Merger With Cleveland Update

Another Step Toward Merger

The Plain Dealer reported on Tuesday, September 20, 2016 that Cleveland City Council President Kevin Kelley said Monday that he must figure out how to go about studying the pros and cons of annexing impoverished neighbor East Cleveland -- without locking Cleveland into a plan to do so.

During a Committee of the Whole meeting Monday, Kelley told his colleagues that the city must be certain it wants to move forward with a merger before formally expressing that interest through legislation, because after that, Cleveland can no longer opt out.

Here is what you need to know about where the two cities stand on the annexation question:

East Cleveland hits reset button

East Cleveland City Council last month hit the reset button on its so-far botched attempt at initiating a merger with Cleveland.

During an emergency council meeting, members voted to adopt new legislation appointing three representatives to a commission empaneled to negotiate the annexation. The ordinance replaces one passed earlier this summer, which was tied to an ill-advised list of conditions that Kelley rejected out of hand as "a non-starter."

What happens next?

After a brief public notice and comment period, East Cleveland will deliver the legislation to Cleveland City Council.

Per the Ohio Revised Code, council members then will have 30 days to decide if they also will pass legislation appointing three panelists to the commission. If the 30 days lapse, the initiative must start over with the circulation of new signature petitions.

If council does act, however, the cities are locked in – committed to submitting some kind of plan for annexation. Failure to do so would warrant a judge's intervention, Kelley told his colleagues Monday.

The commission would have 120 days to draft the terms of the merger that East Cleveland voters would consider. Cleveland City Council members would then either vote to adopt the plan or send the issue to the ballot.

What's the hold-up?

Kelley said three principles will guide Cleveland in its decision on whether to pursue the merger:

• There must be a funding source available – preferably from the state -- to cover East Cleveland's capital needs.
• The suburb's millions of dollars in liabilities – which include debt, court judgments and settlements – must be resolved.
• The merger must not harm Cleveland's current residents, or the level of service they receive, in any way.

So far, Kelley said, he has received no reassurances on any of those concerns.

How will Cleveland figure it out?

Kelley said he does not believe 30 days – or even 120 days, for that matter – will be enough time to determine the cost of addressing East Cleveland's problems with infrastructure or who would pay for them. So it's likely that Cleveland will let the 30 days lapse and revisit the idea when the questions are answered.

In the meantime, Kelley said, he would like to assemble a committee made up of engineers, lawyers and municipal finance experts to dive into East Cleveland's assets and liabilities before council formally appoints commission members and commits the city to an annexation plan.

How do other council members feel about where the issue stands?

Some members present at Monday's meeting said they still support annexation and see the benefit to both cities.

Others, including Councilmen Michael Polensek and TJ Dow, passed along constituents' concerns that a merger would siphon resources and services from Cleveland neighborhoods.

Councilman Matt Zone said council should be "laser-focused" on the November election and a ballot that includes a school levy renewal, a proposed city income tax increase and a City Charter amendment related to police reform.

All agreed that council should take its time exploring the merger.