to develop or 50 acres to develop.

That's exactly right, Council President.

Uh 25 acres uh or 50 acres is a obviously a huge delta and fundamentally changes your site plan, your investment thesis, and everything else that goes in to private development certainty is required here.

Okay.

Um councilman Polencick has stated earlier that there's not been a tremendous lobbying effort.

Um I felt that my role in this time was to really educate.

Um had conversations with the administration.

I've always made it clear to them that council is always going to be looking for more support.

I will tell you in these three-way negotiations, it makes it a little bit more complicated because you actually have uh people that are putting up their own money, so they actually want to have some input into how the decision making our uh paying.

If you left it up to me, I would appeal even a few million more away uh for neighborhood development.

However, there was a considerable amount of conversation amongst several stakeholders that really really um want to see the lakefront um invested, and one of the things we always have to be cognizant of is how um people want to spend their money.

Uh we do have to take that in consideration.

Even though council has veto power and council has the will to do what we want to do politically, uh, we do have to always keep in mind whenever we have three partners negotiating that we have to listen to several different partners.

Hence why I took the leadership team with me to have conversations with both the administration and uh the team owners to try to understand what else we could do to reconstruct this to make it more palatable for council.

That being said, um I'll I'll save my comments.

I know councilwoman Santana, harsh star and sly I have so far.

Anyone else, please let me know.

Any clarification.

Oh no, I guess you want to chairman.

Go ahead.

Just the clarification.

Uh clarification, just a point of clarification.

Yeah, so you uh when you asked about the attorney fees, I I was looking at my documents here.

The number that we were given was 1.1 million.

Now we just were told 1.5.

What is the real figure?

Uh the real figure keeps going every month is the answer.

So I believe the 1.1 was what we had spent through July or August.

Uh and if and that was actually for uh this past fiscal year, uh this past calendar year.

Uh we also had a little bit more at the end of uh 2024.

So it's 1.5.

That's what you're telling.

Uh yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

I will be brief.

So I have more of a remarks and then a few questions.

They are scattered, so I definitely um just kind of warn you on that as just my brain works.

But first of all, um, I do want to thank council president for convening this meeting yesterday with the Haslam.

I I felt it was enlightening.

It was very helpful.

Um, you know, I've learned through this position that there's always two sides of the story, and I think that the Haslums were able to kind of fill some of the blanks that I was struggling with, and I was frustrated with and you know, just to be clear, council was left out, right?

Um, and I'm not talking about council president, I'm not talking about leadership.

I'm talking about directly reaching out to council members to talk about this deal.

We had no clue, and then we were just buying blindsided with this press conference, which as I'm sure you guys will also you know would be very frustrated as well, right?

And so I think the lack of communication just really creates frustration, it creates trust issues, right?

And so right now, what I'm struggling with is I don't know what's real or not, what's true or not?

I am not an attorney.

So I don't know what to believe.

And and you know, uh Cliff Finich's uh comments really, I could they really did hold some weight, and um he does come with experience, but even when he talked about the Browns, they broke the lease, right?

So through the chair to the chiefs, like they're still here.

So why?

I mean, why did some why do some some people say they broke the lease and then they would have to pay?

Did they break the lease?

Uh through the chairs of the councilwoman.

Yes, we believe they broke the lease, but the remedy for that is not that we get to keep them.

Uh the remedy is that uh we could ask for some sort of damages, but we haven't lost anything yet.

So so the answer to that is we did go to court, and we are in court today, uh, asking to stop any of their f uh negotiations of any kind.

Uh and actually one of the things that we've done is we filed a motion, actually, two motions for the judge to rule in our favor.

So, far from sitting back, we were actually asking uh the most aggressive piece that we can, uh, which is for the court to rule in our favor.

The problem is that the remedy, what the court could order is not that they have to stay here.

Okay, so I understand that they don't have to stay here, but do we even know what is the amount of you know the fee or the lawsuit if they broke the lease?

I mean, could it be more than the hundred million dollars that they're offering?

Through the chair to the councilwoman, uh no.

Uh we would argue that we get our prevailing party fees as an attorney as uh whatever we pay for to Jones Day.

Uh and we would argue uh that uh you know that they can't leave sooner.

But the actual the the Browns continue to play here, they continue to pay taxes, they continue to uh support our local restaurants, uh bars, hotels, parking lots.

And so the damages to the city at this time uh are not going to be anywhere close to uh Mayor Kucinich's hundred million dollars.

Got it, thank you.

Um another thing that repeatedly that we heard through um all these hearings was you know, any attempts to change the deals off the table.

Like we continually repeat it.

You get what you get, you don't throw a fit, which I feel like it's uh it's a comment that really gets to me because it's like something that you say when you feel superior over someone, right?

That feels powerless, right?

Like you eat that or you get nothing.

Um, and so here we are with some amendments, which I would definitely like a list of these amendments um at the table.

So why wasn't once again council why wasn't council people reached out to in the negotiation to make this process much simpler than it is right now, uh through the council president to the councilwoman.

I I can't speak to every reason, but I would say this, which is uh this is a body of strong 17 individual voices and thoughts.

Uh each of you has a different point of view.

And so for us to come to the table, we needed to have something to present.

Uh and so the the uh belief, and I think it is the case, and frankly, the Browns also, uh, after three years of negotiation, this was the best that we could do.

And as we talk through some of these issues, I think we've raised the council has raised important issues and questions that we were able to address without changing the core of the deal.

Chief?

Through the through the chair to the councilwoman uh certainly understand your desire to stay engaged on this.

I I would offer that um in the bi-weekly sessions that the mayor has had with the council president.

We have tried to keep him as informed as we can um as as things have changed.

I recognize that that is not always the best way to communicate with each member individually, but uh we need to recognize that you know a lot of things change and and getting on everyone's calendar can be difficult as well.

Um what I would say is is the the deal that's in front of you is in a shared and aligned vision from the administration.

If the council has a shared and aligned vision around what this exit should look like, we are open to hear and engage on it.

Where we have had specific points, we have taken them and embedded them in the agreement.

And so um we have yet to hear a 17-person cohesive plan for what an exit should look like.

If that exists, we want to see it.

Um, but in lieu of that, what we have done is taken the individual pieces from individual council people who have expressed what they have wanted to see reflected, and to the best of our ability had that reflected in this document.

And you while it is certainly down to the advocacy of many of the members, particularly the leadership team that worked over the weekend.

Uh has my commitment to ensure that that communication continues and gets better.

