Susan’s Suggestions for the Elections – Tuesday November 5, 2013 (Updated)

(Click here to download as an easy-to-print PDF) (Ed: Voting suggestions and voting guides are welcomed from other readers too!)

Includes updated information with regard to Issue 80 based on reader feedback and further research.

As always, I offer these suggestions because of the importance of casting an informed vote. For our community to count, our votes must be countable, and we have a responsibility to our greater community and a mitzvah to show up and vote.  Local elections in many ways effect our daily living in an up close and personal way and are therefore just as important if not more so than national ones.  However, unlike national elections, absentee ballot request forms will not automatically be mailed to your home.  Those requests can be made through Board of Elections, or else plan to show up at your precinct on Election Day.

By popular demand, in order to make viewing easier, this guide consists of two sections: The Quick Voting version followed by the Expanded Explanations.

Cleveland Heights City Council: Please vote for all of the following, all of whom are J-Vote endorsed (the actual ballot groups them by 2 and 4 year terms)       Jeanine Boyd,              Jeff Coryell,    Jason Stein,    Cheryl Stephens,    Melissa Yasinow

Cleveland Heights – University Heights School Board of Education Eric Silverman   Alan Wilkinson (protest vote, see Expanded Explanations)

ISSUES:  can be divided into two categories: Taxes (which if all approved amount to a total increase of $352 for the homeowner of a $100,000 home annually), and County Charter Amendments, plus one city petition.  Each tax increase listed below will reflect the annual cost per $100k property valuation. More value means more tax. The CH-UH School levy is the largest.  Three of the four Charter amendments are adjustments that should be rubber stamped. The last one has a debatable point – see Expanded Explanations.

Issue 1 – Health and Human Services – Replace 2.9 mills and increase 1 mill, total increase  of $47.68* Vote NO

Issue 2- Charter Amendment to increase time for review of appointments from 30 to 60 days and include interim appointment provision. Vote Yes

Issue 3– Charter Amendment clarifying names of confusing departments and making the commission and director’s appointment subject to council approval vs. just the County Executive. Vote Yes

Issue 4 – Charter Amendment specifying which things council can sign off on instead of requiring Executive Signature. Vote Yes

Issue 5 – Defines the positions of Board of Revision and Statutory Board.  The Statutory Board must be bi-partisan under this amendment, but there is no such requirement for the individual Revision Board Panels.  No Recommendation, see Expanded Explanations.

Issue 32 – Cleveland Heights (by petition) establishing annual public hearings on the subject of and directing Council to send  requests to US Congress and State representatives declaring that Corporations are not people and money is not speech therefore corporations should not be unrestricted in their campaign contributions. Vote NO

Issues 33 and 34 likely won’t appear on your ballot. They would open Sunday liquor sales for two businesses on Lee Rd.

Issue 79 – Cuyahoga County Public Library Renewal Levy. 5.8 mill, no increase. CH-UH will not vote on this. No recommendation.

Issue 80 – Metroparks Tax Renewal and Increase of $92. Vote No

Issue 81 – Cleveland Heights-University Heights School District Bond Issue of 5.99 mills.   Cost annually $209/$100K property.  Many aspects to consider. See Expanded Explanations.

Issue 82 – Port Authority Renewal Operating levy.  $3.48 increase.  (Yes, that is just less than 3 and half dollars a year) Based on the importance to Cleveland commerce and infrastructure plus the modesty of request, Vote Yes

However you vote on Tuesday, November 5, please take the time to cast your vote. If your vote doesn’t count, we don’t.

