Fate of Euclid Dispatch May Be Up To Voters

Marcus Epps of Euclid is not a happy camper. He plans on letting Council know at tonite’s (Nov 17) Council meeting. What’s got him bugged is Council’s vote on Nov 3^rd to

dismantle Euclid’s dispatch system and regionalize the service by joining Chagrin Valley Dispatch.

According to Ch 19, Council Prez Holzheimer-Gail justified the move with, "We need to move our city forward, look into doing things a little more progressive. The old way of doing business is not going to help us do things better." As part of the agreement, the council president says the current dispatchers, roughly a dozen, will not be laid off, but absorbed by Chagrin Valley. Making the move at this time also allows the city to take advantage of grant money to upgrade radio equipment for both police and fire.  

"Our equipment is aging and reaching the end of its useful life, so that would be a cost the city would have to incur if we stayed on our own. And most cities like ours are struggling for tax dollars," explained Holzheimer Gail. (posted Nov 4th)

Ward 7 Councilman Pat Delaney isn't so sure. He told Ch. 19, "We could look at garbage collection, we could look at recreation, look at many other things. But when it comes to 911, that could be a sacred cow.... When it comes to the citizens front line of protecting them, there is no margin for error. With this there will be a learning curve. And it's one of those votes on City Council when I hope I'm wrong." Delaney says residents and others opposed would rather see regionalization in other departments.

The legislation narrowly passed 5-4. Voting FOR were Holzheimer-Gail (P), Caviness (1), Scarniench (2), Jones (3) and Jarosz (4). Voting AGAINST were McLaughlin (5), Delaney (6), Langman (7) and Gorshe (8).

With the vote so close, Marcus Epps is taking action. He is circulating a Referendum Petition to overturn Council's vote, put it on hold and let the voters decide. 

According to the City Charter Article III, Section 1B, any non-emergency ordinance passed by Council is subject to referendum. The petition will need around 1,500 valid signatures (10% of the 2010 votes cast for Governor). Epps has until Dec 2nd - 30 days from passage to gathem them and will present the petitions to Finance Director Malone.

Council can if enough signatures are acquired to convince them, overturn its own legislation and so avoid the measure being put on the ballot.

Last week Epps sent an email that he will hold a public meeting at Euclid Library this Wed Nov 19th at 7:15pm. Current dispatchers and Council members are expected to be there. It's a great opportunity for you to hear the arguments and voice your opinion. Petitions for signing or gathering signatures will be available. You can read the email here.

It should be an interesting meeting.

Service Committee Meeting - Next step in fight to lower Sewer Rates

There are two items on the Oct 29 6:30pm Service Committee Agenda:
- Members of CH2MHill discuss scope of study 
- Ord. (039-14) An ordinance authorizing the purchase of a fee simple interest in, over, and upon certain real property within the City of Euclid and authorizing the Mayor to enter into a purchase agreement therefore, and declaring an emergency. (Sponsored by Mayor Cervenik)

At first, I was puzzled. Two other items are sitting in Committee. Council wants to roll back Sewer Rates to 2012. The Administration wants to hire Strand for Phase II of a Green Infrastructure Plan.

If you think about it, though, it makes sense. CH2 has reason to believe that if presented properly, the EPA might give Euclid a 'pause point' to reassess its current grey plan, offer green alternatives and potentially lower sewer rates. That's probably why the Sewer

If that happens, the City may not need to purchase the BP property for $495,000 (Item 2 on the Agenda). Well, they really don't need the property even under the current plan, since they plan to sell it after construction is finished on Lake Shore Blvd. But that's another story. 

As to the hiring of Strand for Phase II, that's a ploy. If the Administration wouldn't inform Strand that its model changed (thereby rendering Strand's initial presentation basically worthless), what's to say it won't do it again?

Regarding tomorrow night's meeting, I received the following from Councilman Langman, "As a phase one program, it by definition falls far short of a comprehensive program, as per the instructions of the Administration. The natural question is what were the next steps taken since August, 2013? It appears that nothing more happened with Strand.

So, while there is ample evidence of Council’s desire to see an integrated, green infrastructure program, and, much rhetoric from the Administration for such planning, in about 2.5 years, very little has actually been done, certainly nothing that can be deemed “construction ready” on the green side.

With no feedback or communication from the Administration, Councilman McLaughlin and I reached out to CH2Hill, a nationally recognized engineering firm, experienced in working with communities under federal consent decrees, and, experts in green infrastructure integration.

In their initial investigation dated June 26,  2014, based on all known documentation of Euclid’s Long Term Control Plan, the following was stated:

“…There is new and relevant information that could be applied to the City of Euclid’s long term control plan to reduce costs, extend implementation schedules, increase regional buy-in, and, increase community benefits by adding green solutions”

“In the 2012 update to your Long Term Control Plan, green infrastructure was largely dismissed as not having any real value to Euclid.  These finding are quite inconsistent with regional and national programs that have demonstrated the benefits of a balanced green-gray approach.”

“We recognize that Euclid has been in the Consent Decree game a long time and, that it may be unfavorable to question the existing path forward.  Fatigue is understandable but integrated planning presents a new opportunity that is worth exploring, moving the community improvements and benefits through the green infrastructure to the front of program and, giving Euclid more time to evaluate and implement gray investments, ultimately saving considerable money for the community.”

The City is about to begin construction at the Waste Water Treatment plant. Once begun, those costs will be locked in place for good, along with ever increasing sewer bills.

That last item is what we started with: can we save the rate payers of Euclid, and, the neighboring communities money through the introduction of green infrastructure to Euclid’s Long Term Control Plan?  

Councilman McLaughlin and I firmly believe that this question is absolutely critical for the long term financial health of Euclid rate payers. 

