Council President Griffin reopened a hearing on ordinance 13‑25, the administration’s proposed settlement with the Browns owners, and allowed more than two hours of presentations, public comment and amendment proposals before the committee recommended the measure to the full council.

Former mayor and congressman Dennis Kucinich told the committee the city had been kept "in the dark for the better part of three years" and called the proposed deal "a fraud upon the city," urging members to reject the settlement, preserve litigation leverage and explore using the Modell law to keep the team in Cleveland or to demand far higher penalties from ownership. "If there was a determination to serve Cleveland taxpayers instead of serving the Browns owners," Kucinich said, "charge the owners $100,000,000 in rent through 2031." (Dennis Kucinich, former mayor and U.S. representative.)

The administration’s legal team and city officials said the term sheet reflected changes driven by council feedback. Law Director Mark Scalish said the amended term sheet clarifies that the city will not be forced to expend general‑fund dollars to move the Browns, requires prevailing wage and adherence to the city’s equal‑opportunity rules for demolition work inside the city, increases Cleveland small‑business participation goals on demolition contracting, and explicitly makes council the approver of community‑benefit spending. "There is nothing here which is going to require the City of Cleveland to spend any money on behalf of the Browns moving," Scalish told the committee. (Law Director Mark Scalish.)

Under the package recommended by committee, the city would receive guaranteed payments in stages: an initial $25 million tied to passage and other settlement milestones, and a total of roughly $100 million available under the full structure and options in the term sheet (the administration says recent adjustments could raise some line items). The administration also agreed in committee to add $5 million more for citywide priorities beyond the lakefront and to tighten language so council retains final say over the $20–25 million described as "community benefits." Councilmember Slife, who helped negotiate the amendment, said the change increased the flexibility of funds for neighborhoods while retaining lakefront investment.

Council members pressed repeatedly for specifics. Several members said they were concerned the deal as initially drafted gave the team too much influence over how community funds would be used and that demolition and lakefront plans lacked publicly available engineering and reuse analyses. Administration officials said an Osborne Engineering study estimating further investment needs for the stadium had been provided to council staff: according to the administration, full renovation would be costly and reuse options were limited. Scott Skinner, an administration waterfront official, estimated preliminary infrastructure and public‑space work for lakefront redevelopment could be in the $40–$80 million range and said private development and grants would be needed to close the gap.

Several council members said they remained undecided about final passage but supported the committee amendments that (1) increased Cleveland business and MBE participation requirements for demolition contracting, (2) added prevailing‑wage protections for demolition work inside Cleveland, and (3) moved additional dollars toward neighborhood priorities. Council President Griffin said the committee could have delayed the decision but that postponing would leave significant uncertainty in the lakefront development schedule and might forfeit funds now being offered.

The committee adopted the amendments and voted to recommend the amended ordinance to the full council. Because the term sheet resolves litigation elements and real‑estate transfers, council members were advised that the core substantive terms are now before the full council as a single legislative package; ancillary contractual language (arbitration mechanics, notices and procedural clauses) will be finalized in the settlement agreement and contract documents.

What happens next: The ordinance, as amended, will be considered on the council floor tonight. If the council votes to accept the settlement the administration expects the early payments and the community‑benefit commitments to proceed under the amended schedule; if council rejects the settlement, the administration and law department warned, litigation would continue (with additional legal costs and risks) and the state funding and private development timelines for Brook Park and the lakefront could be affected. The committee hearing produced no judicial determination; several members said the record left significant open questions about long‑term neighborhood impacts, demolition cost allocation, and enforcement mechanisms for the community and contract commitments.