The state budget, set to be signed by Gov. Mike DeWine before June 30, will provide $600 million for the Brook Park domed stadium project by the Browns sourced from unclaimed funds.
Ohio lawmakers have given their approval to the reconciled state budget, which includes the allocation of $600 million from unclaimed funds towards the proposed Cleveland Browns domed stadium in Brook Park.
HR 96 has been passed by both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly, designating funds for the fiscal year 2026-27. The next step is for Gov. Mike DeWine to review and sign the measure, with the deadline approaching on June 30.
The Haslam Sports Group’s plan for Brook Park calls for a $2.4 billion domed stadium to go with a mixed-use development that is slated to cost roughly another billion. HSG, along with their development partners, have committed to invest more than $2 billion in private capital and are seeking public funding for the remainder of the bill.
Following the General Assembly’s reconciliation process, lawmakers opted for the Ohio Senate plan, which calls for the utilization of the state’s $3.7 billion in unclaimed funds to create a “Sports and Culture Facilities Fund.” The Browns’ $600 million “performance grant” would be paid back to the state through tax revenues generated by the stadium and mixed-use development over 16 years.
To protect the state’s investment, GOP Senate lawmakers say the Haslam Sports Group would put $50 million into escrow that could be tapped into if revenues fall short of projections. If that $50 million is used early, the Browns have also committed to providing another $50 million through a line of credit.
While lawmakers were voting, Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne called a press conference to again express his opposition to the state giving the Haslam Sports Group $600 million. He also took aim at lawmakers for their decision to make changes to the so-called Modell Law, a statue was passed by the Ohio General Assembly in 1996, a year after Art Modell moved the original Browns from Cleveland to Baltimore.
WHAT IS THE ART MODELL LAW?
The entire statute from the Ohio Revised Code currently reads as follows:
“No owner of a professional sports team that uses a tax-supported facility for most of its home games and receives financial assistance from the state or a political subdivision thereof shall cease playing most of its home games at the facility and begin playing most of its home games elsewhere unless the owner either:
- Enters into an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games elsewhere;
- Gives the political subdivision in which the facility is located not less than six months’ advance notice of the owner’s intention to cease playing most of its home games at the facility and, during the six months after such notice, gives the political subdivision or any individual or group of individuals who reside in the area the opportunity to purchase the team.”
In the revised version of HB 96, the “elsewhere” in the first provision is replaced by “at a facility located outside of the state.” It also specifies that once a lease or an agreement on a facility expires, the team seeking to relocate will have been given permission by the “political subdivision.”
Specifically, the new law states: “upon the expiration of the term of the lease or agreement, or shorter period of time as set forth in the lease or agreement, as applicable, deemed an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games at a different facility (located within Ohio).”
While the Browns have been seeking to prevent the city of Cleveland from attempting to enforce the Modell Law against them in federal court, the city filed a lawsuit in Cuyahoga County, believing that the requirements of the Modell Law are “straightforward.”
The Browns’ current lease at Huntington Ban Field will expire after the 2028 season.
“The Modell law was changed in this budget in real time while an active court case is going on,” Ronayne said during his press conference. “The legislature changed the rules of the game. It’s a curious thing when a legislature changes the law as it pertains to a defendant currently in court. They — being the Haslam Sports Group — they changed the law and essentially changed the rules because this legislature sets the rules.”
State Sen. William DeMora (D-Columbus) agreed with Ronayne’s assessment during debate on the budget Wednesday.
“We’re actually changing a law in the middle of a lawsuit to solve the Browns’ legal issues while a pending case is being heard in court in Cuyahoga County,” DeMora stated. “Because whenever billionaires are facing accountability in Ohio, the leadership of the general assembly drops everything to rush to their rescue.”
3News reached out to the city of Cleveland for reaction to the Modell Law change and received the below statement:
“We are very troubled and angered by this late-night change, added without public scrutiny, regarding the Modell Law. We strongly oppose this legislative maneuver because Clevelanders have invested hundreds of millions in the lakefront stadium and surrounding infrastructure. This proposed change fails to protect communities like us when a team decides to leave. Moving the Browns — whether 12 miles or across the country — is a betrayal of the city and residents who have stood by the franchise for generations.”
‘BOONDOGGLE’
The Browns’ domed stadium plan also called for the city of Brook Park and Cuyahoga County to provide an additional $600 million in bonds to be covered by an increased admissions tax, parking tax, bed tax and rental car surcharge. However, Ronayne has fiercely pushed back on the proposal, calling it everything from “a risky bet” to a “boondoggle.”
Ronayne focused much of his anger Wednesday at Ohio lawmakers for signing off on giving HSG what it asked for.
“A read of the 2026-2027 biennial budget shows a legislature that’s lost touch with the concerns of their constituents and the local communities they serve,” he said. “Instead of listening to their citizens, the legislature listened to Jimmy and Dee Haslam — caving to their demands at every turn.”
Last month, the Haslam Sports Group informed Ronayne that the Browns were prepared to go forward with the project without the county’s participation. In response, Ronayne accused HSG of engaging in “greed and opportunism,” “distorting the facts,” and “attempting to bully the public and fleece County taxpayers” for their private gain.
Ronayne again urged DeWine to line-item veto the measure once the completed budget arrives on his desk.
So how can the project move forward if the county is not part of the equation?
“What we asked the county to do initially was to issue bonds — use their credit rating to issue $600 million of bonds that are largely repaid by Brook Park specific tax revenues. It was never a true $600 million ask of the county,” explained HSG Chief Operating Officer Dave Jenkins. “They have since made it very clear they’re not going to play if we go to Brook Park, which lessens the amount that Brook Park can issue in bonds themselves or through some other authority. So we are working to solve and have zeroed in on a solve for the remaining balance that otherwise could have been available if the county had issued the bonds.”
But while Ronayne is against supporting the HSG’s stadium plan, some members of Cuyahoga County Council seem more willing to listen.
“I understand the position of the executive is he only wants it downtown, but here we are; they’re going to Brook Park,” Councilwoman Sunny Simon said during a council committee meeting per Cleveland.com. “I want to see how that’s going to impact the county financially and if it makes sense for council to consider any kind of participation, because we give out loans, we do all kinds of things for projects, why not this?”
Cleveland.com points out that per Cuyahoga County administrators, should County Council approve funds for a stadium and Ronayne vetoes it, lawmakers can override the veto with a super-majority of eight council members out of the 11 total.
“Why would you participate in a project where the applicant has said we don’t need your money? It’s a curious thing,” Ronayne said Wednesday when asked about the Council’s possible interest in being part of the HSG project.
Browns owner Jimmy Haslam has said that should the state approve the $600 million request, the plan is for groundbreaking of the new domed stadium to take place sometime early next year.
You can watch Ronayne’s news conference from Wednesday below.