Please join City Council, the Administration as we discuss further opportunities with CH2MHill on Wed, October 29, 2014, 6:30 PM,  Euclid City Hall."

EPA in Favor of Green Infrastructure Solutions

Green infrastructure (GI), protecting and restoring natural landscape features and using natural systems (or systems engineered to mimic natural processes) to manage rain water as a resource, is a win-win-win approach and a fundamental component of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) sustainable community efforts.
That's the official stand of the EPA when it comes to managing stormwater. To learn more about GI, click the link on the right for my Sustainable Environment page

EPA May Reconsider Consent Decree in Euclid’s Favor

       Members of City Council have reason to believe the EPA is more than willing to revise its

A Portland OR green street diverts
water from the sewer into the land

Consent Decree in Euclid’s favor. Such a revision could result in lower compliance standards and an extended time frame. Either or both could result in lower sewer bills for Euclid and a much improved landscape. 
       The holdup seems to be an Administration unwilling to ask the EPA for a hearing. Council is hoping public demand will move the Administration off the fence.
       Back in 2005 the EPA accused Euclid of violating the Clean Water Act and demanded it improve the way our Plant treats storm and sewer water before releasing it into Lake Erie. In 2011 the City entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA to resolve the problem. Euclid’s solution under advice from its engineers CT Consultants, was to build huge above ground storage tanks at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to hold overflow water until it could be treated and replace certain lines that during overflows release improperly treated sewage into Lake Erie. The plan had an estimated $80 million cost and required acquisition of the homes on E 221 and E 224. Needless to say, many residents were upset.
       That plan changed after Ward 5 Councilman Patrick McLaughlin (himself an engineer) suggested an alternative – use membrane technology, build underground storage tanks off-site, closer to Lake Shore Blvd. Only then did CT admit that yes they knew of the technology but hadn’t thought of recommending it. There were a lot of upsides – dozens of residents would keep their homes, the lake view wouldn’t be spoiled, the technology was cutting edge and the EPA would go along with it. The downside - the cost of compliance jumped to somewhere between $136 and $150 million. 
       Residential sewer rates in 2012 totaled $46.17/mcf. Today, rates are at $66.23/mcf and by 2019 are expected to reach $81.57/mcf. They will continue to increase until 2025. The driving force behind the increases is the Capital portion needed to pay for the entirely Gray Infrastructure Plan. From Jan thru March 2012, Ward 7 Councilman Daryl Langman wrote a series of posts for his blog 7th Ward-Euclid. They’re a good read if you want a background on

A disconnected downspout
diverts water from the sewer into a
rain garden. Photo courtesy of Low
Impact Developmenmt Org

the EPA mandate, sewer rate increases and the potential savings of green infrastructure. To better understand Green Infrastructure, visit my Environment Page.
       In March 2012, following McLaughlin’s and Langman’s lead, Council passed a Resolution urging the Administration to consider a combination of Gray and Green Infrastructure. 18 months later on August 28, 2013, Strand Associates, a leader in green infrastructure (GI) solutions presented the City with various options that would divert water out of the system, bring the City into compliance with the EPA’s requirements AND LOWER LONG TERM COSTS. Members of Council, the Administration and CT Consultants were present.  Prior to the meeting, CT Consultants changed the model Strand was initially given without notifying Strand.  Read More 

$2MM No Bid Recycle Contract Not Worth the Risk

On Monday, Oct 21 at 7pm Council will vote on whether or not to extend the lucrative Kimble trash contract to 2019 without going out for bids.

Despite a month of meetings, it’s difficult to understand the ‘emergency’ of the legislation. The only info we have to go on is what the Administration and Kimble’s rep Don Johnson have told us in presentations or in answer to specific questions.   

This $2million a year contract is not a simple extension. There are significant changes, hence the need for a contract:

- An increase in per stop charge from $7.45 to $8.25

- A decrease in tipping fees from $42.50 to $39.75/ton

- An increase of fuel surcharges from $2.65/g(diesel) to $4.02/g(diesel).

- Moving to automated pickup;

- Outsourcing recycling

But with the vote just 5 days away, Council doesn’t have a copy of the contract.

Monday’s vote comes down to two issues:

1. The City’s claim of $500,000 in savings over the period of the extension;
2. The City’s claim that recycling tonnage will increase by 25%

ISSUE 1 - The City contends that Council has the ability to waive competitive bidding “if the reason is in the City’s best interest. In this case, the savings over the period of the extensions is over $500,000.”  

That’s misleading at best. In-house recycling is expected to exceed $100k a year. The extension is for five years. The $500,000 in savings is based solely on the fact that the City would not be doing its own recycling. The City would save $500,000 no matter WHO it contracted to.

As to the new charges, according to Service Dir Bock, “I believe there would be a savings of just over $400,000. This savings is done by a lowering of the tipping fee that [Kimble] charges at the landfill. The amount of tonnage, due to the automated recycling would be lower and hence lower cost.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa –Backup! The City is ASSUMING an additional 2,153 tons will be recycled. At the current price of $42.50/ton, that’s $91,502.50 the City ASSUMES we will save. The Administration is counting non-existent tonnage as a savings. YOU CAN’T DO THAT. Delving further, according to Kimble’s numbers, currently, the City is paying $678,257.50 in tipping fees for 15,959 tons. Under the new contract, for the same amount of tonnage, the City would pay $634,370.25. That’s a DECREASE of $43,887.25.