But in this circumstance, um but for hearing an aligned 17-person vision on an exit, every day uh we get closer to that lease ending uh and not having a plan for the Cleveland Browns, and every day uh the state and other bodies weaken our position and decrease our leverage.

And so um the the urgency exists, the framework of this deal is in front of you, and we hope that the amendments that we have proffered uh meet the high bar that the residents should expect from us.

Gotta thank you.

And I'll just close with this.

Um I know the mayor did reach out to me yesterday, which I appreciate it.

I wish he would have done that sooner, right?

Um, like I said, I think this process would have been smoother.

But moving forward, especially with deals like this, like we have to be partners, right?

Like we all want what is best for our city and work in asylum is just not gonna move the needle in our city.

So um, you know, thank you once again, Council President, for bringing me to that meeting.

I thought it was very helpful to hear from the Haslums.

Um, and they I I wish they would have even been at the table because I think it's important for the council members to hear their side of the story.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And if I was to give you a textbook way of how the council and administration worked in sync, the bedrock deal is a perfect example.

We actually simultaneously worked together and we ended up with something that we all unanimously unanimously passed.

Um I understand that it's impossible to negotiate with 18 different elected officials.

However, there is an example of how there would there could have been some conversations to move this along.

And we were under um we we were we were told, and I'm just going to put it out there, that um there was strict instructions just to have conversations with the administration and to keep it between the administration and the Haslam Sports Group.

So I just want to make sure that I make that clear because I had two people with me that were witnesses that basically told us that that was the um that that was the instructions that they received as well.

Am I wrong?

No, no, you're a hundred percent right.

Okay.

And I would just add that in the beginning of this process, we were reached out by the Haslums and we met we saw the schematic of the Brown Stadium for here in the city of Cleveland.

And then after that, the news media came out with we're moving to Brook Park.

So of course they have their fault as well.

I just want to put it out there that we were blindsided through this whole process as maybe residents think that we were aware of all this logistics and all this information.

So thank you, Councilwoman.

Appreciate you.

Uh Councilman Christopher Harsh, Star Slife Policy Conwell.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I just want to have a couple of comments here to add to the conversation.

I've been sitting here all day listening.

Um I have to say first off that I pretty much agree with everything Dennis Kascinich said.

Um to Councilman Palency's point, I also heard three or four years ago that the plan was to let the Browns leave for a hundred million dollars, that the mayor is not going to fight for them.

Um it kind of tracks with part of the base, part of the far left, and the city doesn't want the Browns in Cleveland.

They've never liked having the stadium, they've never liked paying for the stadium, and they've made very big political waves over it.

My entire life.

Um so the notion that the administration only pretended to fight for the team while actually not wanting them here carries a lot of weight with me.

And I think that that very well could be what we're dealing with.

Um it's also very interesting to me that in the case that the city brought, which was C V 25 110 189, the Cleveland against the Browns, Judge Lauren Moore ruled on Thursday, October 9th, that both parties could move to uh could proceed to discovery.

And the very next day the mayor sat down with Jimmy Haslum over a couple of name brands So de Cola Pops um to discuss an exit strategy.

Of course, discovery could have told us when the administration first uh well could have told us more information about the administration's talk with the Haslums, but it also could have allowed us to ask the Haslam Sports Group for all their records pertaining to communications with Brook Park when they started talking to Mayor Orcutt.

Um in fact, I think Mayor Orcutt might have come into office with the plan of poaching the Browns from Cleveland being his signature move as mayor.

Um we would have had that information had we proceeded to discovery, uh that Judge Lauren Moore ruled on October 9th that we could do.

It just so happens that the very next day the mayor sat down with Jimmy Haslum and came up with this plan instead, um, which includes you know dropping the lawsuits.

Which brings me to my third point, that if the mayor's given up on the Browns, there's not a lot this body can do.

I know that we talk about being a co-equal branch, and I know that Kucinich wants us to uh muster the the cavalry and and and charge up the hill.

But uh contrary to everything that's said, and out of no sense of disrespect whatsoever, I do not believe that the law department of the city of Cleveland works for City Council.

I believe the law department of the City of Cleveland works for the person that signs the law director's check, and that would be the mayor.

And if the mayor tells them to stop, don't pursue the lawsuit, we're not gonna tell them to pick it up and pursue it.

Um without the mayor in this fight, I just don't think it's a fight we can win.

Um I think that's a very, very sad thing.

I think it's sad for the residents of Cleveland.

I think it's sad for our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents.

Uh I think it's sad for our children and grandchildren who won't have this part of our culture.

You know, it seems that we're losing a lot in Cleveland.

We're losing a lot.

We're we were, you know, we lost Sokolowski's, right?

That was a little one, right?

We lost WCSB, or we're still trying to fight to get that back, right?

We're losing the jail, we're losing the Browns.

You know, what part of the city do we keep?

What part of the city actually belongs to the people that live here, right?

And it's a tough situation to be in because I'm forced to look at the fourth thing which I wanted to mention, which is that my constituents, the old Brooklyn residents who I work for have made it very clear to me that they do not want any money of theirs going into the Browns leaving.

But I consider demolition of the stadium to be a cost that the taxpayers will have to shoulder if we can't figure out how to get the Hasman Sports Group to pay for it.

And if the Hasma Sports Group leaves and doesn't tear down that stadium, uh I disagree with Councilman Polencick, and I don't think there's any adaptive reuse.

Unless Blossom Music Center were to come to us and say that we're going to tear down Blossom and turn that into the new home of the orchestra or something absolutely nuts like that, which hasn't come up.

I don't think there's any adaptive reuse for that stadium I'm looking at.

So it's going to have to come down if the Browns aren't there, because nothing else can bring 600,000 people to the frozen shore of Lake Erie in the middle of the winter.

And it's not lost on me, Mr.

President, that the Browns are probably playing there in the fall of 29.

It's very unlikely that they're going to have anything in Brook Park built by the fall of 29.

You know, it took three years to build that stadium, it doesn't even have a roof, right?

So they're probably playing there in the fall of 29, but the mayor is probably not getting ready for a third term.

So somebody else is going to have to deal with that.

And in the and then the 2031 budget cycle, in the 2031 budget cycle, we will find out exactly how much the Browns were actually worth to the City of Cleveland.

Because we will have gone through one whole year of no team activity on the lakefront.

They will have probably, I mean, I'm assuming that they leave maybe in 2030.

And we will find out immediately when the mayor is probably gone, how much the team was actually worth to the city.

And people will be scratching their heads wondering how we let the NFL leave Cleveland.

The largest entertainment, sports entertainment conglomerate franchise on earth, maybe with the exception of some European soccer.

