Cleveland city leaders gathered Oct. 20 for a special hearing to begin public vetting of a proposed settlement in which the Haslam Sports Group (HSG) would deliver $100 million and prepare the Lakefront Stadium site after the Browns’ announced move to Brook Park. Council members stressed they would not vote at the hearing and said they need to see the full settlement agreement and more financial detail before debating legislation.

The term sheet on the table would deliver $25 million to the city by Dec. 1, require HSG to demolish the stadium and make the site "pad ready," obligate HSG to pay an estimated $30 million for demolition (the administration said any overrun would be HSG’s responsibility), provide another $25 million in later payments, and set aside $20 million for community benefits projects to be determined. The agreement also includes two one‑year lease extension options under current terms and multiple legal provisions tied to ongoing litigation.

Council President opened the hearing by describing its purpose as a procedural step: to establish council’s role, review the timeline and learn how negotiations were conducted. The mayor’s team told council the administration and outside counsel Jones Day led the legal strategy and that the mayor had taken the lead in negotiations.

Mayor Bibb said the administration pursued a settlement because the city faced legal and political headwinds, including state funding for Brook Park and changes to the state "Model Law." "I strongly believe that this settlement is the best path to secure meaningful value for the city, protect the taxpayers ... and transform our Lakefront," Mayor Bibb said.

Mark Griffin, the law director, described the legal posture the city had before the settlement talks: the city had claims under the Model Law and for breach of the lease, but neither claim guaranteed the Browns would be required to remain after the lease ends in 2029. "The baseline was 0," Griffin said, summarizing the department’s view that litigation could have left the city with no enforceable right to keep the team and with ongoing stadium liabilities.

Administration staff described elements the term sheet leaves to later drafting: a precise definition of "pad ready" that the administration says includes demolition, clearing, utilities and environmental site work; the negotiation and drafting of a formal settlement agreement consistent with the term sheet; and further specification of the community benefits package. Jessica Trivassano, a member of the administration team, said the substantive settlement terms are in the term sheet but that standard legal drafting (venue, notice provisions) remains to be completed.

Council members repeatedly pressed for more information. Key items they requested included the full, final settlement agreement (not just the term sheet); an accounting of stadium-related costs the city has borne (council members cited an outstanding principal figure of roughly $32 million and estimated ongoing debt service); current legal fees; estimates of capital repairs and operations through the end of the lease; and a net accounting of the economic effect of the team’s departure compared with the settlement receipts.

Several council members challenged the administration on notice and briefing. Councilman Michael Polincic, Councilman Brian Casey and others said many members learned details from media reports rather than direct briefings. The administration responded that leadership and the council president were briefed when material changes occurred and that negotiating strategy required confidentiality at times.

Council members also pressed on implementation details and local impacts: whether HSG would be required to fund environmental remediation (the administration said the site has preliminary due diligence and is "remarkably clean" and any required remediation would be part of site work paid by HSG); whether funds for community benefits would include enforceable local hiring or job‑training guarantees; and whether the city would continue to shoulder stadium maintenance or debt if the team exercises lease extension options. Several members urged a binding community benefits agreement (CBA) and stronger, specific job and contracting commitments for Cleveland residents.

The law director outlined how authority is split: the law department can settle many claims and dismiss cases in court, but council must approve actions involving city real estate or accepting and expending certain donations. "There are no kings in America," Griffin said; some settlement steps fall to the law director, others to council. The administration said the ordinance being prepared would seek authority to enter a finalized agreement consistent with the term sheet while noting council’s statutory role over real estate transactions and donations.

Council members also sought clarification on deadlines: the administration explained that the Dec. 1 payment of $25 million is conditioned on steps in the term sheet and that an approval timeline of roughly Nov. 24–25 would ensure funds could be received on Dec. 1. The administration said failing to act by that date would delay, but not forfeit, the payment.

Law department counsel summarized active litigation: federal lawsuits challenging the Model Law and related questions, a city suit alleging lease breaches, an appeal concerning Ohio Department of Transportation permitting for the Brook Park project, and a taxpayer suit filed by former Mayor Dennis Kucinich. Counsel said the taxpayer suit would likely be mooted by a settlement.

Council members expressed strong disagreement about the settlement’s value and strategy. Several said $100 million did not adequately compensate the city given the decades of public investment in the stadium and the recurring annual revenues and economic activity the Browns produced. Others said litigation risk and the prospect of getting nothing after 2029 justified a pragmatic settlement.

No formal vote or ordinance was taken at the meeting. Council members and the administration agreed to a sequence of next steps: the administration will provide the full settlement agreement and detailed financial attachments; committee hearings (Municipal Services and Properties, Department of Public Service topics, Finance) will be scheduled for deeper review; council asked for line‑item numbers (outstanding debt, projected capital repairs, game‑day public‑safety costs, legal fees to date and projected costs) and a present‑value analysis of the proposed payments. Jessica Trivassano reported a present‑value calculation of about $87 million using a 4% discount rate for the full payment stream.

Council members and labor representatives also signaled they expect enforceable community benefits language and a CBA that secures local hiring and contracting opportunities; some council members said they would insist on those elements before approving legislation. Several council members also asked the administration to assemble economic‑impact modeling on businesses and neighborhoods likely to be affected by the Browns’ departure.

The committee framed the hearing as the first of several public deliberations. Council President closed by reiterating that council holds authority over specified parts of the settlement, that the lawsuit represents leverage while council continues review, and that the body would not rush a vote without receiving the full agreement and requested financial details.

The administration and council scheduled follow‑up briefings and committee reviews; the November timeframe for possible council action to secure the Dec. 1 payment was emphasized as a practical deadline the administration is monitoring. Council members warned they will press for binding contracts and clear enforcement mechanisms in the final settlement language before approving any measures that affect city property, revenues or expenditures.