Cleveland council members outline proposed $2.1 billion 2025 budget at Gunning Recreation presentation

Councilman Brian Casey and Councilwoman Stephanie House Jones presented an overview of the proposed 2025 Cleveland budget at a public meeting at Gunning Recreation, describing a roughly $2.1 billion package and explaining how revenue sources and spending priorities would shape city services.

The presentation, intended to preview the mayor’s upcoming budget submission and to solicit public feedback, outlined the process for the next several weeks: the mayor presents an estimate, department hearings follow, council members deliberate and reconcile proposals, and the council must adopt a final budget that is signed by April 1. "When the mayor presents a budget to us, it's just an estimate. It's actually Cleveland City Council that passes the budget," Casey said.

Casey said the citywide figure is about $2,100,000,000 and described the general fund flow: the presenters reported approximately $806.6 million in proposed revenue and about $805.6 million in proposed expenses in the general operating fund, leaving what was described in the presentation variously as about $61.3 million and later about $62.3 million in reserves. "It's $2,100,000,000 budget, and this is to operate the city of Cleveland," Casey said.

Presenters and materials emphasized that the bulk of general fund revenue comes from local personal income taxes. The council members said roughly 63% of general operating dollars come from people who work in the city, while property taxes account for about 7%. Other revenue sources mentioned included licensing and fees, parking taxes and state distributions such as the Local Government Fund, which the council said is projected at about $31.4 million in the current budget draft.

On the spending side, presenters said roughly half of general fund expenditures go to public safety (police, corrections, EMS and fire). They said the legislative branch (city council) accounts for about 1.2% of total spending and municipal courts about 5.9%. Casey and House Jones noted that personnel costs—salaries and benefits—constitute the largest share of the budget; the presentation cited about $575 million for salaries and benefits across city operations.

Smaller program allocations were called out during the meeting: the Department of Aging was described as receiving about 0.3% of the general fund, roughly $1.4 million in the presenters’ figures, while public health and building-and-housing functions received noticeably smaller shares than public safety. Presenters reiterated that enterprise funds—Cleveland Public Power, the airport, water and similar utilities—are funded by their own fees and cannot be commingled with the general fund.

Residents used the meeting to ask questions about specific items. Catherine Brock and others raised the future of Cleveland Browns Stadium and its fiscal impact; one resident, Mark, asked, "Do we, as a city, how much do we get out of every ticket that is sold at the Browns Stadium?" Casey answered that the city receives 8% of every ticket sold and that the city budgets general fund dollars for maintenance and property obligations related to the stadium. The presenters said operating expenses for the stadium were on the order of $15 million to $16 million in the current figures, while projected admission-tax revenues tied to stadium events were described in the materials as roughly $25 million. Casey said the city had offered incentives totaling $461,000,000 to the current ownership as one comparison point but said he was not privy to any direct communications between Cleveland and Brook Park regarding competing offers.

Other public questions addressed state and federal support, recycling participation and service details. A resident, Paul Rittenhouse, asked how much the city receives on average from federal, state and county governments; presenters said state funding has been cut over time and that the city relies on significant federal grants, notably for public safety, but they did not provide a single consolidated percentage from all outside governments. On recycling, presenters said participation had risen from about 11% at the program’s start to over 60% after outreach and a sticker opt-in system; they explained contaminated blue bins are not collected on the separate recycling truck unless the bin bears the required sticker.

The meeting was framed as an informational preview to upcoming departmental hearings and council deliberations; presenters invited residents to provide input during the statutory public comment periods that follow the budget’s formal readings. No formal votes or budget actions were taken at the meeting.

For more detail, council members said the mayor’s budget will be released on the required date and that council’s hearings and reconciliation process will follow; residents were encouraged to contact elected state officials about any state-level proposals that could affect local funding for the stadium or other initiatives.