LWV Voters Guide - Issues
Issue 1: PROPOSED TAX LEVY (REPLACEMENT AND INCREASE)
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA Health and Human Services Levy
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
A replacement of 2.9 mills of an existing levy and an increase of 1 mill, to constitute a tax for the benefit of Cuyahoga County for the purpose of supplementing general fund appropriations for health and human or social services at a rate not exceeding 3.9 mills for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to 39 cents for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for five years, commencing in 2013, first due in calendar year 2014.
League Explanation Issue 1: The Cuyahoga County Council by unanimous vote requests the replacement of the existing 2.9 mill Health and Human Service levy and an increased of 1.0 mills to support critical safety net services and shore up a fund projected to exhaust its reserves by 2015. The five-year 3.9 mill levy would collect about $106 million, or $27 million more than the current tax. It would cost a taxpayer $136 per year for every $100,000 assessed value and would replace millions of dollars of revenue lost because of declining property values,
state and federal cuts. The health and human services levy is the smaller of two county taxes that support the MetroHealth Medical Center, elderly and
child-protection services, Meals on Wheels, mental illness and addiction treatment programs and other county services.
PRO: The tax increase is needed to continue the level of support that Cuyahoga County voters have expected and to stop drawing down the human services reserve in order to balance. Cuyahoga voters have shown a long tradition of caring about the quality of life of our citizens in supporting health, human, and social service needs.
CON: There is a need to be better informed by the county on the effectiveness of human services programs. Continued public support should be contingent on this information.
ISSUE 2: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT CUYAHOGA COUNTY
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
Shall Article II, Section 2.03(2) Powers and Duties of the Charter of the County of Cuyahoga be amended to extend the term during which Council may act on Executive appointments, and add an interim appointment provision?
League Explanation Issue 2: Charter language currently provides the County Council with a 30-day window to confirm or reject Executive appointments. Certain appointments also require confirmation hearings and three readings at consecutive Council sessions, while the Council meets only twice each month.
PRO: The 30-day deadline has proven difficult and sometimes impossible to meet, if hearings were involved or if the appointee was out of town or forced to miss a session for unavoidable reasons. Some confirmations require more extensive vetting or discussion than others.
CON: Council needs to continue doing its business quickly and efficiently.
ISSUE 3: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT CUYAHOGA COUNTY
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
Shall Article II, Section 2.03(12) Powers and Duties, and Article IX of the Charter of the County of Cuyahoga be amended to rename the "Human Resource Commission" the "Personnel Review Commission," to provide that the County Council shall have the authority to appoint and remove members of the commission, to clarify the commission's administrative powers and duties, and to formally establish an office of the Director of Human Resources?
League Explanation Issue 3: Charter language currently names its independent, quasi-judicial civil service commission “Human Resource Commission,” while at the same time there is an Executive Branch department called the “Human Resource Department.” To clarify the distinction, this amendment would rename the first of these, “Personnel Review Commission.” The Charter also calls for the County Executive to nominate the members of that 3-person commission, even though the commission’s chief task would be to review personnel issues or
irregularities involving the Executive Branch’s own employees. The amendment would shift the appointment role to the Legislative Branch or County Council, to
remove that possible conflict of interest. The amendment would also clarify some current ambiguity regarding which employees and rules it is the Commission’s jurisdiction to cover and adjudicate.
PRO: The new name and parameters clear up confusion and uncertainly in the minds of employees, the public, and the commissioners themselves. Legislative rather than Executive appointment of commissioners is a traditional Checks and Balances issue.
CON: The current name is no problem, and Executive appointments were already well balanced by Council hearings and confirmation of those appointments. The amendment is not necessary.
ISSUE 4: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT CUYAHOGA COUNTY
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
Shall Article III, Section 3.10(5) Organization, Rules and Procedures of the Charter of the County of Cuyahoga be amended to specify actions of Council
that do not require Executive approval to be binding?
League Explanation Issue 4: Charter language currently requires the County Executive to sign off on all actions of the County Council. The amendment would list 10 Council actions with no such requirement, such as the setting of Council’s own rules and procedures, possible rejection of an Executive appointment, or any possible Council investigation into Executive branch operations.
PRO: This is only logical, but it needs to be stated in the Charter.
CON: So much procedural detail should not be part of a Charter.
ISSUE 5: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT CUYAHOGA COUNTY
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
Shall Article VI, Section 6.02 Board of Revision of the Charter of the County of Cuyahoga be amended to clarify the role of the Board of Revision?
League Explanation Issue 5: Charter language is currently unclear as to what is a Board of Revision and what is a Hearing Board. The amendment clarifies the distinction: The Board of Revision is a single three-member board consisting of the County Executive, a Council President appointee of a different political party from that of the Executive, and either the Fiscal Officer or the Treasurer. That board hires and oversees as many Hearing Boards as are needed to handle current numbers of real property owners seeking reductions in their property’s
assessed valuation for tax purposes. Each Hearing Board would consist of three persons meeting merit standards but no longer with a bipartisan requirement.
PRO: Not to correct this Charter error would continue a serious ambiguity. Flexibility in the numbers of Hearing Boards allows for considerable savings during times of lighter caseloads. Bipartisanship of the Board of Revision itself removes the need for it on the Hearing Boards.
CON: The bipartisan requirement for Hearing Boards is important and should be retained. Charter ambiguity can remain for one more year, until the requirement is reinserted and the amendment is resubmitted to voters.
