BEREA, Ohio — The Cleveland Browns believe a new domed stadium and surrounding development in Brook Park will bring up to 1.5 million more visitors here a year, attracting major concerts that are passing us by and pumping $1.2 billion into Cuyahoga County’s economy.
Those are the headline findings of an economic impact study commissioned by the team – a stark contrast with an analysis released last month by the city of Cleveland. The Browns released a summary of their report on Thursday and gave News 5 an early look at the findings during an interview at the team’s headquarters in Berea.
“We do see this as an opportunity for net new growth,” said Erin Talkington, who leads the sports and entertainment division at RCLCO, a real estate consulting firm that’s been working with the Browns and Haslam Sports Group for several years.
The Browns aren’t releasing a full copy of the RCLCO report. But they’re sharing an overview as owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam try to garner support – and public financing – to replace the open-air stadium in Downtown Cleveland with a new suburban venue.
The proposed stadium could cost $2.4 billion, a tab the Haslams hope to split with taxpayers. It would be surrounded by development – apartments, hotels, retail, offices and thousands of parking spaces. That mixed-use project, with a potential $1 billion price tag, would be privately funded.
RELATED: How will the Browns pay for a new stadium in Brook Park? Here's what we know.
For months, the Haslams and the Browns have described the Brook Park project as an economic development play. RCLCO’s study uses similar language, saying the planned stadium “is primed for success as an anchor for mixed-use development and as a catalyst to create transformative economic impact for Northeast Ohio and the state.”
That finding conflicts with a recent report paid for by the city of Cleveland, which has been fighting to keep the Browns Downtown.
RELATED: A Browns move to Brook Park will deal an economic blow to Cleveland, study says
The city’s report, which News 5 obtained last month through a records request, said the Brook Park project will deal a $30 million annual blow to Cleveland’s economy. And the pain could be greater, the city’s consultant wrote, if a suburban stadium takes events away from existing Downtown venues, including Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse.
Talkington dismissed that prospect, saying RCLCO’s research points to substantial gains for Cleveland and the region.
“I mean, there’s always gonna be 10 different ways to look at economic impact, and it’s gonna be driven by your underlying assumptions. Your knowledge on the project and which viewpoint you’re coming from,” she said. “I think what’s really hard to argue with is that, if you’re bringing 1.5 million new visitors a year to the region … how would that not have a transformative impact?”
The Browns believe a modern, domed stadium could land six to 10 additional major concerts or events each year, drawing crowds of 50,000 or more people. Huntington Bank Field only attracts three such large-scale, non-NFL events in a typical year now.
And RCLCO believes most of the patrons won’t be local. This year, more than 40% of the people who attended non-NFL events at Huntington Bank Field came to Cleveland from outside the state, Talkington said.
The study predicts the entire 176-acre development, which could take a decade or longer to complete, would create $1.2 billion in new annual spending and business activity across Cuyahoga County. About $260 million of that would happen off-site.
Of the remaining $1 billion, approximately 60% would come from the mixed-use project. The rest would be tied to the stadium.
The economic impact beyond the county would be much smaller, at about $181 million a year, the study says.
In an emailed statement, Cuyahoga County said it hasn't seen the study yet. County Executive Chris Ronayne has repeatedly said he's opposed to the Brook Park plan and believes the Browns should stay Downtown.
"We don't want to engage in a game of political football," the county's statement reads, "but a biased report attempting to justify an unprecedented sum of taxpayer money for a new stadium does not change our position, and we're going to have to throw a flag on the play.
"Economic impact studies commissioned by organizations with a vested interest often present overly optimistic projections that do not reflect the financial realities faced by local governments and taxpayers," the county added. "Our residents remain our top priority, and we want to ensure that any public participation benefits them, our communities and the investment the public and private sector have already made."
RCLCO predicts that the Brook Park project will support almost 5,400 full-time jobs. Two-thirds of those jobs would be on-site, largely fueled by the mixed-use development wrapped around the stadium. The rest of the jobs – 1,980 – would be at other businesses in the region.
And the project could generate more than 6,000 construction jobs a year at its peak.
The first phase of construction would take roughly three years and include the 67,500-seat stadium and about 1 million square feet of development, including one or two hotels, more than 400 apartments, retail and 12,000 to 14,000 parking spaces.
Talkington and her colleagues are working on similar projects in other cities where RCLCO represents public-sector entities, private developers and teams.
“There are 43 existing and under-construction sports-anchored, mixed-use projects across the five major leagues in the country,” she said. “It’s driven by a lot of things. Initially, it was … just about capturing the visitor activity and making a better fan experience.”
But teams quickly realized there were opportunities to capture new revenue streams from parking, dining, lodging and people living and working in these large stadium districts.
That’s the idea in Brook Park, where the Haslams are still pulling together funding for their ambitious vision.
They’re talking to public-sector entities about issuing bonds to help finance construction. The debt service on those bonds could be paid using some of the new tax revenues from the project, on everything from admissions to parking to hotel stays.
The team’s lease at the city-owned stadium Downtown ends after the 2028 season. The Browns aim to relocate in 2029, but they’re on a tight timeline to buy the Brook Park land – a former automotive plant property – and start site preparations.
If the move happens, Cleveland expects to lose about $11 million in tax revenues a year; however, the city already spends more than that on debt service and the other costs of owning and maintaining the lakefront stadium.
The Browns argue that moving to the suburbs will free up valuable lakefront land for other projects, at a time when Cleveland is garnering federal and state support to reimagine the area north of the stadium and better link Downtown to the water.
RELATED: Cleveland unveils final lakefront master plan as momentum grows for land bridge Downtown
And RCLCO believes a suburban stadium district ultimately will be a boon to the city, since people going to games, concerts and other events will still need to stay at Downtown hotels and eat at bars and restaurants in the city.
Talkington ultimately expects economic activity in the central business district to grow, despite what the city's consultant, Econsult Solutions Inc., says.
“You actually are going to see $11 million more in spending Downtown than you do today – just spread over more days,” she predicted. “So rather than having 10 days where it’s just absolutely mayhem, you’re more likely to have 60 days or 70 days where you have a real impact on the hotel occupancy and on the retail and the restaurant spending.”
In an emailed statement Thursday afternoon, Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb's administration challenged that claim.
"While the Cleveland Browns' economic impact report suggests potential benefits to the region with their move to Brook Park, we don't need a study to understand the fundamental truth: fewer people in our downtown area means less vibrancy and economic activity for our city and our businesses," a city spokeswoman wrote.
"A vibrant city thrives on foot traffic and economic activity," she added. "Putting Cleveland first, we must prioritize maintaining and growing our Cleveland neighborhoods."
