PHOTO BY BRUCE CHECEFSKY
Wednesday, October 7, 2026; Happy Dog take on the Affordability Crisis, Happy Dog, W. 58th and Detroit Avenue: (L-R) Panel moderators included-- Jessica Semachko, Director of Government Relations, Greater Cleveland Food Bank; Tiffany Scruggs, Chief of Community Services, City of Cleveland; Jennifer Kons, VP, Community Impact, United Way of Greater Cleveland and Richard Cunningham, Producer, Engaged Journalism, IdeaStream Public Media.
(Plain Press November 2026) For years Cuyahoga County voters have shown their support Cuyahoga County Health and Human Services and Board of Development Disabilities levies. The levies are on the ballot again this November and may be more difficult to pass this time around as property owners are still feeling the sting of higher property tax assessments.
NEWS ANALYSIS
The Cleveland Plain Dealer, which rarely opposes a local tax increase urged a no vote on Issue 11, the Health and Human Services levy on the ballot in Cuyahoga County. They reasoned that the current levy lasts another year and by voters saying no to Issue 11, they would send a message to County leaders that they are “fed up with their fiscal irresponsibility.” The Plain Dealer goes on to describe the ways that “County Executive Chris Ronayne and the County Council have squandered millions of precious public dollars on luxuries we can’t afford – departments and positions that were never contemplated as part of county government. Now broke, they come to us crying poor, saying they need more of our cash.”
The Plain Dealer article on the October 25, 2026, Forum page titled ‘No’ on Cuyahoga County Issue 11, ‘Yes’ on issue 10, urges the County to address needless spending before coming back to voters next year with another request for Health and Human Services funding. The Plain Dealer urges County voters to hold their County government accountable.
While the wild spending habits of our Cuyahoga County government are a cause for concern, there is another major reason why Cuyahoga County and other local governmental bodies are short of funds while taxpayers are feeling squeezed. That reason is the failure of local governments to compensate Cuyahoga County, the schools, libraries, and other recipients of property tax revenue when they give tax abatements or create Tax Increment Financing zones. In Cleveland, the 2025 property taxes were divided between the schools (55.4%), the City of Cleveland (16.9%), Cuyahoga County (18.3%), the Cleveland Public Library (5.98%), and the Metroparks (3.2%).
While local governments have for years used property tax abatements and Tax Increment Financing as a means of attracting new residents and new development, they have not made any effort to reimburse Cuyahoga County, school systems, libraries and other public sector bodies that depend on those property taxes. While the cities that give the abatements benefit from any payroll taxes generated by new residents or employees in their jurisdiction, Cuyahoga County, the schools, libraries and Metroparks do not receive property tax revenue from the entire assessed value of the new development for the period of the abatement. When those public bodies are short of funds due to the lack of growth in tax revenue, they go to voters to ask for more funds. Those who own properties and do not receive abatements are asked to pay more. In the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) zones, schools still receive the revenue they are due, but tax dollars for the County, libraries and Metroparks are diverted to be spent by the cities in the TIF zone.
A May 1996 Plain Press article by Deborah Rose Sadlon and Chuck Hoven titled State Auditor recommends schools be compensated for revenues lost through tax abatements describes a recommendation made by then State Auditor Jim Petro in his March 1996 Cleveland School District Performance Audit. Petro said, “The District should negotiate with the City of Cleveland to receive a greater reimbursement for revenues lost as a result of abated properties. Currently, the District is receiving only approximately $250,000 in exchange for $10 million in abated property taxes while the City has received the benefits of increased income taxes resulting from the economic development. Negotiations need to be undertaken for current and future abatements to ensure that the District receives more reasonable compensation for lost revenue.”
Current estimates of the amount of tax abatements vastly exceed the amount cited by Petro in 1996. The loss of revenue from abatements and TIFs mean that those that are not receiving abatements and still paying property taxes are asked to pay more to make up for the loss of revenue.
On April 4, 2026, Signal Cleveland published an article titled, Cleveland schools’ unavailable revenue. It says, “Last year, abatements waived the equivalent of almost $41.5 million in property tax payments for the Cleveland schools, according to CMSD’s most recent state audit. That’s up from $34.7 million the prior year.”
With Cuyahoga County receiving a little over a third of what the Cleveland schools receive in property taxes, that would mean the County would lose about $14 million from abatements just in the City of Cleveland. When you include losses from abatements and TIFs throughout the entire county, the amount that the County should be collecting is substantially more.
If one of the levies for much needed services in Cuyahoga County fails to pass, in addition to looking at accounting for excessive spending as the Plain Dealer suggested, Cuyahoga County should sit down with the various municipalities offering abatements and TIFs and seek fair compensation.
If municipalities are unable to garner enough revenue from payroll taxes to make up for the amounts they are giving away in abatements, they should stop making the abatements. If the municipalities fail to negotiate fairly, instead of placing a levy on the ballot, Cuyahoga County residents should back a referendum requiring municipalities to reimburse the school districts, Cuyahoga County, the libraries and the Metroparks for revenue lost from tax abatements or Tax Increment Financing.