Sounds good, but then Mr. Bock said, “The fuel surcharge would be virtually eliminated. What I mean by that is [currently] once [diesel fuel] goes beyond [$2.65 a gallon] at that point a fuel surcharge kicks in and we pay a fuel surcharge. That fuel surcharge under the current agreement runs us on average about .55 cents per home per month [for a total cost of $7.45].”  We’re virtually eliminating the fuel surcharge at .55 per home/per month. That’s where we obtain the savings that are projected in the new contract if it were to be done.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa –Backup! Per Kimble’s own numbers, currently the City is paying $1,471,792.20 for 16,463 stops. Under the new contract rate of $8.25ph/pm the City would pay $1,629,837.00. That’s an INCREASE of $158,044.80.

When you put the two together, it’s a net loss of $114,157.55 per year – which virtually wipes out any savings from outsourcing the Recycling program and negates the argument for bypassing the bid process.

ISSUE 2 – The City anticipates a 25% increase in recyclables with automation.

The City contends that, “In all communities where they have gone to automated recycle collection with the larger carts, they have seen a substantial increase in tonnage.” That may be true, but the communities used as examples have two things going for them that Euclid does not. They have an aggressive Reduce/Reuse/Recycle educational program/policy and they have relatively stable populations.  

Euclid has yet to put in place a comprehensive educational program or any kind of policy that encourages landfill reduction. Mayor Cervenik has told Council that under automation people will be allowed to continue putting out as much trash as they want every week. Unlimited trash disposal does not encourage landfill reduction. In other automated communities, excess trash is permitted once a month. If the City put that in place, folks would think twice about bagging their grass or pitching items that could be restored, re-used or recycled.

Another reason to question the increase is the City’s high transiency rate. How is the City planning to inform and encourage new residents to recycle? What motivation does it plan to use for renters who don’t pay the garbage tax and who can pitch anything in unlimited quantities? Or for landlords clearing a recently vacated property?

Unless the City implements a true educational program and/or stabilizes its neighborhoods it cannot anticipate significant landfill diversion.

The way I see it, despite the Mayor’s assurances to the contrary, the City’s recycling program has become a money pit. What originally was going to cost the City nothing is now going to exceed $100,000 a year.

The Mayor is stuck in an increasingly costly in-house recycling program. Extending the current Kimble contract conveniently gets the monkey off his back that he put there. That’s why this is an emergency.

Council should vote Ord. 320-13 down. Let the City limp along for the remainder of the current contract. Use the time to put in place an aggressive Reduce/Re-use/Recycle policy before a new contract is awarded. A well thought through program can divert significant landfill tonnage. The full time Administration’s attempt has been a dismal failure. Here’s hoping the part time Council can do better. 

Latest Forecast on Recycling Savings Is Suspect

Every forecast Cervenik has
made has proven wrong

Bill Cervenik should have been a weatherman. No matter how many times his forecasts are wrong, he never apologizes. He ignores failed predictions as though he never made them and presents new forecasts with confidence. Like the weatherman, Cervenik is never held accountable for his failed projections no matter how often he makes them. The amazing thing is Councils past and present continue to believe him. Case in point…

On Monday, Oct 21, Euclid City Council will vote yes or no to grant a 4yr 9mo extension to Kimble, the company picking up our trash. The extension is contingent upon Kimble doing 3 things: Moving to automated pickup; taking over Recycling; and lowering its tipping fees for landfill trash. There’s also a mutual option to extend the contract out for another five years, again without a bid.

The current contract ends Feb 28, 2015. The way it’s supposed to work is that in the Fall of 2014 the City normally would go out for the lowest and best bid for trash pickup. Four years ago, 4 companies bid – J&J (now Kimble), Republic, Rumke and Waste Management. Kimble offered the lowest price, and won the $2million-plus contract.

If this new deal is approved, the City will bypass the bid process. With the mutual option to extend, the City may never go out for bids again. It’ll just keep extending never knowing if it could get a better arrangement in price and service. The Administration contends that Council has the ability to waive competitive bidding “if the reason is in the City’s best interest. In this case, the savings over the period of the extensions is over $500,000.”

Service Director Lee Bock has said the savings would be over $400,000 over the next year and a half. Well which is it - $400k or $500k? IT IS NEITHER. In fact, it’s more likely the contract will INCREASE the City’s costs anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000.

In the Fall of 2010 Mayor Cervenik assured Council that if it approved in-house recycling he guaranteed it would pay for itself. He even said it very likely would show a profit. In the 3 years since, every forecast Cervenik made regarding the program has been wrong.

Forecast #1 Sept 22, 2010 – Curbside Recycling Will Cost the City Nothing: “The bottom line is, we can do curbside recycling basically for free and with the grant money being used initially until we build up to 4,000 tons, we really cost the general fund no money at all in doing this.”(Cervenik, Sustainability Committee Meeting) FACT: 2012 cost the City $62,949.80. 2013 is expected to cost the City about $100,000.

Forecast #2 Oct 4, 2010 – Recycling Tonnage Will Exceed 5,000 Tons: “I believe we can get 5,000-6,000 tons and with the revenue from the consortium, we will save money and actually make money or save expenses on our trash contract.” (Cervenik, Council Meeting) FACT: The second year (2012) brought in 1720 tons. Tonnage remains relatively flat.

