CLEVELAND — Remember when you were a kid in math class, and your teacher asked you to show your work?
As the Cleveland Browns seek $1.2 billion in taxpayer money to help pay for a new, domed stadium in Brook Park, that's what some local financing experts are urging the team to do.
And they aren’t the only ones.
On Wednesday, a group of Democratic Ohio House members called for a timeout. They want more public hearings and an independent analysis of the assumptions undergirding the Browns’ plans.
“With so many unanswered questions, we must take the time to conduct a more rigorous review of these financial assumptions,” Reps. Terrence Upchurch of Cleveland, Dontavius Jarrells of Columbus and Dani Isaacsohn of Cincinnati wrote in a letter to their colleagues. “When both independent experts and local officials voice skepticism about the viability of a project, we must take those concerns seriously.”
The Browns are asking the state to issue $600 million in bonds for the stadium. And they’re lobbying for that funding to be part of the next state budget, which lawmakers need to send to Gov. Mike DeWine by the end of June.
The team also is asking Cuyahoga County to issue $600 million in bonds – a request County Executive Chris Ronayne won't consider, saying it's far too risky for taxpayers and the county's credit rating.
RELATED: Cuyahoga County executive says Browns move to Brook Park is a 'risky bet with public dollars'
The rest of the money for the $2.4 billion stadium project would come from private sources, including team owner Haslam Sports Group, which said it would cover any cost overruns.
The team’s plans also call for roughly $1 billion in private development – hotels, offices, apartments, restaurants, entertainment and parking – on 176 acres near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.
“Is going to Brook Park the best for the Browns? Yes. Yes,” Ted Tywang, the team’s general counsel, said during a recent presentation to an Ohio House committee. “We’ve done years of work. It is the best for the Browns. It is the best for Northeast Ohio.”
But skeptics said the Browns haven’t released anywhere near enough information to prove that case. They want a deep dive into the math – the inputs, not just the outputs.
“They’re coming in, and they’re showing a lot of pretty pictures,” said Steve Strnisha, who has worked in public and private finance in Cleveland for decades. “It’s like somebody going into the bank and saying ‘I’m building a new home here. Look at how nice my new home is gonna be.’”
Strnisha was Cleveland’s finance director in the early 1990s. After that, he worked at the regional chamber of commerce, then served as a financing consultant on major real estate projects, including the 23-acre Flats East Bank district Downtown.
He’s been closely following the Browns’ Brook Park plans – and wondering about everything from the cost of event tickets to the team’s predictions about how successful apartment buildings, office space and parking lots on the broader property will be.
“It’s real detailed, nerdy stuff. But it’s essential to understand those things. And we, the public, has a right to understand that,” Strnisha said.
“I’m stunned by the lack of transparency,” he added.
News 5 reached out to the Browns with a request to dig into the math with the team’s top in-house lawyer and the New York investment bank working on the proposal. A spokesman said the Browns aren’t ready to have that conversation yet.
The team has released overview numbers – a snapshot of anticipated costs and potential revenues tied to the project.
During a meeting at their headquarters in Berea last month, Haslam Sports Group executives shared a chart outlining the public financing and proposed repayment streams.
They said the project will more than pay for itself, ultimately leaving the state, Cuyahoga County, and Brook Park with billions of dollars in gains – money to spend on other priorities.
RELATED: Browns detail their Brook Park stadium financing plans publicly for the first time
“There’s enough fiscal impact – or direct tax revenues – to support the investment we’re asking for. And then some,” Tywang told state lawmakers earlier this month.
RELATED: Browns reveal more details about Brook Park plans in their pitch to state lawmakers
Ken Silliman doubts that. He worked for three mayors at Cleveland City Hall before retiring in 2017 and negotiated lease deals with all three of the city’s major-league teams. A critic of stadium subsidies, he recently published a book about his experiences.
“They’ve done a lot for the community,” he said of the Haslam family and the Browns organization. “But the magnitude of this ask overwhelms what they’ve done.”
He believes the stadium proposal deserves much deeper scrutiny. “They show the total numbers in their chart, but they don’t explain how they get there,” he said.
House Democrats made similar points Wednesday in their letter to Republican Rep. Brian Stewart, who leads the finance committee, and Republican Rep. Melanie Miller, who leads a committee on the arts, athletics and tourism.
“A proposal of this magnitude should not be rushed or inserted into an amendment to a larger budget bill without the necessary due diligence. We have a responsibility to our taxpayers to ensure transparency and fiscal responsibility in this process,” the letter reads.
The Democrats asked to hear directly from officials with the state budget office and the Ohio Department of Taxation. They want to see a detailed presentation from consultants working with the Browns and a full analysis from the nonpartisan Legislative Services Commission.
They also asked who will pay for public infrastructure improvements, like road work, around the stadium district; how proposals to get rid of Ohio’s income tax might impact the financial model and the state’s ability to pay debt service on the bonds; and if private developers who sign on to build the district around the stadium will seek tax breaks from state and local governments.
During his pitch to lawmakers on March 11, Tywang showed a presentation that included one slide of numbers – a snapshot of anticipated spending by and returns to the state over three decades. That slide is the most detailed information the Browns have shared publicly so far.
Their proposal calls for the state to use increased sales-tax revenues, income-tax revenues and commercial activity tax revenues from the entire Brook Park site to repay the bondholders. Over 25 years, with interest, the state's investment in the deal would approach $1 billion.
The Browns are asking Brook Park to raise its admissions tax from 3% to 6.5% and to pledge admission-tax revenues, income-tax revenues and parking-tax revenues across the whole district toward payments on the local share of the public debt.
And the team wants Cuyahoga County to impose an additional 1% tax on hotel stays and a fee on rental cars – proposals that would need state legislative approval. Ronayne made it clear during a recent news conference that he's not on board with those requests.
The Browns are on the clock to start construction in Brook Park early next year so they can move into the new stadium for the start of the 2029 NFL season. Their lease at the existing stadium Downtown, which the city of Cleveland owns, is set to end in February of 2029.
The project’s future depends heavily on the state budget – and changes in state law that would allow Ohio to make an unprecedented investment in a pro sports facility.
“We are the bank,” Strnisha said. “The community is the bank that they are coming to for assistance.”
He has one request.
“No more pretty pictures. Just numbers. Just numbers.”
