Euclid City Council To Consider 2 More Years of Garbage Tax

Mayor Bill Cervenik has asked Council to approve legislation to extend the Garbage Tax for two more years. Council will discuss the extension Monday, June 10 Wednesday, June 12 at 6:30pm at the Executive Finance Committee meeting. The public is encouraged to attend. 

Cervenik's removal of a critical section in the
original legislation is costing homeowners
hundreds of dollars



In 2010 Council initiated a Garbage Tax on every household in Euclid in the amount of $108 a year. After the first year of direct billing, the tax was placed on property taxes as a Special Assessment. Council has approved one year extensions since then.

This legislation like the Street Lighting Tax piece has problems.

For starters, how many people know they’re paying for Garbage Pickup. Special Assessments are not broken down in a property tax bill. Most folks don’t even see their bill because they have a mortgage. We have a lot of new people since 2010 that may not know the tax was even passed. The City should consider sending out a notice regarding this and the street light tax.

Next, at the June 3^rd Council meeting, Mayor Cervenik stated publicly that, “[The fee] is $108 a year for those that have trash collection.” That’s not true.

Vacant lots are being charged $108 a year for trash that is not collected. On my street, we have a vacant lot that was recently purchased by the owner next door. The vacant lot has been and is being assessed a garbage tax of $108 + $1.08 SPA fee. The SPA fee is for the County to administer the collection and distribution of the Garbage Tax. Until and unless he consolidates the two parcels, the new owner will pay $218.16 for garbage. He is single.

Now, the original language in 2010 included a discount for Seniors and disabled persons with a household income of less than $20,000. That still holds. However, the 2010 legislation also had a Section that is missing from the current legislation.

Section 3 of Ord. 36-2010 read,

“That the Director of Public Service is hereby authorized to provide rules for property owners to apply for a fifty percent (50%) reduction in the payment of the fee in the event that the property has been vacant for more than ninety (90) days until such time as the property is occupied. Any reduction provided shall be nullified in the event the property is reoccupied and the property owner fails to timely notify the City to resume collection of the fee amount.”

I guarantee you that Mayor Cervenik and Law Director Frey are completely aware of the missing section. They drafted the legislation. So why was it pulled? My guess – greed, pure and simple.

Let me explain what impact this change in the original legislation means to a large number of homeowners. I looked up my street Abby Ave on the County Fiscal Officer’s web site. We have 3 owners of doubles who occupy their homes and choose not to rent the other half. They are all single – no kids. 2 are seniors. They are each paying $216 + $2.16 SPA fee.

This garbage tax on land and units that are uninhabited is unconscionable, doubly so in light of the fact that the 4 persons used here as an example, together don’t put out half of what the family up the street puts out. Yet they are paying double the amount of garbage tax.

At best, Council should completely eliminate the garbage tax on vacant lots and owner occupied doubles that choose not to rent the other half. At the very least, Council needs to re-instate Section 3 of Ord. 36-2010.

The Campaign of 1994 or....

....How We Got a 2.85% Income Tax

Let me ask you a question - if you were offered a 64” HD flat screen TV with access to 900 channels, and you were told that it wouldn’t cost you anything… would you say Yes or No? Well you’d probably say, “Yes, thanks!”

Now what if you knew that that 64” TV with 900 channels was not a gift from the person offering it, but was in reality being taken out of someone else’s paycheck - a stranger who hadn’t been asked and had no say in the matter. Would you still say accept the TV?

Hold that thought while we go back to the joint income tax’s inception….

In November 2012 a non-resident business owner filed a complaint against Euclid Schools and the City of Euclid claiming the portion of the income tax the City collects from non-residents is illegally shared with the Euclid School District. For those of you not familiar with how the Joint Tax came to be, here’s a brief history.

Back in 1994 the Euclid Schools were facing much the same problems they face today – transiency, unfunded mandates, the high cost of special ed, health care costs.    

