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.