Forecast #3 A New $90,000 Truck Is Adequate For the Job – Prior to approving a small 1-ton truck, Cervenik told Council, “Since [the crew] won’t be picking up that much on a daily basis we feel the size of the truck which is 12 yard compactor will allow us to have to do only one trip if in fact we decide to take the recyclables out [to Kimble] rather than having them pick them up.” FACT: “Although the one ton can complete the task, it is certainly not the most efficient, nor effective means to do so.” (Service Dir Randy Smith Jan 24, 2011 Sustainability Committee)

Forecast #4 Purchase of a Used Truck Worthwhile – Because the Rabbit Truck had proven inadequate, the Program needed a second truck to haul recyclables to Kimble and act as backup. In Feb, the Administration came back to Council requesting approval to buy a second 9-year old BIG recycling truck for $30,600. Cervenik assured Council that, “If you permit us to purchase the second truck…I certainly expect it to last longer than five years because of its limited use…. This should be the final change of the program.” (Cervenik, Jan 24, 2011 Sustainability Committee) Once again Council prostrated itself at the weatherman’s feet and approved the purchase of a second used truck. All except Gilliham, Minarik and Langman. FACT: The truck expected to last five years continues to break down and will probably be sold for scrap. Council has been told the program must buy another truck to continue.

Mayor Cervenik has been wrong on every forecast since the program’s inception. So Why Is Council Accepting His Projected Savings as Fact? Not one councilperson has challenged the $500k savings in the legislation. If tonnage does not increase significantly, this contract will cost the City.

Should Council negate its responsibility to go out for bids, it will do a disservice to the residents. It will lose the opportunity to negotiate potentially better service and lower costs in a year and a half. Council should find out what the competition has to offer before locking itself into a 5 year contract. But it has not even asked. It should demand implementation of the long-promised education program first. But it's not.

Cervenik told Council the no-bid contract is, “worth taking the risk.” Relinquishing one’s freedom to choose is never a good idea. Given the Mayor’s history of bad forecasting, this is a risk Council can’t afford to take. Given Council’s history, it probably will.

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.

Issue 109 – An Issue Of Accountability

Issue 109 is an Emergency Levy of 9 mills for 10 years. The mailer from the Euclid School Board read, “We need Issue 109… to improve the quality of education for our children and our city.” History has shown that passage of 109 will not improve our schools.

Before I explain, let me say this. The vast majority of the parents and guardians of our students love their children. They want the best education and learning environment possible for them.

In contrast, the Euclid Schools have too long practiced the soft bigotry of low expectations. They operate under the assumptions that if you come from a single parent household or if you’re low income or if you’re African American you cannot be expected to learn. These assumptions are false. They discourage our youth and insult the adults who raise them. They perpetuate failure and weaken our neighborhoods.

Broken Promises: In 2008 the Schools promised that if voters passed a 6.9mill levy, schools would improve. Voters trusted the leadership and a $100,000 home saw its taxes increase $241.50 a year. Schools did not improve.

In 2009-10 Euclid Schools met only 4 of 26 standards – 10^th Grade Writing, 11^th Grade repeat tests Reading & Writing and Attendance. Adequate Yearly Progress was Not Met.

In 2010-11 Euclid Schools met 5 of 26 standards – 10^th Grade Reading & Writing, 11^th Grade repeat tests Reading & Writing and Attendance. Adequate Yearly Progress was Not Met. Graduation Rate 62.4%.

In 2011-12 Euclid Schools met 5 of 24 standards - 10^th Grade Writing, 11^th Grade repeat tests Reading, Writing, Math & Social Science. Adequate Yearly Progress Not Met. Graduation Rate 66.5%. 

Euclid Schools rank 3^rd from the bottom, above Cleveland and East Cleveland.

New Schools-New Names-Clean Slate: In 2009 the Euclid Schools asked for 3.5mills to raise $40 million to build 4 new schools. Voters were told new schools would cut operating costs about $1 million a year and scores would improve. Voters trusted the leadership and a $100,000 home saw its taxes increase $122.50 a year.

The first step in improving scores was to wipe the slate clean. Euclid Schools closed Indian Hills, Lincoln and Memorial schools. They re-named the new schools Arbor (Roosevelt), Shoreview (Upson), Bluestone (Thomas Jefferson) and Chardon Hills (Glenbrook). This move accomplished three things. It eliminated 3 failing schools. It wiped out previous years’ report cards. It cut off vouchers for students attending private schools. After this year, those students will be forced to return to the failing system to hopefully improve the district’s progress. When times are tough, you do what you gotta do.

Issue 109: If passed, the 9mill levy will cost the owner of a $100,000 home an additional $315 a year. This is on top of the net loss to homeowners whose values plunged but whose taxes will remain basically the same (see my HR920 Post) and the increase in shared income tax revenues. To justify the tax increase, the Euclid School Board lists 8 things the levy will accomplish.  

- Insure all students read at grade level by end of 3^rd grade. 

- Increase tests scores and graduation rates; and Improve college and workforce readiness.  

- Improve behavior and create a positive learning environment.   

- Ensure high quality instruction; Increase technology in the classroom; Work with local businesses to offer real world experience.  

- Efficiently and effectively manage district resources.

The net cost on an average home is .40 a day ($146/yr increase)

The mailer, signed by every Board member, reveals the following sad facts:

- Our kids are being passed to the next grade before they’ve mastered their subject matter

- Overall, their behavior is bad

- The quality of instruction is inadequate

- The district’s handling of resources is inefficient and ineffective

- The average home in Euclid is now worth only $47,000.

By the Board’s own admission, Euclid Schools are failing our students and their guardians and the tax payers who support them.

If you really want to improve our schools, here’s what you can do:

-        Vote No on 109. Give the schools one year to show taxpayers that the new schools and new leadership are living up to their promises of improved scores, a positive learning environment and better behavior.

-        Hold the schools accountable for their past promises and for the trust voters have placed in them. If there is improvement, then come back and ask for money. They will have earned it.

-        In Nov 2013 replace the current Board that has by its own admission, overseen the inefficient and ineffective use of district resources; and has failed to implement policies that improve student behavior, academic achievement and graduation rates.

It’s time to raise our expectations and our standards for the Schools, for the students and for the teachers. It’s time for accountability.   