The City’s argument for raising taxes was a potential budget deficit in coming years. The rising cost of Fire and Police and a desire to increase the two forces necessitated the need for additional revenue.  

In 1994, Euclid Schools had 3 ways to raise revenue. In addition to property tax, Ohio schools could put an income tax on the ballot. That tax would function as a resident tax. Business profits and payrolls could not be taxed. All residents would pay a tax on their income, but social security income was exempt. The third option was a joint tax between city and schools on payroll and profits. The proposed rate would increase the City from 2 to 2.38%. Schools would receive .47%. The joint tax was selected and Council approved putting the .85% increase on the ballot.

The City and Schools targeted Seniors. The Schools touted the tax as an alternative to property taxes. The City’s message to Seniors was simple and repetitive – the increase will strengthen Safety Forces and you won’t have to pay it.

The City and Schools barraged voters with literature on all the wonderful things this increase would do to improve Euclid and its Schools. The Joint Income Tax was a dream come true. Seniors would have strong schools, they’d have strong safety forces and best of all – Seniors wouldn’t have to pay for any of it.  

In November voters approved the tax. It passed 8,715 to 8,126. Non-resident workers who couldn’t vote on the tax had to pay it from their wages. Businesses who weren’t asked for their input, had to pay it on their profits. 

In the 18 years since the tax passed, Euclid has lost population and wealth. Its police force has not increased. Housing values have plummeted. Neighborhoods have declined. Job growth is stagnant at best. The Schools remain in Academic Watch.

The business owner who filed the complaint has every reason to feel grieved. He was forced to buy a 64” widescreen TV and can’t even enjoy it.

For an expanded history, click The Campaign.  

R.I.P. Bridge Builder

I got to know Jerry Corbran in the ‘90s. I was new to Euclid and a bit outspoken in my ideas. He sought me out. He was always seeking out new voices and fresh faces to bring in to the political fray. I’m glad he found me.

There are people in life that are like the flames of a fire. They are spectacular, drawing others to them and lighting more flames until you have a conflagration. They burn hot and fast serving their immediate purpose, but then burn out.

There are others in life who are hot coals. They are the flame-starters. Jerry Corbran was a flame starter. For me, he was my touchstone, listening, advising, helping out at a moment’s notice.  

If greatness is measured by one’s accomplishments in life, then no, Jerry probably wasn’t so great. But if true greatness is, as I believe, measured by one’s faithfulness in life, then Jerry Corbran was one of the greatest men I have ever known. He was faithful to his God and to himself, to his family and to his friends, to his country and to his community.

Jerry fell asleep Sunday, Jan 13^th at the age of 87. His passing is the end of an era. He now awaits the return of his lord. Ours was a friendship that spanned nearly 20 years, though I must admit, he was a better friend to me than I was to him.

There is a poem that epitomizes the life of Jerry Corbran. It is “The Bridge Builder” by Will Allen Dromgoole….

An old man, going a lone highway,

Came at evening, cold and gray,

To a chasm, vast and deep and wide,

Through which was flowing a sullen tide.

The old man crossed in the twilight dim;

The sullen stream had no fears for him;

But he turned when safe on the other side

And built a bridge to span the tide.

“Old man,” said a fellow pilgrim near,

“You are wasting strength with building here;

Your journey will end with the ending day;

You never again must pass this way’

You have crossed the chasm, deep and wide –

Why build you the bridge at the eventide?”

The builder lifted his old gray head:

“Good friend, in the path I have come,” he said,

“There followeth after me today

A youth whose feet must pass this way.

This chasm that has been naught to me

To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be.

He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;

Good friend, I am building the bridge for him.”

I shall sorely miss Jerry’s counsel and his patience, but I am thankful he counted me as a friend and I am grateful for the bridge he built for me. He was after all, an engineer!

Visitation will be from 2-4 and 6-8 Thurs Jan 17 at the Corrigan-Deighton Funeral Home, 21900 Euclid Ave. Mass will be celebrated Fri at Sts Robert & William on E.260th.