—

Expanded Explanations

Candidates

Cleveland Heights City Council:  Jason Stein and Cheryl Stephens are the two incumbents running for a 4 year term.  Janine Boyd is running unopposed to complete the 2 years of the term she was appointed for. In the past all three have supported issues of value to our neighborhood and the city in general such as crime reduction efforts through strengthening the police programs, addressing youth at risk, addressing distressed properties and working for the quick disposition of vacant homes. Some of those things increase property value as well. To that end, Mr. Stein, Ms. Boyd and Ms. Stephens are working towards a street-scape for the Taylor Road area- an area formerly neglected in favor of Fairmount, Coventry, and Lee.  They have also supported efforts for the Eruv, bringing the sprinkler park to Cain Park and the favorable disposition of the Millikin property.  They have worked to save our city money through regionalism and worked to bring businesses to the Heights.  Mr. Stein also took the lead in keeping a salt dome out of our neighborhood streets.  He has good ties with local authorities, politicians, and communities and has strong supporters on both sides of the “aisle”.  Mr. Coryell and Ms. Yasinow have both expressed favorable positions relating to the above efforts and our community concerns as well as their goals of working towards growing the business economy of Cleveland Heights in general. Vote for all.  Boyd, Coryell, Stein, Stephens, and Yasinow

Cleveland Heights University Heights School Board: Eric Silverman   Alan Wilkinson in protest to current board members specifically the mismanagement of district property and finances, especially in regard to leaving a vacant school property that has run down the value of our neighborhood and has become a public nuisance inviting decay to our back yards and has left this issue unresolved since June 2006, 7 years and running. As a protest, vote Eric Silverman and Alan Wilkinson

Issues: Sorry, there are lots of them. Please don’t blame the messenger.  Read on.

Note on taxes in general – If you own a home worth $100,000 and if all of these taxes pass, your cost per year will rise approximately $352.  That number will vary depending on your actual valuation. The more your value, the more you pay. The largest levy is the CH-UH School levy totaling $209 of the $352 – higher for those with homes with higher values. The average tax payer will see an even higher increase; some increases will generously top $1000. CH and UH do not vote on the Cuyahoga County Library levy (Issue 79) because we have our own CH-UH Library System. It will not appear on those ballots.

Issue 1– Health and Human Services – Replace and increase of $136* Vote NO   – Replace 2.9 mills and add 1 mill. Although popularly supported in the county and a department that does worthwhile activities, the increase is unaffordable to many members of our community in these distressed times, so with regret, I cannot recommend it.  Of note is the amount of increase.  The actual millage increase would seem to indicate a smaller amount of actual increase over the millage of the levy it replaces, however, at the same time as the levy was being voted on in county, the state budget was being revealed which included cuts that previously covered the homeowner’s portion of the levy. Thus this increase to you is actually some 12% higher than what it would have been. Of the new millage added now, 100% of that vs. the previous 88 % will come out of the homeowner’s pocket, a total difference of $47.68 more as a result of the state cuts. Interestingly, the state budget only cut funding if there was an increase in taxes, but would have continued to pay the 12% had this been a replacement without increase, but the timing overlapped with the decisions already happening at County.   Bottom line, the increase, one of many on this ballot, is too difficult to bear.  Vote NO

Cuyahoga County Charter Amendments in General:

A few years ago, our county changed its form of government which oversees many different programs from WIC to Metro Hospital, to Boards of Revision etc…from one of having 3 County Commissioners to one of having a single County Executive (Currently Ed Fitzgerald) and 12 elected County Councilmen elected by precinct.  At that time, the entire Charter changed. Now, after a time, they have had a chance to figure out what works and what doesn’t and have proposed some changes that make sense for the smoother running of things, a little rejiggering if you will.  On the last ballot, there were a couple of these, the easiest to gain agreement on exactly what the wording should be from the Council Members.  Now they have added four more after taking a little more time to get it right, as they see it.  There is no significant opposition to any of them (although the last one has two sides) and they should be voted in. Each one will be explained individually.

Issue 2 – Charter Amendment to increase time for review of appointments from 30 to 60 days and include interim appointment provision. Vote Yes   Here’s the logic.  Let’s say someone resigns his position.  The County Executive taps someone to fill those shoes. The board currently has 30 days to review and vote, but if they don’t vote in that time frame, the recommendation becomes actualized.  Because the board only meets twice in the 30 day period, sometimes scheduling with the appointee doesn’t work out within the 30 days. Sometimes, more time is necessary to get answers to questions that could come up, for example to investigate conflict of interest. So they’ve reasonably asked for 60 days and the ability to appoint someone to fill the position on an interim basis when needed, which the charter did not provide before.  By allowing more time for council to vote, the appointment then becomes subject to the approval of 12 instead of the opinion of 1, the very safeguard intended by creating a council. Vote Yes

