My Objection to Issue 11
Jesse Berezovsky made a statement saying, “It's hard to take any of your arguments about levies seriously when you make no mention of the impact of HB920.” Ok, let’s look at this through the lens of HB920 and inflation.
My objection is that Issue 11 combines renewal and expansion into one vote.
First, I do not think this proposal is structured properly. The county is asking for far too much money to describe this as merely an adjustment for past inflation or protection against future inflation.
Second, the county is combining two separate questions:
Should we continue funding the existing Health and Human Services levy?
Does the county need substantially more money?
Those are not the same question.
I may support continuing the existing levy without supporting this enormous increase. But Issue 11 does not give voters that choice. It combines the renewal of the existing 4.7 mills with an additional 2.5 mills and forces voters to accept or reject both.
In my opinion, putting those two separate decisions together is dishonest.
The Existing 4.7-Mill Levy
Estimated revenue when collections began in 2021: $143.58 million
Estimated revenue today: $150.74 million
Increase in annual revenue: $7.16 million
Percentage increase: Approximately 5%
To maintain the same purchasing power it had in 2021, the existing levy would need to collect approximately $177.5 million today.
That means the existing levy is approximately $26.8 million below its inflation-adjusted value.
I understand that providing the same services costs more today. The numbers support that argument.
But Issue 11 is asking for substantially more than an inflation adjustment.
What Is House Bill 920?
Ohio passed House Bill 920 in 1976.
HB 920 generally prevents an existing levy from collecting substantially more money simply because existing property values increase.
When existing properties rise in value, the effective tax rate is generally reduced so that the levy continues collecting roughly the same amount of money.
HB 920 does not automatically adjust levy revenue for inflation.
Revenue can still increase through:
New construction
Newly taxable property
Expansions and improvements added to the property-tax base
This helps explain why the existing levy’s revenue increased by approximately 5%, even though HB 920 limits revenue growth resulting from the appreciation of existing properties.
What Happened to Residents’ Wages?
From 2021 through 2025:
Average Cuyahoga County wages increased approximately 16%
Consumer prices increased approximately 18.8%
Real purchasing power declined approximately 2.3%
Wages did not decline in actual dollars. They declined after accounting for inflation.
The average worker is making more money, but that money buys less.
That is important because the county is not asking people with greater purchasing power to contribute more. It is asking people whose purchasing power has already declined to accept another property-tax increase.
What Issue 11 Would Do
Issue 11 would:
Renew the existing 4.7 mills
Add another 2.5 mills
Create a total levy of 7.2 mills
Continue for 10 years
The millage would increase by approximately 53.2%.
A NO vote would reject the combined renewal and increase. It would not immediately eliminate the existing levy, which remains authorized through the end of 2028.
The county has time to return with a better proposal that separates renewal from expansion.
How Much More Money Would the County Receive?
Estimated revenue from the existing levy: $150.74 million annually
Estimated additional revenue: $110.76 million annually
Estimated total revenue under Issue 11: $261.5 million annually
That represents an estimated annual revenue increase of approximately 73.5%.
The county is not asking for another 5%, 10% or even 20%. It is asking for approximately $110.76 million in additional annual revenue.
How Does That Compare With Inflation?
A 73.5% increase is equivalent to 10 years of inflation averaging approximately 5.7% every year.
For comparison:
2% annual inflation over 10 years: 21.9%
3% annual inflation over 10 years: 34.4%
4% annual inflation over 10 years: 48%
5.7% annual inflation over 10 years: Approximately 73.5%
If this were genuinely an inflation adjustment, the county should ask for an increase that reflects inflation. Instead, it is asking for an immediate revenue increase far beyond ordinary long-term inflation projections.
When Is Enough Enough?
Cuyahoga County residents have already lost approximately 2.3% of their purchasing power because wages have not kept pace with inflation.
At the same time, families are paying more for housing, groceries, utilities, insurance and nearly everything else. Now the county is asking them to pay even more in taxes.
Issue 10: An additional 2.25-mill property tax
Issue 11: An additional 2.5 mills, combined with the renewal of the existing 4.7-mill levy
County jail: A 40-year extension of the county’s 0.25% sales tax
Gateway and the Guardians: Another potential public-funding request that could eventually reach taxpayers
Not only have we lost purchasing power because of inflation, but we are being asked to approve one additional tax after another.
When is enough enough?
The existing levy has not kept pace with inflation, but neither have the wages of Cuyahoga County residents. Now those same residents are being asked to approve a 53.2% increase in millage that would generate approximately 73.5% more annual revenue.
If the county needs an adjustment for inflation, then ask taxpayers for an adjustment that reflects inflation.
In my opinion, this is not an inflation adjustment. It is a cash grab beyond proportion.
If the county wants more revenue, its incentive should be to bring more residents into Cuyahoga County and expand the tax base. Build more housing units, attract more people and businesses, and create actual growth instead of repeatedly raising taxes on the people who already live here.