HR920 and Your Property Taxes

Most homeowners in Euclid saw their property values go down significantly. Mine went down 40%. Don’t expect to see a corresponding drop in your property taxes, though. Only inside millage which tops out at 10 mills and the Street Lights assessment adjust up or down with property values. All voted millage is held to the dollars the levy at the time of passage was designed to generate. That’s because of a state law HR920. The purpose of HR920 was two-fold:

-       - To protect property owners during higher value/inflationary times from paying more than voters approved

     - To protect the entity during down times from receiving less than voters approved

How HR920 Works: Let’s use the Rec Dept as an example. In 1976 two charter levies were passed totaling 2mills. The value was about $300,000. The $300,000 was guaranteed and fixed. Over the next 35 years, as property values rose, the Rec Dept income remained fixed at $300,000 in order to protect property owners. In 2011, those 2mills residential effective rate had dropped to .513341 mills. That was the millage required to meet the $300,000.

HR920 applies to the following funds. The voted millage is followed by 2011 effective residential millage in parentheses. County Jail: .17m (.17) expires 2012; Mental Health: 3.9m (3.841628); County Health: 2.9m (2.856595); Health & Welfare: 4.8m (4.8) expired 2011; Metro Parks: 1.8m (1.818768); Library Operating: 4m (4); TriC: 3.1m (3.082039); Port Authority: .13m (.103340).

Euclid Schools is made up of the 1995 Library Bond, Permanent levies from ’76, ’79, ’85, ’88, ’92, ’99 and ‘05, a 2008 Emergency 10yr levy, and the 2009 New Schools Bond. Added up, they total 88.4m (53.314689).

This is the part of your property tax that does not change with property values. The grand total of millage impacted by HR920 is 122.850 voted mills. The 2011 residential effective rate based on the value of Euclid is 80.3619. After the Owner Occupancy and Residential Rollbacks, the effective rate drops to 71.59 mills. The devaluation of Euclid will likely raise the effective rate to insure funds voters approved at the time of passage. It should not raise your dollars paid though.

Thanks to HR920 property owners have been protected for the last 35 years. Now the tables have turned to protect the funds approved by voters. As a result, don’t expect your property tax to drop by much more than a few bucks. You can find a breakdown of voted millage by visiting the Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer’s website. Under Schools and Local Govt Data, open the documents DTE 515 and DTE 27.

Follow the Money

Thanks to Council questions and the public's concern, an Executive meeting has been called for Mon Aug 27 at 7pm to discuss the purchase price of Miles Carter's LLC's parcel, the old Alexanders. After reviewing public documents leading up to the purchase for $900,000, I can’t help thinking I’m watching a Cups and Balls magic trick. In the famous trick, there are 3 balls and 3 cups. Eventually all 3 balls end up in one cup. The secret to the trick is one cup has an extra ball that the audience does not see. Without the extra ball, the trick can’t work – check it out in the Secret to Cups and Balls.

Before I explain, I encourage you to read Councilman Langman’s latest post on Wd 7 Blog to understand how the purchase process normally works. 

Ready for the trick now? Here's what Law Dir. Frey, CS&ED Dir Pietravoia and Mayor Cervenik focused Council’s attention on (keep your eyes on the balls, now):

BALL #1- McDonalds: In the fall of 2011, rumors surfaced that McDonald’s was moving to the Alexanders parcel. A set of plans was to be presented at the Nov 2011 Planning & Zoning meeting. The Development Dept was working with McD to get the project plans in front of P&Z asap. By then the City had an idea it might need the parcel, but still thought it could improve the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) without Alexanders.

BALL #2-the EPA: In January of 2012, the City presented a plan at the Jan 18 Service Committee meeting. That’s when it was revealed to Council that the residential properties abutting WWTP would have to be acquired. A furor erupted. By the time the Mayor met with affected residents on Feb 23 a whole new plan was in place. This new brilliant plan would not only save their homes, but in the long run, it would reduce the City’s expenses. Of course, it would be a lot more expensive to implement and now the City would need the Alexanders parcel. Focus shifted from City siezure to EPA approval.

BALL #3-the Appraisal: Sometime early this month, Council heard from the City that EPA approved the new plan. The City’s need for Alexanders caused Carter’s deal with McDonalds to fall through. Just prior to the Aug 8 meeting, Council learned that two appraisals had been done – one for the vacant parcel ($715,000) and one for the land assuming a McDonalds lease was in place ($900,000). In short, because McDs was ready to move on a lease/purchase, Frey told Council that Carter should be recompensed $900,000.  

Now I told you at the beginning that the success of the trick requires a 4^th ball that the trickster hides from the audience. Here’s what an examination of public documents shows:

BALL #4- The Inside Track: The first discussion of the City’s need for the Alexander’s parcel was in late 2009-early 2010 prior to the March 2010 submittal of a plan to the EPA. The Alexander’s parcel was not part of the submission, but the City was prepared to go that route. In Dec 2010, Miles Carter’s LLC purchased the Alexanders parcel for $600,000. Three months later in March 2011, Carter contributed $1,000 to Mayor Bill Cervenik’s re-election. Prior to that the last donation I could find from Carter to Cervenik was $50 in 2003.

By Summer 2011 the City knew the EPA would not accept the City’s original plan. It also knew it would have to acquire the Alexander’s parcel. In Sept 2011 Carter contributed another $500 to Mayor Cervenik’s re-election. Through Dec of 2011 the City continued the pretense that McDonalds was a done deal. It continued the pretense that EPA was leaving the City in the dark. Late in 2011 the City hired an appraiser. At this point, Carter probably knew more about the City’s plans than Council did.   