But how we let the largest sports franchise leave the City of Cleveland is something everybody will be scratching their heads and they'll look back to today, whatever today is December 1st, 2025.

And the answer from my end of the table will be we lost them when the mayor quit.

We lost them when it was decided that it just wasn't a good investment, let them go, try not to look like it's your fault, try to come up with something at the end.

You know, there's only 16 cities in America that have all three teams baseball, football, and basketball, and I don't count hockey, sorry, hockey fans.

Um we've always been one of them.

We've always been a big league city, right?

No more.

Those days are over.

We're now a mid-market, right?

We some people have been saying that for a long time.

We're not a big city, we're a mid-market city.

But I think this seals the deal.

Um I think that's very sad.

It's a very difficult vote.

Uh but, Mr.

President, I have to look my constituents in the eye and tell them that I did everything to protect their tax dollars, and that I did not foot them with a demolition bill because I was childish, or because I was hurt, or because I was upset with the mayor.

Or because I was upset with the mayor.

So I know that we have been talking a lot about telling the Hazm to kick rocks.

I think if the administration is resigned to this, I don't think we get much more.

I think it's our fiduciary responsibility to our constituents to protect their tax dollars.

And I think that getting money to tear down a stadium we will no longer need is an exchange that I can at least sleep with at night.

So I don't have a question, Mr.

President.

Thank you for the time and I yield.

Thank you, Councilman Harsh.

Very good points.

I don't know if the administration wants to make any um response.

Only uh only a quick response and and correction uh the through the chair, Councilman Harsh has described uh certainly a seductive scenario by which um discovery painted us in a bad corner, but I I want to be clear and I will turn to Mark to talk about this is is that the formal motion for discovery was administered by the administration as a strong move to increase our position in court, which was requested by this body.

And so it is important for me to make clear that the actions that the administration has taken in the courtroom to be stronger with the Haslums were not a retreat uh when communications or discovery was going to be taken or depositions were going to be had.

We believed that that scenario uh scenario set us up for success.

And so um Mark maybe tell a little bit about how we got here.

Let me talk a little bit about uh discovery.

First of all, the fact that they granted us discovery, I think, is what drove uh the Haslums to come uh and uh agree to a settlement that they did.

Um secondly, I think our motions for summary judgment also put pressure on them.

Um let me also say a couple of things, which is it's absolutely not true that uh we did not want to keep the Browns here in Cleveland.

And over the last three years, we offered them 460 million to stay here.

But here's the piece, which is we were never going to sacrifice the general fund.

And so the dilemma is we would all like the football team to stay here without have us having to pay for them, but that's not the way the NFL works.

Um one of the things that I said to the mayor and I say to you is that there was never an opportunity for litigation to lead to an order to keep the Browns here.

What we could do uh is that we could we could delay things.

And frankly, we were shocked when the State of Ohio gave $600 million, which is more than the entire uh amount the State has ever paid for all of the professional stadiums in the State of Ohio.

And once that happened, uh it became a state project.

So now the State is the one subsidizing professional sports.

And I think that you can say to your constituents that after 2029, the City of Cleveland is not subsidizing professional football anymore.

And in fact, one of the things that your vote will do will instead of us paying them, they will pay us 100 million dollars.

So I actually I think the discovery really drove uh the settlement process.

Um with respect to Brook Park, uh, I think that there is an opportunity to file public records requests, if that's something of interest.

Um let me also say this, which is uh the law department works for the City of Cleveland, and we said the same thing here today that we said to the mayor, which is there is not a there is not a court order that's going to keep them here.

Um we said that uh we told the mayor that was not possible, just as we are saying it today.

Um I'd also say this, which is I also told the mayor that I can't settle this case without coming to council.

And so that was part of it as well.

Um, as I listened to the to our discussion, you know, one of the dilemmas, I think, is that 30 years ago we entered an agreement, and I think that Ken Sullivan and Mike White did a great job of achieving an important thing, which was to keep the Browns here.

But there was a price to be paid for that.

And we've paid at least 10 million dollars a year for capital costs, we've paid another 4 million a year for uh for upgrades for capital expenditures, and so that deal did not include the obligation that they would stay.

So that is part of the issue today that we wish that before we spent $700 million or agreed to spend that, that we got them to stay.

But we're now dealing with a situation that was set um 30 years ago, and look to Councilman Plenseck's credit, he voted against it.

He voted against that public subsidy.

And that can end in 2029.

Um that is the last that I would say.

But but all please understand and and I think that uh everyone here at this table wants the best for the City of Cleveland.

And and we respect um every councilman here and think that that you are acting in the best interest, not just of your ward, but of the city as a whole.

So and please understand that that we um on the executive branch do that as well.

Thank you.

Councilman Harsh.

Uh Councilman Richard Stard and Councilman Charles Slife and Planessit.

Thank you, Council President.

Um I just want to ask from my standpoint, can someone from the table through the chair explain what communication or define what communication is as far as definition, communication?

Because I always hear this word communication, communication, but I don't understand or don't see it.

So through the chair, can somebody explain what is how do we define communication involving two branches, co-equal branches of government through the chair through the chair to the councilperson.

I I don't have a dictionary, so you'll have to excuse my lack of precision here.

I would argue that communication is this dialogue back and forth about substantive issues, which we have done four times and which we are currently doing now.

So I think we are communicating, Councilperson.

Thank you.

And through the communication, um, through the chair to the chief of staff, um, Mr.

Davy, how long have we been have the executive branch and the administration team been communicating what a potential deal regarding the Browns discussion?

How many, when has this started?

I mean how long has the time frame been through the chair?

Through the chair to the councilperson, we have been communicating with the Browns since um there was an original stadium uh design proffered for the lakefront.

And so we have always said that these negotiations, well, most recently have been intense, um, that communication as you have described it, communication with HSG has started um upon taking office.

And I think to get a precise date, I would ask the question back, you know, when when did your communication on Cleveland Brown Stadium start?

Because it's our understanding that you saw the same renderings, I think, Councilwoman Santana described um seeing those initial renderings, you know, some four years ago.

So at the same time as you began to communicate with them, Councilman.

Yep.

So through the chair, I would say that then would be um October 2023 with me, Council President and Um Council um Councilmember Conwell seen surrender.

So if 23, October 23 is the time frame, that's the time frame.

And what I want to ask is as you are negotiating and just trying to get the understanding of this co-eagle branch of government, because I don't see it working, and now we hear with a problem, and it's almost seemed as if council has not had their way in on this actual agreement.

