Over the past 24 hours, the battle between the Cleveland Browns and the City of Cleveland has been heating up.
Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne said the Browns’ move to a domed stadium in Brook Park is “a risky bet with public dollars” during a Wednesday afternoon press conference.
Watch the full press conference in the player below:
“I want to unpack what our fiscal analysts have unpacked for me and share transparently with you, the public, why we see the Haslam Sports Group proposal for Brook Park as a risky bet for public dollars,” Ronayne said. “The responsibility to pay for that bond at $600 million is a responsibility that would be laid upon the public, not HSG; the debt must be repaid by the taxpayers, not HSG.”
This follows the Cleveland Browns' doubling down on their move out of Cleveland and ramping up their fight against the Modell Law, which was designed to make it harder for pro sports teams to pull up stakes.
The Browns are asking a federal judge to rule that the Modell law is unconstitutional - and that it doesn't apply to the Browns and their plan to move to a new suburban stadium in 2029 after their lease ends at city-owned Huntington Bank Field in Downtown Cleveland.
RELATED:'You can't take the money and run.' City of Cleveland sues the Browns over Modell law
Earlier this month, the team asked the state to issue $600 million to help pay for the project and to make that commitment part of the next biennial state budget.
According to Ronayne, some have mischaracterized the $600 million funding proposal as a loan rather than a bond that could cost the state of Ohio billions of dollars in bond payments.
During Wednesday's press conference, Ronayne said that over half of the yearly funding sources for proposed local public debt repayment are admission taxes, which are subject to aggressive assumptions on ticket prices for NFL games and non-NFL events. To meet the assumptions, median ticket prices would need to increase to $800 for 30 years.
“Historic ticket price growth may not be an appropriate way to gage to construct the financing plan from Northeast Ohio's tax base, economic profile, demographics, disposable income changes, revenues are based in this model on,” Ronayne said. “The absolute best case scenario assuming more than 2.3 million event tickets sold every year for 30 years.”
Regarding income tax, Ronayne said projections rely on office, retail and other non-NFL sources. The parking tax assumptions assume that for 30 years, every NFL game at the proposed dome would utilize 100% of parking spaces with no variance, Ronayne said.
“There are no guarantees,” Ronayne said. “There are no guarantees that development will occur in a challenging development market.”
For hotels in the area surrounding the dome, there would be a 1% increase in bed tax, which would require new state legislative authority from the General Assembly because it does not currently exist, Ronayne said.
Additionally, he said there were discrepancies in projections between the county and HSG in nominal dollars and growth rate assumptions. The team projects a 4.5% growth year after year, while the county projects 2%.
“Total tax collections [the team] projected from the years 2026 to 2025 is $375.5 million,” Ronayne said. “The county’s projected number is $265.6 million the projections have a wide, wide variance. So you can hear a theme: the overly optimistic projections on the financial modeling put this county in risk.”
A state traffic and infrastructure study by the Ohio Department of Transportation is anticipated to be completed in 18 months, and Ronayne said there could be negative impacts on airport traffic, access to hospitals, and total expected infrastructure costs that are still unknown.
Ronayne said the battle has never been Cleveland versus Brook Park, but the “doable plan” would be to renovate the Browns’ current lakefront stadium, which was the team’s original proposal.
“This has never been Cleveland versus Brook Park. This has always been about everybody's Downtown, whether you live in Brook Park, Cleveland or any other suburb throughout Cuyahoga County,” Ronayne said. “But as it relates to doability, and as it relates to the issue of risk, the doable plan is downtown, roughly half the cost of the Brook Park expectation.”
Wednesday evening, a Haslam Group Spokesperson released a statement in response to Ronayne's remarks about the move:
While we respect the Mayor and County Executive, the facts are the facts. We have detailed the work completed in collaboration with our team of experts and have taken a conservative approach in our exploration and projections for both stadium options. The work shows definitively that an enclosed stadium in Brook Park is the most viable long-term solution and the best choice to ensure a thriving future for the Cleveland Browns, our fans, Greater Cleveland and Northeast Ohio. Despite our extensive efforts to explore and collaborate on a lakefront option, the City’s plan is the risky bet. It is not economically viable. It includes no concrete path for making funds available to start construction. And, more importantly, it will burden its taxpayers for decades to come while kicking the can down the road. In stark contrast, the Brook Park proposal will not draw from existing taxpayer revenue streams, does not require any funding from the City, and will be funded primarily by revenue generated from the project. Further, we have not finalized any ticket prices and are committed to offering ticket options at a variety of price points. We can say definitively that the average ticket price claimed by the Mayor and County Executive is more than three times what we would expect the average ticket price at the new stadium to be. We remain committed to coming together with both state and local public officials to create a positive and meaningful long-term economic benefit for Cleveland and the surrounding region while giving Browns fans one of the best game day experiences in the world.