Now remember, for the trick to work, attention must be focused on the three visible balls while all the while, the fourth ball is controlling the outcome.

EXECUTION: At the Aug 8 Special Council Meeting, Law Dir Chris Frey did his magic trick before seven Council members. He kept Council focused on McDonalds, the EPA and the Appraisals they had not seen. Four Councilpersons applauded the trick by voting YES to the $900,000 price – President Holzheimer-Gail, Wd 1 Caviness, Wd 5 McLaughlin and Wd 6 O’Hare. But three Councilpersons wanted a closer look at the Cups and Balls trick and voted NO – Wd 2 Scarniench, Wd 3 Jones and Wd 7 Langman. 

Dir. Frey’s Cups & Balls trick would have been a complete success had Wd 8’s VanHo not left the meeting prior to the vote. With no super-majority, that forced the legislation to go from an ‘emergency’, executed immediately, to a 30-day wait before the Mayor could sign off and the purchase agreement be executed. There’s still time for Council to put legislation on the Sept. 4^th agenda, rescind its vote and put the purchase price on hold. Should Miles Carter be fairly compensated for the Alexanders parcel? Absolutely. Should the price be more than he paid? Absolutely. But Council owes it to the rate payers who are financing this deal to honor the process and negotiate the best deal on their behalf. Hope to see you Monday night in Council chambers. 

Oh What a Web Frey Wove

On August 8, Council approved paying $900,000 for the old Alexanders parcel to be used for the Wastewater Treatment Plant improvements required by the EPA. The legislation will go into effect 30 days from passage unless Council rescinds its vote.

First, a correction to the original post Pay To Play – It was Wd 7 Councilman Langman, not Council President Holzheimer-Gail who fronted the idea to put off a vote until Council had more info. That idea was voted down and the price approved by a narrow 4-3 vote (see Pay To Play post).

In the 12 days since the legislation passed, there have been a number of interesting developments:

- It was Wd Councilman O'Hare that pushed to end the debate and vote. The day after he voted FOR the purchase at $900,000, O’Hare drew up a list of questions for Law Director Frey relating to the appraisals which Council received after the vote and the MacDonald’s lease. Too little too late Councilman.

- Some members of Council have asked for a follow up meeting to review the purchase based on new info received. In response, Council President Holzheimer-Gail sent out an email on Aug 13 saying she would hold an Executive Committee meeting, but would like it coupled with a Service Committee meeting. That meeting has yet to be scheduled. The issue though is not whether Council should approve purchase of the property. The issue is whether Council should pay almost $200,000 more than the property was appraised at. Given the 30 day window on the legislation, this matter should be considered as soon as possible.

- Regarding the appraisal that was the basis for the $900,000 offer, the Jan 6 supplemental appraisal assumed, “that the lease between 36907 Westminster Road LLC and MacDonalds USA LLC has been fully executed (signed) and was effective January 6, 2012.”  The assumption was wrong. In an email to Council Dir. Frey admitted that, “The McDonalds lease was never completed…”.  The price also reimburses Miles Carter’s LLC (the Seller) for demolition of Alexanders and carrying costs.

- The second and lower appraisal was submitted twenty days later on Jan 26, 2012 and valued the parcel at $715,000.

- Despite Director Frey’s insistence that commercial values in Euclid won’t change that much, the Plain Dealer reported Aug 20^th that in fact, commercial properties in Eucld DID go down.  

Councilperson Scarniench and Langman made a good point when they asked Law Dir. Frey why Council had not received the appraisals for their review. Frey’s response was to admit that it would have been better for Council to have appraisals, but since no one asked for the appraisal, he didn’t bother to send them. Well, given the fact that the appraisals were 7 months old and the higher appraisal was based on a faulty assumption, I can see why Frey was loathe to provide Council with the info. Council should have done its due diligence though. It should have asked for the appraisals before voting.

Councilpersons Caviness and McLaughlin are on record as saying that even if they saw the appraisals, they would probably go along with the price based on the Law Director’s argument. I wonder if they still feel that way.

In reviewing the discussion, it should be pointed out that the reason for the rush was so the City could apply for a loan from the OH Water Development Authority (OWDA) to buy the property in time for its August meeting. The loan will be financed with the sewer rate increases. The parcel will be used for the Headworks and Sludge Force Main which have EPA approval. Engineering studies need to start.  It’s a 6 year project. Why couldn’t Council wait One More Week before voting?

The fact that Caviness, McLaughlin, O’Hare and Holzheimer-Gail approved the purchase price without enough information to make an informed decision does not speak well to the council members’ judgment.  Councilman McLaughlin even went so far as to say that while every dollar counts, he shrugged off opposing Council members’ concerns by saying this is only .1% of the total project cost. This logic for overpaying by nearly $200,000 is unsettling at best and irresponsible at worst.

Council’s approval of the $900,000 purchase price was based on 1) A faulty assumption; 2) a 7-month old appraisal and 3) the need to apply to OWDA for a loan in time for its August meeting. The irony is that OWDA meets every month. By stripping the ‘emergency’ out of the legislation, the City can’t meet the August date anyway.

New sewer rate increases are coming as early as next month. If you’ve got 49 minutes, I encourage you to watch the meeting on ECTV Video On Demand. Discussion on the purchase begins two hours and four minutes into the meeting. If after watching it, you’re as uncomfortable as I am with the way 4 members of Council neglected their due diligence duty I encourage you to contact your council person and urge them to call a meeting to review this decision. Then attend the meeting and voice your concerns. It’s your money they’re spending.

Pay To Play – Euclid Style

Last March Council voted to raise the sewer rates some 32% to cover the cost of WasteWater operations, waterlines and to begin bringing the City into compliance with the EPA.  