ISSUE 32: PROPOSED ORDINANCE (by petition) City of Cleveland Heights
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
Shall the proposed ordinance entitled "Political Influence by Corporate Entities," establishing annual public hearings before City Council on this subject, and sending a summary of the public hearing to Congressional and State representatives, and calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that only human beings, not corporations, are legal persons with
Constitutional rights and that money is not the equivalent of speech, be adopted?
ISSUE 33: SPECIAL ELECTION BY PETITION Local Liquor Option - Sunday Sales City of Cleveland Heights - District 02 Ward F
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
Shall the sale of beer, wine and mixed beverages be permitted for sale on Sunday between the hours of eleven a.m and midnight by AEF Healthcare Consultants Inc dba The Wine Spot, an applicant for a D-6 liquor permit, who is engaged in the business of operating a bar/carry-out store at 2271 Lee Road, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118 in this precinct?
ISSUE 34: SPECIAL ELECTION BY PETITION Local Liquor Option - Sunday Sales City of Cleveland Heights - District 03 Ward B
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
Shall the sale of beer, wine and mixed beverages, and spirituous liquor be permitted for sale on Sundays between the hours of ten a.m. and midnight by the Katz Club LLC dba the Katz Club, a holder of a D-5 liquor permit, who is engaged in the business of a restaurant and catering at 1975 Lee Road, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118 in this precinct?
ISSUE 80: CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT
PROPOSED TAX LEVY (RENEWAL AND INCREASE)
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
A renewal of an existing levy of 1.8 mills and an increase of 0.9 mill to constitute a tax for the benefit of the Cleveland Metropolitan Park District (known as Cleveland Metroparks including the Cleveland MetroparksZoo) for the purpose of conserving the natural resources and maintaining, repairing, improving, planning, acquiring, developing, protecting and promoting the use of existing and future lands and facilities, and for any other lawful purpose of the park district, at a rate not exceeding 2.7 mills for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to 27 cents for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for ten years, commencing in 2013, first due in calendar year 2014.
League Explanation Issue 80: The 10-year 1.8 mill MetroParks levy expires in 2014, so this 2.7 mill levy request includes that plus a 0.9 mill increase. This would cost the owner of a $100,000 home $92 annually, or about $1.80 a week. These monies fund the ongoing operations and maintenance of 23,000 acres, 18 park reservations, all roads and trails, some nature centers and the Zoo. A new responsibility is the administration of the Cleveland lakefront parks. Levy monies comprise 62% of Metropark’s $89 million annual budget, the rest coming from grants, donations and aid from state or federal governments.
PRO: The increase is needed because the new lakefront parks increase expenses, and revenue from property taxes and state/federal aid has declined. Management has cut staff (without layoffs) as well as energy costs; the last 17 audits have been “clean;” and Metroparks have remained debt-free.
CON: Metroparks should trim and tuck in order to operate within their means. Taxpayers cannot shoulder any additional burdens during hard times.
ISSUE 81: PROPOSED BOND ISSUE CLEVELAND HEIGHTS-UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
Shall bonds be issued by the Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District for the purpose of constructing, renovating, remodeling, enlarging, furnishing, equipping and otherwise improving school district buildings and facilities and acquiring, improving and equipping sites for such buildings and facilities in the principal amount of $134,800,000 to be repaid annually over a
maximum period of 38 years, and an annual levy of property taxes be made outside of the ten-mill limitation, estimated by the county fiscal officer to average over the repayment period of the bond issue 5.99 mills for each one dollar of tax valuation, which amounts to 59.9 cents for each one hundred dollars of tax valuation, commencing in 2013, first due in calendar year 2014,
to pay the annual debt charges on the bonds, and to pay debt charges on any notes issued in anticipation of those bonds?
League Explanation Issue 81: The $134.8 million bond issue #81 placed on the ballot by the CH-UH Board of Education would implement the first phase of a comprehensive K-12 plan, developed with extensive citizen involvement. The first phase would take Heights High down to its bones and substantially renovate Monticello and Roxboro middle schools. Operating systems would be replaced with updated energy-efficient installations.
PRO: Good schools attract young families to our cities, and the passage of issue #81 will help put the district's schools on track to offer learning environments for students and teachers that are comparable to other school districts in the region.
CON: Due to the heavy taxes already paid by property owners, less expensive ways must and can be found to fund quality education for our students than the plan offered in issue #81.
ISSUE 82 PROPOSED TAX LEVY (RENEWAL) CLEVELAND-CUYAHOGA COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
A renewal of a tax for the benefit of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority for the purpose of providing funds necessary for the Port Authority budget at a rate not exceeding 0.13 mill for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to 1.3 cents for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for five years, commencing in 2013, first due in calendar year 2014.
League Explanation Issue 82: The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority requests the renewal of their 0.13 mill levy, passed in 2007, which expires at the end of 2013. The levy will cost a taxpayer $0.29 per month for every $100,000 assessed value, yielding approximately $3.1 million per year, about 35% of their budget. Besides operating the Port of Cleveland, the Port Authority serves as a bonding agency for development projects such as the Flats East Bank. It recently opened and maintains control of the Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve at the
eastern end of Gordon Park to the public. The Port Authority now accounts for how tax funds are spent in its budget.
PRO: The Port is an important asset of the local infrastructure, providing a shipping link to the global economy.
CON:The Port has not turned the Nature Preserve over to Metroparks management, as has the State of Ohio with the city’s other lakefront parks. Additionally, the Port of Cleveland loses money annually, which must be made up by the levy and income from development project bonds.