COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Cleveland Browns are trying not to fumble an opportunity to get hundreds of millions of dollars from the state, but some lawmakers are already trying to intercept the possible deal.
"This would be one of the largest economic development projects in Northeast Ohio History, and even in the state of Ohio," Ted Tywang, Haslam Sports Group’s chief administrative officer and general counsel, said during testimony Tuesday.
During a committee hearing at the Statehouse, Tywang presented their plan to receive $600 million in bonds to help pay for a new stadium in Brook Park. The dome would be for more than just football.
"Final Fours and weekends of major concerts and college football playoffs," he listed.
The total cost of the Brook Park development would be $3.4 billion.
However, the stadium itself would cost $2.4 billion. The team would pay for $1.2 billion themselves, and taxpayers would foot the rest of the bill — $600 million from local jurisdictions like Cuyahoga County and the remaining $600 million from the state.
It’s clear that Haslam Sports Group isn’t buying into Gov. Mike DeWine’s proposal to double the tax rate on sports-gaming companies to gradually fund major investments in professional athletic facilities.
RELATED: Browns reveal more details about Brook Park plans in a pitch to state lawmakers
Upfront, the Browns would pay $38 million in a refundable deposit to assure the state they are serious about the investment opportunity.
"$38 million — is that enough?" I asked Tywang following the hearing.
"We think with the cushion that is absolutely is," he said.
Lawmakers react
House Finance Chair Brian Stewart (R-Ashville) is interested.
"It's essentially escrowing money that would grow over time so that the Browns can kind of put their money where their mouth is," Stewart told me.
There seems to be more of an appetite for this plan than the governor's proposal, he added. Gov. Mike DeWine wants to double the sports betting tax, creating a fund for all professional sports teams to get money from in the future.
Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio (D-Lakewood) said the tax changes are the much better option.
"It would solve these kinds of issues so every couple of years we don't have some sports franchise, entity coming to the legislature with their hand out saying 'you have to give us some money so that we can stay in the community,'" she said.
Still, Antonio and the majority of the lawmakers from Cleveland and the surrounding suburbs are firmly opposed to this. During the question and answer portion of the committee, Terrence Upchurch (D-Cleveland) did say that Cleveland wouldn't punish them for leaving, angering some constituents who were watching and reached out to me.
"We will remain Browns fans whether you guys stay on the lakefront or go to Brook Park, myself included," Upchurch said. "I'll still be a fan whether you stay on the lakefront or go to Brook Park."
The vocal Cleveland lawmakers don't sit on the Arts, Athletics and Tourism Committee, but several told me they are disappointed that Upchurch didn't press harder.
That said, he did ask if the Browns considered the impact that moving to Brook Park would have on the fans' pockets, as well as if moving out of the lakefront was the best idea.
"We've done years of work — it is the best for the Browns, it is the best for Northeast Ohio," Tywang said.
That being said, Assistant Minority Leader Dontavius Jarrells (D-Columbus) and Haraz Ghanbari (R-Perrysburg) seemed more skeptical about the proposal.
Jarrells asked how Ohioans are supposed to feel assured that the Browns won't eventually come back to the Statehouse to ask for more money, and if they don't — the team would threaten to move out of state.
"We're not asking for a handout for $600 million from the state," the Browns attorney responded. "So again, there's going to be a return for the state on this investment."
Ghanbari questioned the future of the Browns.
"So what is Plan B if Brook Park doesn't work out?" Ghanbari asked.
"Got to dust off my resume, I guess," Tywang responded. "We would never leave Northeast Ohio... We would probably stay downtown."
State Rep. D.J. Swearingen asked about the cash collateral, then asked if the project could go forward without the $600 million from the state.
"We think in a market like Cleveland and Northeast Ohio, that the project isn't viable without a public-private partnership," the attorney responded.
The amount of money the Browns is asking for is not a small lift, Jarrells pointed out.
"We are dealing with real issues in Ohio, and we don't have enough money to address every issue — there are children who are going hungry, there are lack of housing options. Heck, we have leadline issues across our state that is poisoning kids," Jarrells said. "Say that $600 million could do a lot of good to change the material conditions of Ohioans, and yet, we're going to possibly give that money to a stadium that will produce some good economically, but would not change the material conditions of their lived experience right now in the state of Ohio."
How is the lawmaker supposed to communicate that thought to his constituents, he asked. The attorney responded that the Haslam family loves to give back and that "rising tide lifts all boats."
Ghanbari dug into that answer.
"How does that $600 million ask relate to the overall salaries of your players in a given year?" the lawmaker asked.
"I think the salary cap data is public; I'm not sure I see the connection," the attorney said. "It is not cash that's being taken away from something else — that should have been my first answer."
Referencing Jarrells' question, Tywang said that this is not a cash handout, and they aren't asking for money to be taken away from health funding for this project.
Although this would be an investment and would eventually go back to the state, that $600 million needs to come from somewhere right now. Yes, the Browns are not asking for money to be removed from school funding, but lawmakers need to find those dollars somewhere. There isn't a surplus like there has been in previous years due to federal COVID-19 dollars being left over.
"Should we be giving $600 million in bonds to multibillionaires to move the Cleveland Browns out of Cleveland?" I asked Antonio.
"Well, no, I don't believe we should," she responded. "The same colleagues that are considering doing this are also saying we should get rid of a whole bunch of taxes, so I'm not even sure where that money is supposed to come from."
Bonds are a common way to make deals, and with a guaranteed lump sum payment from the Browns to start, Ohioans won't be on the hook if the dome isn't successful, Stewart argued.
"'We think that our increased revenue is gonna cover the cost of the bonds, but if we're wrong, 'Hey, we've put up the money to actually guarantee and make sure taxpayers are made whole,'" Stewart said, acting as if he was the Browns when responding.
The City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County have been fighting against moving the team out of the city limits, arguing that the team's proposal is overly optimistic. Tywang disagrees.
"We are trying to move Northeast Ohio's economy forward," he said.
The lawmakers will continue to consider this proposal in the coming months.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
