Tuesday is election day in Ohio, with only a few contested primary races, the most significant being the 33rd District state representative race between Democrats Minette Cooper, a current Cincinnati City Council member, and Tyrone Yates, a former council member. There are also school and general tax levies in a number of communities.
Two tax levies appear on Hamilton County ballots — a replacement levy for the Hamilton County Park District (Issue 4) and a renewal levy plus an increase for community mental health (Issue 5). Before discussing why you should vote against Issue 4 and support Issue 5, though, let’s look at the overall tax situation for county property owners.
There currently are 10 countywide tax levies in place that have been approved by voters and generate a total of 19.23 mills for each $1 of property valuation. If both Issue 4 and Issue 5 were to pass, the total goes to 19.47 mills for 2003 property tax bills.
That would mean county voters increased the millage on these levies 16.2 percent since 1998 and 21.4 percent since 1996 — numbers that are completely out of whack with inflation. And that’s on top of city, township and village property taxes and school tax levies. I don’t mean to sound like a Republican here, but can we really afford such a tax burden?
The problem, of course, is each countywide levy has its own merits that, when taken by themselves, are hard to resist.
After all, who doesn’t want nice parks and decent mental health services?
Within the past year, county officials have suggested they’d assess the overall tax levy situation and analyze each renewing levy in light of the bigger picture. But so far, at least with Tuesday’s ballot, it remains every levy for itself.
Issue 4, in fact, didn’t even need permission from Hamilton County Commissioners to be placed on the ballot and therefore wasn’t screened by their Tax Levy Review Committee. The park district is an autonomous government unit run by three volunteer commissioners appointed by the county’s Judge of the Probate Court.
A little less than half of the district’s revenue comes from this tax levy; the rest is from earned income via entrance and user fees. This levy would be in place for 15 years — as was the current levy, which passed in 1988 — and produce $17.7 million per year, a 40 percent increase. (Although the rate for this levy remains about the same — 1 mill — county property values have increased substantially since 1988.)
Levy critics, including the local Democratic Party, say the county park district should share some of this 40 percent increase in revenue with Cincinnati’s parks system. A significant segment of county voters live in the city, critics say, and the city’s ongoing budget problems are impacting its ability to fund its parks.
It’s an interesting argument that needs to be discussed further — and I’d suggest that all cities, townships and villages within Hamilton County share in the revenue increase, not just Cincinnati. Unfortunately, if the levy passes, there’s no incentive to discuss this or other regional options for another 15 years.
Issue 4 reminds me of the Cincinnati Zoo renewal levy in 1997, when the zoo asked for its usual five-year levy and additional money for a parking garage. Zoo officials ignored the real issues at stake — lack of financial controls, charges of nepotism — and focused on touchy-feely images of baby animals while threatening dire results if the levy failed.
Well, it failed, and you know what happened? Zoo officials regrouped, addressed critics’ concerns and placed a revamped levy request on a subsequent ballot. It passed.
A “no” vote on Issue 4 won’t put our parks out of business. It’ll simply send a message to park commissioners that 15 years is a long time and that they need to regroup now, address concerns and come up with a better plan, which we’ll gladly pass at a later date.
Issue 5, meanwhile, is difficult to quibble with, other than the complaint already voiced about overall taxation rates. It’s a renewal of a 2.47-mill levy and an increase of 0.27 mill for a total of 2.74 mills for the next five years, which would generate $33 million per year, an 18 percent increase.
Some of the additional revenue will be used to cover programs transferred from the Children’s Services Levy and to institute a new mental health court, which could help mentally ill people avoid the justice system by receiving treatment instead of jail time.
The Tax Levy Review Committee recommended its placement on Tuesday’s ballot, and we recommend a “yes” vote.
This article appears in May 1-7, 2002.