Despite a $715,000 appraisal, on Aug 8
Council approved purchaseing
 Alexanders for $900,000 4 to 3



A key element of implementation of the long term plan is the old Alexanders Restaurant property. An underground retention basin will use the current City-owned land plus part of Alexander’s to hold excess storm water until the plant can process it properly. That’s the simple version. The City can acquire the private parcel thru a negotiated purchase or thru use of eminent domain for a public purpose. That being said, the property is pretty useless to the current owner Miles Carter who incorporated 36097 Westminister Road, LLC in November 2008.

Last night Council narrowly approved the purchase of Alexanders for $900,000. The parcel is 53,057sq.ft - a little over one acre. By comparison, in 2010 the City purchased St. Roberts’ 8 acres for $675,000.

Carter’s LLC bought the parcel in Dec 2010 for $600,000. The LLC spent much of 2011 maneuvering a deal to get McDonalds in there.

Miles Carter is a smart businessman. He owns the shopping area across the street. Carter probably knew the City was in negotiation with the EPA regarding improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. So why did he purchase a property that was potentially worthless depending on what the EPA and the City settled? Why did he pursue MacDonalds to buy the parcel for $1.1 million? To my way of thinking, there are 3 possibilities.

1- The City never informed Carter of the risk. 2- Carter knew the risk, but hoped to dump the land and make a cool half million before MacDonalds learned of the risk. 3- There was a tit for tat agreement between the Mayor and Carter.   

In 2010 when Carter was negotiating for the Alexander’s property, the Development Dept had to know about it. If the Administration knowingly let Carter buy the land and pursue a MacDonalds deal without informing him that the City might need it for public use – well, that doesn’t look good for the City.

On the other hand, if the City did inform Carter of the potential seizure and Carter lured MacDonalds in without informing Corporate so he could up the value of the land, well, that doesn’t look good for Carter.

On the third hand, if the Mayor struck a deal with Carter to increase his profits in exchange for a contribution, well that doesn’t look good for the Mayor. It’s also possible that after years of watching the Mayor reward contributors like CT Consultants, K&D, Spies and Mavec with huge profits and sweet deals at taxpayer’s expense, maybe Carter decided to try his hand at Euclid’s particular form of Play to Play.

In 2011 Miles Carter made two contributions to Bill Cervenik’s campaign totaling $1,500. Not a big deal except that Carter hadn’t contributed anything more than $50 to Cervenik for years. That $1,500 donation very well could have gotten Carter an extra $150,000 profit. 

The City had two appraisals done on the Alexander’s property. The first came in at $715,000. The second appraisal came in at $1.1 million and was based on MacDonalds’ moving in. The City offered Carter $900,000 to compensate for MacDonalds, demolition of Alexanders and carrying costs. But MacDonalds had pulled out at the City’s recommendation back in December of 2011. 

No buyer, no property value – Carter was stuck. So why didn’t the City negotiate for the lower price?

Well anyway, enough questions were raised last night that Holzheimer-Gail suggested a second meeting 8/13. Wd 5 McLaughlin - a guaranteed vote for the Mayor - though, wouldn’t be able to make the meeting. Without McLaughlin to hold his hand, no one was sure how Wd 6 O’Hare would vote. It was a risk the Council Prez could not take. A ‘compromise’ to change the legislation from an ‘emergency’ where the Mayor could enact it immediately to a simple ordinance that required a 30 day wait before signing was offered. But Council would have to vote on it right away. It passed 4 (Caviness, McLaughlin, O’Hare, Holzheimer-Gail) to 3 (Scarniench, Jones, Langman). Lynch is still in India and Van Ho had left early.

When I asked Wd 1 Councilwoman Caviness why she cast the game-changing vote instead of insisting on trying to negotiate a lower price, her response was that by changing it from emergency to a general ordinance, the City could spend the next 30 days negotiating a lower price. The woman has no clue how legislation works. Pretty scary.

When I asked Wd 6 Councilman O’Hare why he didn’t ask if the City had tried to get the parcel for less, he said there was no point because of the MacDonalds $1.1million deal. Not as scary, but definitely shameful.

So, in 30 days unless something changes, Miles Carter’s LLC will have turned a 50%, $300,000 profit on a parcel in a little over a year and a half, in a market that’s not moving much, for land that cannot be developed. Financing for the million dollar loan will be made with the money raised from the recent sewer increases. 

It’s Gonna Be A Long Winter

Last night’s (8/8) Special Council Meeting had 11 items on the Agenda. There were no Administration communications. No Council comments after. No public comments after. There were 8 council people present and about six folks who spoke to the Agenda. And the meeting still lasted three hours. And people wonder why we still don't have a Dog Park....

An American Nightmare

So you want to be an entrepreneur. Good luck. If your enterprise poses a threat to big business with strong lobbies, you don’t stand a chance. Just ask Phil Accordino of Roll Your Own Tobacco.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, on Friday July 6, Obama signed into law the $105 billion Highway Bill. The law will effectively destroy the RYO industry. It’s been in the news from The Plain Dealer to The Wall Street Journal to The Huffington Post. It’s produced more outrage than Fast & Furious.

THE AMERICAN DREAM: In 2009, Congress raised the tax on roll-your-own cigarette tobacco from $1.0969/pound to $24.78/pound. Pipe tobacco increased from $1.0969 to $2.8311/pound. Big difference and RYO shops across the country saw an opportunity to save smokers a lot of money while making money for themselves. They switched to pipe tobacco.   

The pipe tobacco didn’t come from the Big Boys, though. In large part, it came from U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Inc. The Raleigh, North Carolina-based group is a cooperative of farmers.