And rather rather we have four or five committees hearings, that's just committee hearings.

I'm talking about the actual work and the actual deliverables that we wish to see and try to reach to a happy medium.

No, everyone can't get what they want.

That is that is impossible.

If that's the case, I have everything I want in the world, and it doesn't happen.

My my point of understanding is you reiterated and mentioned, well, the the mayor had um bi-weekly meetings with the council council president.

And when the mayor was here, the council president made sure he made it clear that it wasn't no conversations about where they are going, what is going to come out, it was just, hey, yeah, we still talking, we still talking basically through the council president.

So there was nothing much more to be shared because it was just an update that you're still was negotiating.

So through the council president through the chair, do we have anything in the charter that states the mayor must do all negotiation contracts for anything happening in the city?

Does it anything in the charter that states that to the chair?

Directly.

Through the council president to uh councilman starr.

Uh no, uh it does not.

And I would say this, which is with respect to settlements of lawsuits or debts, uh, those are actually for the law director.

Um and there is not a requirement that everything be done in public.

And and through that standpoint, so when we are negotiating the last two and a half years, three years, whether this four years this whole term or whatnot, as the mayor is negotiating what to potentially offer for the Browns regarding this stadium that or this stadium or the move or whatever, whether they're going to stay or anything.

There's nothing in the charter that only requires the administration to do all of the negotiation through the chair.

Through the council president to the councilman.

Um I'm struggling to even understand what that means because because you know we negotiate contracts every single day.

And and every Monday, there is a raft of ordinances that authorize one director or another to enter into a contract.

And I would submit to you that this is one of the unusual contracts where we have come to City Council because it is an important uh contract and it is an important issue where we've put this in front of you for uh discussion of the core terms.

So I think this is this is unusual.

The other piece that I would say is during the course of this, um the Browns and the city requested that it be done through a mediator because we felt that uh public publicity would derail the really tough discussions that occurred.

And so um, as part of the mediation privilege, both parties were required to keep uh those conversations confidential, but with the understanding at the end of the day, everything was going to be laid on the table in front of you, which is which was why we are here today, and why we've had conversations and why we've made five to six to seven amendments uh based upon input that we've heard from this body.

And I get I understand that, but what I don't get is if any agreement reached is going to require council's legislative authority to be able to process it or for the city to set the terms of agreement, then why wasn't the person that majority of the members at this table voted to be the council president why wasn't he and what I mean by this is at the actual table during the whole entire process of um negotiations, not being told third party or being told after the fact, why wasn't he included in every meeting regarding these potential terms?

Because there's nothing in here that states that the administration from the charter is the only ones that does the negotiation.

I do want to understand from a communication standpoint, why not?

100%.

Uh, through through the chair to the councilperson, it's a big question.

It's a huge question, because what you're asking us to do is to renegotiate checks and balances of government.

And considering that none of us are founding fathers, I can't describe to you why it is that the executive branch and the legislative branch have these distinct responsibilities.

But what I do know uh is that this council often says that those legislative body does not hire, it does not fire, it does not deploy or implement.

The other side of that statement, I think I think the dean said it.

If I I don't want to get my crow wrong, council councilman Balenci, that is yours.

It is I'm I don't mean to take it.

Uh but but the the deal forgive you.

Okay.

Uh through the chair.

The the the truth of the matter remains is that uh councils, legislative bodies don't typically negotiate contracts.

And there is a deep incongruence with your statement, which is why has the council president not been involved in these?

But what we have heard consistently is that it is not simply the council president that needs to be involved in these conversations.

It is the 17 members.

And so uh what I have learned about communications is sometimes the best communications is not answering a question, it's asking one.

And so I will I will turn this back to you and say, do you have a suggestion, Councilman, on the way in which in the way in which Trust me, I got one.

Is there a suggestion on the way in which the council process should happen by which you communicate with the administration?

Because I want to be clear, the administration is eager to communicate with each of you.

It so eager, in fact, that we brought on another teammate to ensure um that that communication happens more regularly and in a more fulsome way.

And so I if you have appreciated the addition of Mike Hulp, who is a tremendous addition to our team, that is that is our proactive way of ensuring that communication happens better.

If there is a better way, and that we should be talking to different council people and not the council president.

I enjoy counting you, council president, I know the mayor does too.

But if you have a different suggestion, councilman, I I I suggest that you you bring it to your leadership body and I would be happy to listen.

Thank you.

Um I hear you you said quite a quite a bit, but I definitely will stick on one of the major points.

So, based on what is current today, if council wanted to negotiate and introduce the legislation and the terms of agreement with the Hasel Sports Group, we could have done the same thing like you put before to us through the chair.

Through the chair to the councilperson, I I think that's an important question because uh well, I appreciate uh councilman Harsh's humble comments that he doesn't have any power.

I would disagree.

I think this is working just fine.

This friction that is happening in the final hours to negotiate the fine points of a process is exactly what our democracy is is made for.

And so you do have a great deal of power now.

You hold it, councilman.

If you want to make amendments that have the potential to take this hundred million dollar deal off the table, you have the power to do it.

If you want to vote no today as a body and turn down this hundred million dollars to go back out to litigation, we can do that.

If you would like us to add attorneys fees, bring on more white-collar lawyers at truly exorbitant numbers, we will oblige.

We will oblige.

You have the power to do that today.

And so uh to answer your question, councilman, yes.

You have the ability to renegotiate this deal on your own and put something forward yourself.

And through through that, thank you, Chief.

That's one of the most honest answers I've heard at this table for the last four years.

And it was just straightforward.

Sometimes you got to bring the truth out of each other.

And since we have in this open dialogue, we're not having a coke or a private dinner or anything, we're not having breakfast or talking about this, and then asking members to support something, because I don't believe this is the best deal for us.

But then I also want to ask a question through the chair, um, possibly to our attorneys.

Back when Art Modell decided to leave, did he pay a cost for leaving, or did he have any terms or anything he had to pay for when he wanted to move the team from Cleveland to Baltimore through the chair?

Uh through the council president, uh, through the councilman.

I don't exactly know, but I believe the answer to that is no.

I believe he picked up and he left uh and we got all of nothing.

And also through that question, so did he not did Art Modell not break the term of his lease through the chair?

Uh through the chair to the councilman, I believe that he did.

So if he broke the terms of his lease, you don't think through the chair, hold on.

If he broke the term of his lease agreement with the city of Cleveland, he didn't have to pay a cost from for breaking the terms of the lease of a breach of a contract through the chair?

Through the council president to through the councilman.