Issue 3 – Charter Amendment clarifying names of confusing departments and making the commission and director’s appointment subject to council approval vs. just the County Executive. Vote Yes.  This amendment is on the ballot to remove confusion, so naturally, this explanation will sound confusing.  Currently there is a Human Resources Department (in charge of disciplining and laying off county employees) and a Human Resources Commission (where employees would turn to appeal the layoff or discipline.) That clarifies the confusing part, or at least it should, but there’s more. Because the Executive can call for layoffs, it should not also be in his power to appoint those Human Resource Commissioners (3) or the HR Director.  This amendment would take that power away from the Executive and give it to council where it should be as well as change the department names in a manner avoiding confusion.  Confused or clear, vote YES

Issue 4 – Charter Amendment specifying which things council can sign off on instead of requiring Executive Signature. Vote yes .  Bottom line: Not everything should require the County Executive’s signature, just like a teacher giving an extra 5 minutes of recess should not need the principal to sign off on that level decision.   This amendment gives the council body the responsibility officially taking off the Executive’s desk decisions of lower level that don’t require his attention so he can focus on what does.  Vote Yes

Issue 5 – Charter Amendment: Defines the positions of Board of Revision and Statutory Board.  The Statutory Board must be bi-partisan under this amendment, but there is no such requirement for the individual Revision Board Panels.   See comments. Vote Yes. 

There are two aspects of this amendment.  The Board of Revision is a panel consisting of 3 individuals qualified to understand housing markets, valuation, and taxes that citizens can meet with when they feel their house is being overvalued by the county (which means higher property taxes for the homeowner which rise with each new levy and increase – and is assessed based on the value and 35% of the millage passed). There are several such panels. The charter also mentions without clearly defining a statutory board which is responsible for hiring and firing.  Until now, it was unclear who made up that board, and therefore panels supposed that each panel was one in terms of hiring its own interns etc…This amendment defines the statutory board as the County Executive, Council President and either the Fiscal Officer or Treasurer, clarifying what responsibility falls to whom. On that, there is general agreement.

The point for consideration is the following: the Statutory Board must be bi-partisan.  Must each Board of Revision (panel of 3)? At issue is whether this opens the door for heavy handed government corruption to the detriment of the everyday Joe Citizen or whether having the statutory board who hires them be bi-partisan is enough to prevent that. Further, if we require each panel to be bi-partisan will that mean passing over qualified applicants in search of one that fits a particular political point of view.  In short, is this level of county business one that partisanship should be a concern at all given the check and balance that their hiring body must be bi-partisan?  As one property lawyer rhetorically asked, if we believe that this board will look at partisanship before rendering a decision on taxes, do we think each judge in court will do the same. If so, we have no judicial system at all. I have not found anyone who considers this issue problematic A no vote means this will come up again next year with the bi-partisan requirement, but as no one sees that as necessary, Vote Yes.

Issue 32 – Cleveland Heights (by petition) establishing annual public hearings on the subject of and directing Council to send  requests to US Congress and State representatives declaring that Corporations are not people and money is not speech therefore corporations should not be unrestricted in their campaign contributions. Vote NO

This is an issue that has created a lot of energy around it.  In response to the Supreme Court ruling that Corporations should not be limited in their campaign finance contributions because “corporations are” (essentially made up of) “people” and their donations constitute free speech,  a group called Move to Amend has put this same issue on ballots all over the country. By itself, this issue will have no effect, as City Council can do nothing about national laws or Supreme Court rulings.  The near result will be the nuisance. Council will have to go through holding hearings annually after which it will be obligated to send up a declaration to Congress. It further obligates Council to send a particular message based on the vote, no matter what is presented and possibly even in contradiction to what is said at those hearings. Lastly, if all of the initiatives passed, the result will be annual declarations from city councils nationwide lobbying congress to pass a law that supersedes the ruling. That law would still be subject to Supreme Court ruling. Those promoting this assume the Court would rule differently without basis. An actual Constitutional amendment is unlikely.

