Cleveland City Council approves settlement enabling Browns relocation and lakefront work over two recorded no votes

Cleveland City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 13 25 20 25, a departmental request that authorizes the mayor to enter agreements and settlement terms with the Cleveland Browns related to the team’s relocation and associated lakefront improvements. The ordinance passed with a recorded vote of 13 yeas and 2 nays.

Councilmember Michael D. Polensek rose during debate to register a formal no on the measure, saying the $100,000,000 package on the table “is not a good deal for the city of Cleveland.” Polensek questioned whether demolition of Huntington Bank Field is required, citing an Osborne assessment that described the stadium as “in good condition” for its age, and he objected to provisions that would give the Browns rights to salvage and recycling from the stadium’s demolition. “They get control of it, but it’s our building,” he said, arguing the city could lose valuable materials and revenue.

Polensek also highlighted cost concerns in the agreement, saying roughly $30,000,000 is allocated for demolition and pointing to legal fees and other line items he said leave the city “in the red” on the deal. He urged independent engineering review and more direct negotiation with team owners and corporate partners before finalizing commitments.

Clerk roll calls recorded the vote totals for several related items later in the meeting: Ordinance 13 25 20 25 passed 13 yeas, 2 nays; Ordinance 14 56 20 25 recorded 14 yeas, 1 nay; Ordinance 15 12 20 25 recorded 14 yeas, 1 nay. Councilmember Jenny Spencer announced a recusal from Ordinance 15 12 20 25 prior to the roll call.

Council documents read into the record describe the ordinance as authorizing the mayor and relevant departments to enter into agreements, concessions, demolition and site‑preparation work, lakefront improvements, and community benefits provisions. Supporters said the package is intended to enable broader lakefront redevelopment while resolving outstanding relocation issues with the team; dissenting members warned about fiscal exposure and loss of leverage.

Votes at a glance — measures read and decided at the meeting: • Resolution 15 56 20 25 (objection to liquor permit transfer at 3230 E. 93rd St.) — adopted (15 yeas). • Ordinance 13 25 20 25 (Browns settlement/relocation and lakefront development) — adopted (13 yeas, 2 nays). • Ordinance 14 56 20 25 (park maintenance/public square restricted contribution amendment) — adopted (14 yeas, 1 nay). • Ordinance 15 12 20 25 (lakefront parks lease amendment adding North Coast Inner Harbor and Marina) — adopted (14 yeas, 1 nay; 1 recusal recorded).

The ordinance’s passage allows city departments to finalize the described agreements and proceed with required professional services and site work. The transcript and statements during debate show council discussion centered on whether demolition is necessary, who retains salvage rights, and whether the city retains sufficient leverage and fiscal protection. The administration framed the package as enabling design and demolition work tied to a negotiated settlement and larger lakefront improvements.

Next steps: departments named in the ordinance are authorized to negotiate and execute agreements described by the measure; any required contract awards and implementation steps will appear in upcoming committee agendas and administrative filings.