I believe the issue was that twofold.

One was he started negotiating before his term was up.

Uh, but that was that was not a breach.

And one of the things that we did or the city did 30 years ago was to say you can't have any discussions anymore.

Uh but but the breach was ultimately that he left uh before his his lease was up.

But all they have to do at that point is continue to pay the the rent.

Okay, so he wasn't in fault or in penalty for talking about leaving, similar to how the Hassel has been talking the last couple years about leaving.

So there's no penalty within that standpoint.

And also within understanding what we have in place.

The biggest problem that I have is we want council at the table, and we want to have co-equal branch of communications, but we get the last no-abouts until it's 345 and we hear about a press conference.

Or we pass this table, then something goes out like the council passed this.

That is not teamwork.

That is not teamwork.

And what I mean by that is I come from a large family, six of us.

Me and my siblings sometimes don't see eye to eye.

Sometimes we don't want to speak to each other.

Sometimes we say things bad, and then we see each other at the next holiday or event, and we just say what's up and keep it moving and get things done.

Because it's not about our egos, it's about working together, and that's called family.

So the deals that we make at 601 Lakeside, it doesn't go the mayor did this.

It doesn't go the council did this.

As you heard Polanzik Major to someone earlier, that hey, council never gets the um credit for the work that they do.

So overall, as I'm looking at this deal, I believe there's things that we left on the table.

I I honestly truly do.

And I know that we keep screaming a hundred million dollars, a hundred million dollars, um, all this different things, and then we talk about these amendments.

It'd be like to me, it'd be like, oh, we just did a couple amendments, that's it.

And that's all we get for our neighborhoods.

Always our neighborhoods at the back.

Now we understand 60-something percent of our revenue that we generate for the city of Cleveland for the city of Cleveland starts from downtown.

That's a fact.

But I'm tired of not seeing nothing in our neighborhoods.

I'm tired of seeing old buildings that were built in the 50s and 60s that was once retail space, not up and running.

I'm tired of seeing properties that need to be demoed but ain't been demoed.

I'm tired of trying to saying that we got to continue to cut grass, but we ain't got a system in place that can make sure we mediate those or get the actual development in our neighborhoods.

But one of the biggest um ecosystem that we have as part of the city of Cleveland, which is the Browns, and which you've heard that we generate almost 41 million, 30 to 41 million a year from them, is going to leave, and we're going to just accept the hundred million dollars and how it is freshed out, and how it's been presented with the fact that they're going to be able to determine how we spend the 20 or the 25 million of a community benefits agreement.

And also that I brought up to this administration, we said at the table to the chief.

Um I talk about a community benefits oversight committee.

Not people who want to just say they do things, but putting something together to help.

Because the problem that we deal with, we still got locations in the city of Cleveland that don't even got decent grocery stores.

They're going to gas stations to buy groceries.

So while we negotiate in, talking about 100 million dollars and what's going to come back to the city of Cleveland.

I and in all due respect, I have no problem with us trying to open up our lake front.

I don't.

But if we got a chance to get extra revenue, and we just talked about the rep the revenue that is going to cost or how much it's going to cost to actually develop that, we don't we don't even got a real pathway to get that.

We have a hope and a promise that we're going to do that.

Rather it's private investment, government investments, all these different things.

But at the same time, we still got people who can't get groceries.

But we ain't talking about putting no additional dollars to solving a problem that I've been complaining about for the last four years.

We have no problem or we have no solution to figuring out how to make sure people living in public housing have landlords held accountable for how they're treating them.

We ain't put no funding into that.

But us getting a chance to get 100 million dollars, 25 million dollars up front, and how we're gonna do all this different stuff is only gonna affect one part of our city, and this is problematic.

So as I wrap up, council president, I feel I feel slighted.

Because at the end of the day, at the least, minimal, the bare minimum, our council president and leadership team should have been involved in this whole entire process of making sure we get an actual deal, then them having to come in then to implement some small amendments, that is not going to be major.

So if it's if we're saying that, hey, the mayor gave up, like you heard my councilman, my council colleague Kirch Harsh stated, and there's no reason to fight when the mayor is and the the um co-eagle branch of government executive branch is not trying to fight with you, then you all then you lost.

And at the end of the day, whatever the decisions we make today are gonna be the problems that we have later on.

And I know my council colleague Mike Polenzik, he said he's never voted on these deals for this reason being because the neighborhoods are not getting nothing.

And whether you want to like it or not, and whether you break down this hundred million dollars, the way it looks to me is more of a 40 to 50 million dollar deal max, because it's really not much that you're getting for it.

But but for us to end negotiations and stop fighting and go into battle, we rather just say, hey, take the hundred million and keep it moving, because I believe, I believe we could have got more if we negotiated together and not individually as a branch of government.

I yield, council president.

Thank you.

And I believe the chief has a brief remark and then we move to our next uh spokesperson.

Through through the council president, uh to the councilman.

Uh no love lost here from the Cleveland Browns.

Um and so this statement isn't made lightly, but it is not the Cleveland Browns' responsibility to solve poverty.

It's not the Cleveland Browns' responsibility to solve homelessness, it's not the Cleveland Browns' responsibility to fix roofs.

It is our responsibility at the city of Cleveland to administer those things.

And while the Cleveland Browns were playing football games, the unfortunate reality is we still haven't.

We have a lot of work to do.

But that responsibility is ours.

This hundred million dollars gets us close to it.

And what I cannot allow to not be acknowledged.

Well, I respect that there may be more to get, that there is more to fight for, that we think that we should deserve more.

What we want to be absolutely precise about is that we don't get to deal in hypotheticals.

The fact of the matter, councilman, is that all of the sports deals across all of the leagues are to build stadiums.

They aren't to tear them down.

The hundred million dollars we have received is historic, not because it is going to solve our historic indexing problems.

It is because for the first time a city is able to lead the charge in which the way in which stadium funding happens is different.

My hope is that future councils across the country don't have to face this because what is in their lease terms don't allow it to happen.

But we are now forging ahead in a new world, which says if a team leaves this town, they need to pay for something.

And you know what I think that the residents who with crumbling roofs and need of more infrastructure, my neighbors, as a person who lives in the city, my neighbors need.

I think that they're gonna say, well, the Cleveland Browns did not solve our problems, at least the city of Cleveland fought hard to ensure that when they left, something was made better.

And that's what we have the chance to do and make no bones about it, Councilman.

You have the power to do that.

You have the power to do that.

You have the power to kick the can and not make this decision quickly.

You've made clear that you don't want to make this under duress.