Beyond understanding what this local provision calls for, we should also understand the current campaign finance situation to evaluate the cause being promoted. Move to Amend takes an issue with Corporate donations only. Currently, not-for-profits are barred from making campaign donations without risking losing their tax exempt status. Groups known as PACs can be formed and donations made to those which then advocate for candidates and issues. Getting established involves much time and paperwork while interest in issues comes and goes – giving advantage to already established PACs. Further, recent IRS scandals demonstrate that becoming a PAC can be cumbersome, involve much delay, and possibly be blocked. Labor Unions, however, have no such restrictions and make such contributions heavily. Claims have been made that they would be included in this law because they are incorporated. Others claim this is not the case, but even if so, they would have already established PACs and their ability to contribute would remain unimpeded.  Thus, what appears to be “fair” to the little guy like you and me by limiting the contributions of big corporations, in actuality skews the playing field so that only some big entities can contribute and not others. Despite the website for Move to Amend stating that they are opposed to all public entities being given personhood through Judicial fiat, this proposal only addresses corporations.  I am of the opinion that unless all public entities are equally barred, then this effort is as it appears, a partisan effort to stifle the free speech only of one side by the other side. The last point, that money is not speech would mean that campaign contributions could then be limited because those amounts would no longer be protected by free speech protections.  Again, this still assumes that the Court would overturn its current standing ruling on the issue which has long precedent and is therefore unlikely.  That plus the annual waste of money and time to our city and its leaders leads me suggest:  Vote NO

Issues 33 and 34 likely won’t appear on your ballot. They would open Sunday liquor sales for two businesses on Lee Rd. The pros and cons are simple. Weigh a pro-business = more taxes for the city to collect perspective against any noise or nuisance issues you may have if you are in close proximity to these particular establishments and vote your point of view. Not all establishments are equal in noise, trash and value,(compare Target liquor section to Joe’s Bar) but by law, Sunday liquor approval must be done by ballot.

Tax Trivia: Do you know the difference between a Replacement and a Renewal?  Both mean that the request is for the same amount of millage that you were paying until now. Any increase will be listed after. The difference is that a Replacement uses current property values to make its assessment and that is the number you will be assessed until the expiration of the levy. It is seen as cleaner and more honest. Renewals can rise over the span of the levy should property values rise.   How do you calculate the amount owed based on millage? State law tells us that you calculate the amount of mills times 35% of your property’s valuation. So it’s     (Mills) X (Property Value) X (.35)

Issue 79 – Cuyahoga County Public Library Levy  This is a renewal only.  5.8 mill.  As a renewal, the actual amount of taxation can vary should property values be assessed to vary.  Otherwise, this is not an increase. Having our own library system, CH-UH residents do not vote on this. Beachwood and South Euclid, etc…do.

Issue 80 – Metroparks Tax Renewal and Increase of $92 Vote No.  (Updated October 29th)

Issue 81 – Cleveland Heights-University Heights School District Bond Issue.   Cost annually $209/$100K property.    No recommendation.  As a result of my involvement I sat at meeting after meeting about the facilities plans in various stages and will present the facts about this levy as I know them.  Misconceptions abound. This is a huge levy, accounting for more than all remaining levies combined.  Please bear with me as I lay out both sides.

It is a fact that audits of various state or federal sources demonstrate that outdated buildings and outdated systems require expensive overhauls that are mandated to meet required levels.  These are expensive. I fully believe that when then-Superintendent Heuer said “either we do this now or we pay more later.” he was speaking truth. This is because renovations give the district an opportunity to insulate, replace windows, upgrade electrical systems, heating delivery systems et al to make the newer district buildings efficient ones that do not leak money out the sides. Additionally, we are supporting way more square footage than we need given the drop in student population since the days of previous construction. Further, by not passing a levy now, due to many complicated and various reasons involving guidelines for various funding avenues and programs, the district would indeed be leaving money on the table.

Before getting into specific plans, it should be stated that school board gets real kudos for being responsive to constituency. It’s been two years since they began many open forums discussing this facilities plan way back when it was Plan A or B. When the public said neither, they went out again and constructed Plan C. Then they went into little letters: Plans C1 C2 C3 etc… and its variations before a path was chosen. At that point the board voted 3-2 to put a levy up last year. Because the amount was large and there were still large unsatisfied communities within the CH-UH district, they tabled the levy and spent the year answering the latecomers who had not been following the  process, but now wanted to be heard.

