CLEVELAND — Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne said he is not sold on the Cleveland Browns’ funding plan for a $2.4 billion Brook Park stadium that would require the county to issue $600 million in bonds.

What You Need To Know

  • The team projects revenue earned from the new development will be more than enough to cover the cost of those bonds, but Ronayne said the county’s assessment of the those projections found they are too optimistic and would leave taxpayers at risk

  • The county’s response comes a day after the team penned an open letter to fans highlighting what they see as benefits that would come from building the stadium in Brook Park
  • As the funding plan is being negotiated, the Browns and City of Cleveland are counter-suing each other over whether the team can move to Brook Park without first putting the team up for sale. 

“HSG has asked the county to risk its credit worthiness and its general fund on this project,” Ronayne said in a presser Wednesday evening. “And my citizens, my fellow citizens, I say to you, that is risk we should not bear.”

Haslam Sports Group, or HSG, which owns the Browns, are asking taxpayers to cover half the cost of the stadium, seeking a $600 million contribution from the state and another $600 million from Cuyahoga County and the City of Brook Park.

The team projects revenue earned from the new development will be more than enough to cover the cost of those bonds, but Ronayne said the county’s assessment of the those projections found they are too optimistic and would leave taxpayers at risk. 

He claims HSG’s proposal assumes “best case scenario” for things like ticket sales, parking utilization and occupancy in the office and residential spaces around the stadium.

“Haslam Sports Groups’ proposal relies on lofty projections and new tax sources on the public to fund their unprecedented request of $1.2 billion in public dollars for their stadium,” he said.

The county’s response comes a day after the team penned an open letter to fans highlighting what they see as benefits that would come from building the stadium in Brook Park, like how the new enclosed facility will be able to host events year-round and can improve the challenging parking situation downtown. 

Earlier this month, Browns representatives made the case for a Brook Park stadium to state lawmakers, who are now considering selling $600 million in bonds to help finance the project. In that statehouse committee, the Browns’ general counsel, Ted Tywang, also announced the team will provide a $38 million upfront payment to the state, that could be tapped into in case the new revenue stream is not sufficient, as an added protection for Ohio taxpayers. Ronayne said the county has not been offered any such protection.

He has remained steadfast with his desire to keep the Browns on Cleveland’s lakefront, but said Wednesday that the Haslams have told him they could potentially move forward with the Brook Park plan, even without the county’s support.

As the funding plan is being negotiated, the Browns and City of Cleveland are countersuing each other over whether the team can move to Brook Park without first putting the team up for sale. 

The city is using an Ohio law —  known as the “Art Modell Law” — to sue the team in state court. The law requires owners of sports teams who play in taxpayer-supported facilities to offer to sell the team before leaving their host city. The Browns, countersuing the city in federal court, claim that law is unconstitutional, and recently filed a document that claims the city doesn’t have a competitive plan for lakefront development. 

Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb released a statement calling the Haslams’ claims insulting and going on to say their request for $1 billion in public funding is a “betrayal of taxpayers.”

Several city council members, including Brian Kazy, have also been vocal about their disappointment with the Haslams’ decision to move.