You don't have to.

You don't have to.

The money might go away.

Those some of those crumbling homes that you're describing, the $50 million that would get to neighborhoods, right?

That goes away.

Certainly.

But you have a choice.

So does it I'll let you have a follow-up councilman, but I do need to move on, but go ahead, I'll let you have as a quick follow-up if you could.

Here's the here's here's the here's the shiny underlining of everything.

When you look at this deal of 100 million dollars, it ain't a dollar going to our neighborhoods.

Okay.

There's nothing in this terms that says it's going to your neighborhoods where your neighbors can see the actual effect.

Yeah.

Everything that you are trying to outline sound good to someone who don't understand what we see.

When you talk about what is actually going on, when you talk about the 100 million dollars, when you talk about 25 million will be delivered to the city as soon as this year, more than three years before the Browns move out of downtown.

When you talk about the next additional four years, 25 million, it is not airmarked for not one neighborhood.

So no, we're not stating that the Browns are the ones solely responsible for helping us deal with the issues in our neighborhood.

What I'm stating is if we're getting a hundred million dollar gift, how do we distribute that money to help us in different areas in our neighborhood and not just one community in different ways?

And that's the difference between understanding it actually living in reality as opposed to living in a fantasy where we call on Earth in Cleveland.

And one of the things that the difference is I'm born and raised in Cleveland.

Me too.

And I've been here my entire life.

And when I mean born and raised in Cleveland, I'm a public school educated.

I didn't go nowhere else.

So everything about me is Cleveland.

So therefore, when we talk about, well, you could kick the can down the road or you may not.

The negotiation and the deal was done without us.

So don't try to say we made a deal, now it's up to you to accept this.

That's called being a rubber stamp.

And that's the problem that I have not the administration with us as a council for always being a rubber stamp because they sound good at the table, but in reality, this is something that they chose, and now they want us to rush it through because they say the money don't go to way.

Just want to have a couple of things for clarity.

Um, if you want to talk about a model in communication, I keep bringing it up, bedrock was a model in communication where we actually simultaneously had a conversation about a piece of legislation that was a TIFF district.

And if you remember, one of the conversations that were made at the time was that the downtown would eat first and the neighborhoods would eat last.

And we said as a council that that was unacceptable.

And we actually put provisions in place to change it.

With this, what made it a little bit different is that they were settling and put forth a settlement agreement for a lawsuit where council does not get involved in settlement agreements regarding lawsuits.

And that's where there's a little bit of a rub.

It would have been great if we would have had conversations and say, hey, this is what we're thinking, and then I would have been able to give some back and forth for counsel.

Um unfortunately that didn't happen.

Uh but I just do want to make sure that I clarify bedrock was a great example because we were dealing with legislation to deal with a TIFF district.

Whereas this, we're dealing with a lawsuit that they are put forth, and we have to anything dealing with real estate or with finances, we either have to accept or turn down that offer.

That's what there's a slight difference in this one than it was with the bedrock one.

But communication definitely um is something we'll look at more forward.

Director McNair, briefly before I move to Councilman Star.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilman Starr.

I did I do think it's important that we clarify here that 31 million dollars of economic impact, that is not direct revenue to the city of Cleveland, right?

That is an indirect spend that occurs downtown.

Um and I think it is important to note look, tax finances are sometimes hard for people to get their arms around in a variety of different ways, right?

Uh and council president, I appreciate that when the Department of Economic Development comes up here and they quote unquote show the math on there, uh, we do that to try to simplify and break it down as much as possible.

When you look at TIFFs, for example, tax increment financing, I believe there are 47 uh tax increment financing deals currently in place in the city of Cleveland for that on an annualized basis, right?

The City of Cleveland is foregoing $3.8 million roughly a year in taxes that we would otherwise receive.

We do that to help make projects possible that otherwise weren't possible.

As a part of the benefit from that, the Cleveland Metropolitan School District collects nearly $18 million a year in taxes, that again wouldn't happen if those projects didn't move forward.

When you look at stadium financing, it starts to get a little bit more abstract.

And ultimately, again, I think the Brown Stadium is a is a good one.

The City of Cleveland, I think it was said we get 11 million dollars in taxes annually that are collected off of that facility.

But when you add up all the costs that are going into upcape of that facility, when you add up the cost around safety around that, we are actually losing money on an annualized basis.

And I think it's around $2 million a year.

I consider that $2 million a year an investment.

Why?

Because there's a roughly a $31 million spend that happens in and around that stadium on an annualized basis, and there are real men and women that own businesses in the city of Cleveland that are benefiting from that, right?

That is the investment we choose to make.

That is what the choice is when you get involved in the business of professional sports.

Now I think it's also critically important that three-year, that kind of first upfront payment of 25 million dollars, uh critical.

I also live in a Cleveland neighborhood, but downtown is also a Cleveland neighborhood.

This is where that impact is hitting first.

And we need to take these initial dollars and kind of accelerate the lakefront transformation and allow Mr.

Skinner and his team to start doing work so that you are starting three years the Browns will be gone.

As Councilman Harsh said, we're going to see that reality.

I don't want to wait for three years to start making laying the groundwork to actually lead to that economic transformation, right?

But I think it is also important.

I think it was important to everyone because as I remind myself all the time, we are on the same team here, right?

We all want every neighborhood in the city of Cleveland to benefit.

We all want every neighborhood in the city of Cleveland to be successful.

There is 25 plus million dollars now that is going directly into the City of Cleveland neighborhoods through this deal.

And yes, it may come staggered over the course of time, but if this deal didn't exist, there wouldn't be that direct benefit, right?

Like I live in Buckeye Shaker, you know, fairly close over to Council President Griffin.

And if we want to wake up and we want to go uh you know over to the Academy Tavern and get a very delicious set of wings to watch the game, we're still going to do that, whether or not the Cleveland Browns play football downtown Cleveland, uh, right?

But it's the businesses downtown that are gonna have that impact first, which is why it's so important that we kind of structure it the way that it's structured.

Thank you, um director.

And at some point in time I do want to follow up around economic development so that everybody can get a chance on uh, you know, to really really uh do a deep dive in that.

I know I got uh sleif policy, Conwill, Casey, Morrow Hair State.

Thank you, Council President.

Um as an aside, uh my six-year-old son has taken a newfound interest in playing blackjack.

And um part of part of the learning curve has been that it's not necessarily a game of skill, it does come down to luck, and that sometimes you just have to play the cards uh that you're dealt.

And and sometimes you can play those cards strategically, and sometimes there's not the strategic way to play the cards that you'd like and you end up not winning.