It is also a fact that the district is running more buildings than it needs and paying to operate more square footage than the declining student populations requires. To that end, earlier plans discussed closing 4 buildings, including Gearity. University Heights Mayor Infeld resisted strongly because that would mean the city of University Heights would have no elementary school within its boundaries and a concomitant loss of revenue with its closure, and felt that the others in the district did not suffice despite Canterbury being literally on the UH’s edge. All the other closures were to be in Cleveland Heights with CH losing that income. In response to the UH opposition, the new plan includes keeping Gearity open. However, Wiley Middle School will close leaving only the other 2 out of 3 middle schools open, which are included in phase I renovations, but taking this revenue out of UH.  This is one factor that has driven up the plan’s cost since last year because it means keeping open one more school building than necessary.

Another thing driving up the cost, though not as much, is a change in order. By renovating the high school first, the total cost of the facilities project goes up, but allows more current students to actually benefit from the renovations.  Because that made sense to me, this is the one factor that increased costs that I feel is justified. It is hard to ask for a levy and then expect some parents paying it to watch their child face renovations first in elementary then in middle and then in high school, never really benefitting, always breathing sawdust so to speak.

Thus, the district’s goal of keeping the amount asked of the taxpayers to under $200 million has been exceeded.  It has gone from $187 million, comfortably under budget to what is now $214 million. Only 8 million of that is accounted for by putting the high school first.

The rest is accounted for with specific improvements from the original plans such as remodeling bathrooms instead of just painting them, refurbishing of the Clock Tower, a total redo for the Natatorium, which means building a competition size pool plus locker rooms. And don’t forget the new Football Field, so the district can be proud at games.

The latest plan is now to do this in two phases.  Phase one is what they are asking for now, a bond issue for $134 million to be followed by another request for $80 million in 7-10 years after the high school and middle schools are completed, in order to do the elementary schools (total $214 million from above, 10% increase).

Pros: If we do not do this now, the district will be leaving money on the table and will have to come up with another plan or continue to put Band-Aids on the ailing buildings, the cost of which will still be borne by tax payers in multiple levies over the years.  If we do this now, we will have nice buildings to show for it and be an attractive city for young couples to move into (read increase tax base) while reducing energy costs to the district over that same period.

Cons: Still not affordable; due to the emphasis put on the pool, football stadium, clock tower, and the extra square footage the district will maintain.  Costs have been driven up 10% during a time of recession, precisely when they should have been trying to cut the cost to the tax-payers. Also, by splitting the levy in two, some feel it disingenuously appears to be a smaller levy to those not paying attention who may not realize this is only phase I of II.  Questions about whether the school board has shown themselves to be good stewards of district resources remain.  Most notably, this levy does not include any operating costs, and operating levies will continue to follow on at four year cycles as early as next year. So this isn’t all they will ask for, and the bulk of your local taxes are already for school district. We will soon face Phase II in addition to those operating levies. Cost of this levy if your home is valued exactly at $100,000 is $209 annually.

Issue 82 – Port Authority Renewal Operating levy.  $3.48 increase.  Based on the importance to Cleveland commerce and infrastructure plus the modesty of request:  Vote Yes.  Last year the PA overreached when it asked us for a large levy in order to do a major overhaul of the area, and that levy failed to pass. This year, their request is affordable and goes for general operations.  Our coast does play a vital part in our economy and the PA has shown they are responsive to the constituency. Vote Yes

As always, I stress the importance of actually showing up and voting. Our elected officials work for us because they know we are watching; because we show up and show we care about issues and at the polls. If we don’t show up and our vote isn’t counted, we as a community don’t count.  This ballot, although not national in stature, has a lot of tax dollars (exceeding a $400 increase per year on average) and issues being decided. Those who care about those issues will show up, but traditionally, the number of voters will be likely to be much smaller. Our voice can really be heard. Your neighbors are counting on you. I hope the information and suggestions above are helpful. However you choose to vote, please make sure that you do indeed vote.

Susan Efroymson 10/23/2013