Meanwhile, Accordino’s 42 employee company located outside of Youngstown saw an opportunity as well. RYO manufactured and sold rolling machines across the country for about $32,000 a machine. Prior to the Highway Bill, there were about 1,000 RYO shops around the country employing about 5,000 people.

Cigarette smokers saw their costs go from $52/carton down to $23/carton, much needed money that could be used to pay bills or buy food.

All parties were living the American dream. And then the lobbyists came. Altria, parent company of Philip Morris, American Cancer Society and the National Association of Convenience Stores cried foul and demanded RYO be taxed at the higher rates. Caving under pressure – it is an election year and these guys need cash you know – Congress rolled over. Since Congress couldn’t mandate the type of tobacco sold, it found its own loophole. It re-classified the retail outlets as manufacturers. Now RYO not only will have to charge the same as retail stores – about $52 a carton, but stores can no longer operate in zoned retail districts without a variance.

Checkmate!

FOLLOW THE MONEY:  RYOs have denied the U.S. $1.3 billion in potential taxes since 2009. They’ve cut into Convenience Stores profits and there’s no telling what they’ve cost Altria and Liggett the two biggest cigarette manufacturers. But it must be a lot. Altria makes one of every two cigarettes sold in the U.S. Their shipments are down 4%.

So Big Tobacco spent millions of dollars and sent nearly a hundred lobbyists to Capitol Hill over the last few months. They went to their pal Democrat Sen. Max Baucus of MT and cashed in one of their markers. Baucus cleverly inserted the amendment into the Highway Bill… along with $400 million in funding for his state.  

Locally, Reps LaTourette and Fudge, and Sen. Sherrod Brown voted FOR the bill. Sen Rob Portman voted AGAINST the bill. Pres. Obama SIGNED the bill.

Whether you’re a smoker or not, this is heart breaking. It’s a classic case of Big Govt and Big Business teaming up to enrich themselves. Its maliciousness is sickening. Its consequences are devastating. Two competitors destroyed – RYO and the Farmers’ Co-op. An industry ruined. Thousands left unemployed.

It’s an American Nightmare.

America’s Pariah

Last week smokers took another hit when Congress and Pres. Obama approved the Highway Bill. I’m sure some of you out are saying ‘Good!’ In your mind smokers are nasty and they’re dirty. They contribute nothing to society and they cost the taxpayers a bundle. Society is better off without them. Well, let me give you some background on just how much smokers ‘cost’ you.

For starters, less than 20% of the population smokes cigarettes. The majority of smokers are low income. And yet this small segment of the population that can least afford it have improved the quality of life for millions of non-smoking Americans. Don’t believe me?

Every pack of cigarettes sold in Cuyahoga County carries $2.65 of taxes which benefit primarily non-smokers. As far as I could find, little if any, of these taxes go to ‘Stop Smoking Programs’.

The first tax paid is the Federal Excise tax of $1.01. This tax is used to fund S-Chip the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It’s for parents who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.   

Next is the Ohio Excise tax of $1.25 that goes into the state’s General Fund where it can be used for whatever nifty program the state chooses to spend it on.  

Now comes Cuyahoga County. Voters in 1990 imposed a $.045 tax on smokers to help build Gund Arena, Progressive Field and Browns Stadium. God forbid that the multi-million dollar franchises actually pay for the facilities themselves. Why, they might have to pass those costs along to the people who enjoy the facilities. Can’t have that.

Then in 2006, County voters forced another tax on smokers – $.345 to assist Arts & Culture organizations. Since 2007, smokers have paid over $80 million into this fund. According to Cuyahoga Arts & Culture Annual Report, the money it took from smokers in 2010 (over $17 million) was used to fund organizations that:

Ÿ employed a workforce of 8,710;

Ÿ reached 1,220,884 children thru various programs;

Ÿ and served 6,459,243 residents and visitors.

How much you wanna bet most of the smokers who paid the tax have never enjoyed one of those Arts & Culture institutions they funded?

Okay, so now the smoker is at the register. Guess what happens next. The pack of cigarettes gets hit with a sales tax of 7.75%. Unbelievable – OH and the County are taxing the tax!    

Still not convinced the smoker is enhancing your quality of life? Okay, let’s move closer to home. In 1998 Ohio got $5.5 billion of Tobacco Settlement money to fund Anti-Smoking programs and offset the Medicaid costs of smoke-related health issues. That money is not coming out of the big tobacco companies. It’s coming from smokers to the tune of about $.57 a pack. You didn’t really think the tobacco companies would eat that $5 billion paid to Ohio, did you? In 2007, Gov. Strickland reneged on the deal and marked the money for new schools. I think there’s a lawsuit over this in the works.

In 2010 Euclid voters approved the funding of 4 new schools. The promise was that 41% of the cost would be picked up by the state’s Tobacco Settlement money. $25 million of our new schools is being paid for by smokers.   

Notice that not one of these taxes is going to stop smoking. The ugly truth is that Government doesn’t want to stop smokers. Good grief, why would they want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs? A pack a day smoker pays over $25 a week to fund public projects that for the most part, they’ll never enjoy. But nobody cares because smokers are the American Pariahs of society – the lowest of the low.

The Tax Foundation projects that, “The burden on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households from a cigarette tax is 37 times heavier than if the government raised the money with the federal income tax.”

Folks, just because a program (like Browns Stadium or Playhouse Square) is politically popular doesn’t make it right to fund it on the back of a politically unpopular minority like cigarette smokers. In fact, it’s downright unethical.

But it’s all about greed, getting something for nothing. Government and the non-smoking voters who impose the taxes are equally guilty. The irony of the whole thing is that every cigarette tax increase results in a smaller tax base. Eventually the goose will be cooked and everybody will have to put up. I can hardly wait.