Um in light of that, you know, and sort of in no particular order.

Yeah, I just kind of want to lay out the facts as I understand them, maybe interspersed with a couple questions.

And while there is a temptation to maybe litigate how we got here today, I really want to focus on being productive because we have a decision that's coming before us.

Um the first is you know, the vi the Browns currently being in violation of a lease, I I certainly understand as being a tool uh that the city could use.

I don't think it is the cure all that we would hope it is for.

I'm telling on myself, but I illegally had a cat when I was renting in an apartment.

Now, my my landlady, my landlady could have found me in uh lease or uh violation of my lease if I wasn't so good at hiding the cat.

And there could have been penalties from that.

I think it would have not included in all of that would have been multiple years back of rent alongside all the ancillary costs.

I don't think it's reasonable for us to expect 25 years versus of rent, just specifically rent, but then utilities and safety and insurance and all of the things that we've put in to be able to be made whole purely.

Unfortunately, and I don't I'm not saying this gleefully, unfortunately, those are in many ways sunk costs.

We can't, we the the money's already been expended.

But to continue the analogy of just your regular apartment lease, there is an opportunity here to get our security deposit back.

And I I don't want to, I I I have to just putting out the spoiler of as I am inclined to agree much of with what Councilman Harsh said is that I worry of a scenario where we are faced with increasing the burden on Cleveland taxpayers because we have a lakefront stadium that is vacant.

Now let me be clear, you know, to Councilman Starr's question about when these conversations began, sometimes remind people I I had a life before this.

When I worked in Mayor Jackson's office as early as I remember, maybe 2014, uh there were questions about the useful life of the stadium.

And I think the useful life of the stadium can be broken into two elements.

There's is it functional?

Can you use it as a stadium?

Yes, you can.

But then we also have to acknowledge that the evolution of professional sports has gone beyond the original Lakefront Stadium, a place for people to congregate, and now it's just a whole bunch of laser light shows and screens, and there's an expectation of fan experience.

And the question comes down to does the stadium we have, which will be vacated, appeal to the market in the year 2030.

I'm very skeptical that it does.

And throughout all of these conversations, my center point has been that Cleveland residents have dutifully and thankfully for us and for the region, contributed directly and indirectly all the dollars that have gone into uh Cleveland Browns Stadium.

And I am not looking to create a scenario where I'm swapping out one subsidy, let's call it, with another subsidy, be that an empty stadium that we would have to continue to maintain and or ultimately demolish at our own cost.

To the law director, I want to make sure that I understand the Modell Law and specifically where we are with it right now, because my again, I'm not an attorney either.

I also play one on TV.

But are the Browns currently in violation of the Model Law?

They are not yet.

Uh if they were to leave uh a tax-supported um stadium for Brook Park, they would be in violation of the old model law.

They would not be uh in violation of what we prefer to call the Haslam Law because that is that requires leaving the state of Ohio.

We would argue um that they should be prevented from leaving under the old model law.

Uh we think we have a good case that uh that it still applies, but again, uh a judge would have to decide that.

Okay.

So but if if a judge through the chair were to determine that the new model law were to be applicable, in this scenario, the Cleveland Browns, which play in a taxpayer supported stadium.

I want to change my answer.

Okay, go ahead, guys.

Uh the model law says that once they declare an intent to leave under the old model law, they're required to have a six-month uh window for a local group to come and make an offer to purchase.

So so I misspoke and I think.

Thank you.

Thank you, but you did you're you're getting ahead of yourself.

I was my next point.

Okay.

So let's slow down, guys.

If in a scenario where the it wasn't Brook Park, say it was Marietta or Cincinnati or somewhere, the mere fact that they're re would be relocating within the state of Ohio, even if it's outside of Northeast Ohio and the Brown's current market, if a judge were to determine that the new version of the Model law applied, essentially it would be it would be it would be moot.

It would not be applicable.

Correct.

Oh, thank you.

I also this is less of a question, more of a statement.

I I I love, I love that the Green Bay Packers are owned by the people.

I think that is absolutely awesome.

And I think that it's a testament to why Green Bay, which is like the size of Lorraine, has a professional football team in this era where you know what was a hundred years ago, a couple guys put on like a small piece of leather and started bumping into each other, and now we've it's grown into this thing that it was probably never intended to be.

But I I have to just say the absurdity of the idea that through the Model law we'd be able to get local control.

Nothing in the Model law, to my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, dictates what that sale price would be.

If my house is listed, if my if my Zillow price on my house is 200,000, I'm not listing my house at 200,000.

I'm listing it at something above that.

So if Forbes says that the Browns are worth $6.4 billion, and I think CNN C N BC said $7.1 billion.

Let's just say $8 billion for fun, just a round number.

Who's paying for that?

Who's paying for that?

We we can't and I in the this following list is not an insult to any of our hardworking city workers.

This is just a statement of our financial capacity in the year 2025.

We can't afford to do leaf pickup across the entire city.

I made a fun video about it.

Check it out.

It's on my Facebook page.

There's an empty theater.

There's an empty theater on the fourth floor of public auditorium that you guys probably don't know about.

Get in the big elevator, hit four, and you'll find this entirely empty place because we don't have the money.

It's storage, which is where we store tables.

We had an old aquarium off of 72nd that we ended up having to demolish.

I mean, our fire station, fire station 23, the one on Madison, it's it's a carcinogen.

I'm just gonna call it what it is.

We have I remember a uh a moment that will be seared in my mind is a mother who came to public comment upset about paint chips falling on her children at the Stella Walsh recenter, uh, which is something I would never have known about but for public comment because that is the the other side of the universe relative to my day-to-day life.

We we struggle with the day-to-day basics and the idea that the city of Cleveland and this region are going to rally together to find billions of dollars to purchase a uh a football team so we can replicate Green Bay is is a uh a great dream, but it's laughable.

I'm sorry, I wish it weren't the case.

So I think we should just move on from that talking point because that's not the card that we've been dealt.

I also have to say that nobody wants it is very easy to agree that we don't want the Browns to leave Cleveland.

I don't want the Browns to leave Cleveland either.

But if the Browns were staying and the plan that was shown to us a number of years ago of how we would renovate a lakefront stadium were to come to pass, this divisive conversation would be about how the city was would be investing to make that happen, which is not universally popular.

And and I I just have to point out that there's it's sort of a lose-lose scenario for us.

In one sense, we lose our beloved team, and in the other sense, we continue to subsidize a team with residents doing that who who struggle to meet their basic needs and and are not seeking to do that.

