Cleves council fields sharp public opposition and questions at first reading of proposed 1% income tax

Residents and councilors spent the bulk of the meeting debating a proposed 1% municipal income tax, which the council read for the first time but did not vote to adopt.

Hillary Reinhardt, a village resident, urged the council to put any new income tax before voters, telling the council: "I stand up here to urge you to consider putting this to a vote for the people in the village to actually decide themselves" and asking for a detailed accounting of how the money would be used. She noted the recent safety levy and asked why the full 1% would be necessary in addition to that measure.

Council members and the finance committee answered that village finances are strained and that previous levies have repeatedly failed. The finance chair said the village budget "is stretched to the max" and argued an income tax spreads cost to workers and visitors who use village services rather than placing the entire burden on property owners. Administrator Justin said the proposal is intended to fund general municipal operations, capital improvements and to help stabilize staffing for services such as police and fire.

Residents pushed back on process and legitimacy. Ryan McDonald told the council he interpreted officials’ comments earlier in the meeting as an admission that a tax would not pass at the ballot box and that imposing it would be "the opposite of representative democracy." He urged dissolution of the village as an alternative, saying he believed township governance would deliver services more affordably; councilors and staff disputed the legal and fiscal mechanics of that option during follow-up exchanges.

Council members and staff cited specific cost pressures: several road segments were listed with repair estimates — partial repaving of Edgefield (Laurwood to Dupine) was discussed at approximately $400,000, a full repave of that stretch at about $900,000, and the Wamsley repair was described at roughly $1.3 million — and members warned that police and fire contracts face large increases in coming years. Councilors said recent safety-service levies were designed to be temporary and that long‑term contract changes and abatement expirations could sharply increase costs.

Multiple residents and a village employee argued the tax could help attract businesses and broaden the tax base so property-owners are not solely responsible for municipal costs. Administrator Justin noted the council has discussed joint economic development (JED) and cooperation with neighboring townships as one way to capture new payroll from development.

What happened next: the ordinance was read in full as a first reading; councilors said additional public hearings and readings will follow before any final action. No adoption vote occurred at this meeting.

Votes at a glance (motions taken during the meeting): the council approved the April 8, 2026 minutes (voice/roll call), approved Pay Ordinance 5 2026 (voice/roll call), adjusted a permanent part‑time service worker’s pay to $18/hour (motion passed on roll call), and approved Resolution 10‑2026 (see separate article) to authorize a $10,000 festival contract. The proposed income tax ordinance had only its first reading and was not adopted.

Why it matters: The village is weighing whether to levy new revenue that will affect both residents and workers who commute into Cleves. Councilors framed the tax as a means to address large, immediate infrastructure needs and future contract costs; opponents said it should be decided by voters and raised alternatives such as dissolution. The conversation sets the stage for further hearings and potential amendments ahead of any final council vote.

Next steps: Council scheduled further readings and public outreach; the finance committee and staff will continue providing cost estimates and fact sheets for residents. The council also invited public feedback and posted a fact sheet online.