I'm I'm just uh just speaking of the circumstances I see them.

I'm gonna support this legislation because at the end of the day, our neighborhoods are gonna get something.

Is it everything that I want?

No.

It's also going to prevent us from having to, in lieu of getting something, having to create the subsidy to maintain ageing surprisingly arcane facility.

It was shocking to me.

It was shocking to me in 2014 to hear that the conversation was already being had about major renovations or a replacement of the stadium.

It was only 15 years old at the time.

The paint was fresh and is as far as I was concerned.

But that's that's just that's that's the that's the state of the professional sports environment we live in.

And unfortunately, while we do have a lot of power as a city council, we do not have, I think, the power to unilaterally write this ship, which has turned a beloved pastime into this this large multi-billion dollar industry.

I want to just end with this because I do believe it wouldn't credit where credits due.

Our angst is with the state of Ohio.

It was said to us, you know, the sip by by the Hasm Sports Group that uh everyone was shocked when the state of Ohio agreed to give this amount of money for a stadium in Brook Park.

I I think that that's true.

And I will also say I asked pointedly and said that there are feelings that the mayor and his administration may not have been putting their strongest efforts into retaining their team and essentially speaking to the theory that this was a foregone conclusion.

And the response I got was that that was not the case, and that the uh linchpin and all of this has really been the amount of dollars from the state.

Now that's that is arguably hearsay, but I've just for the sake of the public record, I I want to I want to state it.

So I I just I want to remind my my I want to tell my colleagues of my position, which is that this is not a vote that I am making with a smile on my face, but I agree with Councilman Harsh that the financially responsible thing at this point, given the facts on the table, given the bad cards we have been dealt is not to inflict further financial pain on our city and on our taxpayers, and to understand that the best path forward at this point is one that is not preferred, however, it is what we have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman, for your comments.

Appreciate it.

Consident Michael Palency, Councilman Brian Casey, Moore Hairston.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, my honorable colleagues.

First of all, I want to just say this.

You you cannot compare this deal to what took place 20, what was it, 27 years ago, 26 years ago.

The team had already disappeared.

The team had gone.

We were trying collectively to get the name back and the colors back.

They were gone.

And I commend my um I commend the mayor and my colleagues at that time were putting on a full court press, and I was involved in that to get the team back.

Because when you think about it, think about the Arizona Cardinals, the Indianapolis Colts, the L.A.

Raiders, excuse me, the Las Vegas Raiders.

We were the only city to get our team back and the name back.

What took place then was the fact that the NFL extorted us as it pertains to the terms of the deal.

And that is why a group of us, the Who's Whoa Council at the time, voted against the deal.

Not we weren't voting against the Browns.

We were voting against the terms of the deal.

That is what is before us today, the terms of the deal.

And so, Mr.

Chairman, to my honor honorable colleagues and to Councilman Harsh, you know, um, again, um, I have yet to see a report as it retained to the condition of the stadium.

I keep hearing all this stuff, but I see nothing given to us about the condition of the stadium.

I have seen no report, no engineering of report, no nothing saying that this place is so bad.

And in the terms of the deal, my brothers and sisters, and I would hope you would read it, that the HSG, they get everything in the stadium.

They get the steal, they get to sell the seats, they get to sell whatever they can within the confines of what is presently now known as Huntington Bank Field House or more or uh stadium.

They get it all.

The taxpayers get nothing.

If they want to charge 150 bucks, 200 a seat, they get it for the demolition, which I don't even know again, and I'll state for the record show me an independent engineering report that the stadium has to come down.

So what's before us today is the terms of the deal.

And I appreciate the council president and the leadership team trying to, again, to extract whatever they can out of the deal.

Um but here's here's my basic rub.

I go back to the 100 million dollar figure that I was told two years ago.

I don't know what the discussion was.

In Jimmy Haslin's home with the mayor.

I don't know what the discussion was.

There was no attorneys there.

There was nobody else in that room.

I don't know what the what the um starting point was in the negotiations.

I don't know what the starting point was.

Was it 100 million?

Or was it 50 million?

I don't know what the starting point was.

But what's before us now is a hundred million with 30 million coming out of it for and once we vote on this and it is approved, that stadium is gone.

There's no possibility of it being uh utilized for anything else.

Um at some point the city would like to raise it, then give us that opportunity.

Give us that flexibility in the deal, where we could then decide after an engineering report after trying to do everything we can to repurpose it.

It's gotta go, it's gotta go.

But that's not in the terms.

And now, even with the lease extension to a million dollars for 2029, is it?

The million dollars doesn't even cover the insurance and the taxes on the building.

Don't even cover the insurance and taxes on the frickin' building.

I mean, give me a break.

Give me a break.

If you're going to extend the lease, at least cover our cost.

The cost to the taxpayers of the City of Cleveland.

I don't get it.

I don't get it.

So at the end of the day, I appreciate the efforts that were made by the Council President leadership team to try to extract something more out of this deal.

Because that's what we're voting on today.

As I said to Mr.

Haslam, I understand he owns a team.

It's his team.

I want to say that to the people watching this.

It is his team.

It's not our team.

He owns the team.

I'm very much aware of that, that it's his team.

And he can do with the team which he would like to do.

But at the end of the day, we the citizens of Cleveland sacrifice greatly for that team.

And I heard the figure today used repealy, $600 million.

I would argue that point, I believe it's closer to $700 million that we our citizens gave over this period of term of this period of time.

And what did we wind up with?

We wind up now with a stadium that's supposed to be torn down.

A hole in the ground, or what we're referring to as pad ready.

100 million dollars needed for infrastructure, which we were told today for lakefront improv uh for infrastructure improvements.

I don't know where to where the the money is going to come from to redo the redo the lakefront.

I don't know what neighborhood projects are going to get bumped.

Any developer that wants to come down there is going to want tax abatement and wants going to want TIFFs and God knows what else they're going to want to go on a lakefront.

At the same time, we've heard repeatedly, all my colleagues have heard from their citizens what we need in our neighborhood.

So, Mr.

Chairman, again to my colleagues, I want to just say this.

You are voting on a deal today.

There should not be any emotion.

And I I want to just say this to all my colleagues and to the administration.

I appreciate the um the level of the debate.

It's been cordial.

There hasn't been any hostility at the table.

I think that in itself is a good sign.

In light it there could have been hostility at the table.

But it's been cordial.

It's been direct.

It has a voice.

But at the end of the day, we're voting on the deal.

And the deal as it's structured right now does not favor the City of Cleveland.

That's my opinion.