Cuyahoga County Council puts HHS levy increase on ballot; elected sheriff amendment withdrawn 7%
By Matthew Richmond5%
8/5/2026, 9:37:35 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Loss Aversion, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 7.9% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 385 faulty-reasoning hits from 809 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 15.6% and a BS Rank of 7% (28,597 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.50% of the article peer group.
In addition to contested races for Senate, Congress and governor, several issues are headed to Cuyahoga County voters’ ballots this fall.
Voters will be asked to increase the Health and Human Services levy, which funds social services in the county, by 2.5-mills or about $87.50 for every $100,000 in home value.
Council approved the request by a unanimous vote during its meeting Tuesday night.
“We have fallen on hard times,” said Council President Dale Miller.
“Post-Covid inflation; increased labor and healthcare costs; and adverse state and federal policy changes have taken a serious toll.”
The county projects that, without increased revenue, the HHS budget’s reserves will be down to $3 million by the end of the year, driven by cuts to state and federal government contributions and increased local labor costs.
The county faces spending increases of $14 million in 2026 and $23 million in 2027.
The county estimates $111 million would be added to the HHS budget if the levy passes.
“If the electors vote on passage, which we hope that they do, there needs to be further discussion, and there will be further discussion, about how the dollars are spent,” said Councilmember Yvonne Conwell.
“We have a duty to be prudent with the dollars.”
Some of the groundwork has begun, including fundraising and polling, but it has started later than usual, according to Miller.
Two additional measures headed to voters would restrict the executive’s authority to remove board and commission members and split the appointment of charter commission members, which meets every 10 years to consider changes to the county charter, between the executive and council.
A couple that didn't make the cut
One charter amendment voters will not decide is returning the county sheriff to an elected position.
Currently, the sheriff is appointed by the county executive, with county council approval.
That has been the method for choosing the sheriff since 2009 when the format of the county’s governance was overhauled and approved by voters.
Councilmember Martin Sweeney withdrew the proposed charter amendment Tuesday night.
“It’s not going to pass,” Sweeney said.
“The question was called.
I’m going to withdraw this piece of legislation and we’ll live to fight another day.”
Supporters argued an elected sheriff would bring more democratic oversight, independence to the office and would prevent some power struggles between the executive and top law enforcement officer.
Others argue an elected sheriff could lead to less diversity and politically driven decisions in the office.
Cuyahoga County will remain the lone county in Ohio with an appointed sheriff.
Council also rejected a proposed charter amendment to clarify the separation of authority between the law department and the county prosecutor, but council may revisit the issue before the September deadline to put charter amendments on November’s ballot.
The amendment, which was originally proposed by Executive Chris Ronayne, was meant to clearly spell out the county law department’s scope to advise county departments and its role in labor and employment issues in the executive branch.
It was introduced in response to a September letter from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost.
In that letter, Yost wrote that agreements delegating some authority given to county prosecutors under state law through agreements between the county and prosecutor’s office, without a charter amendment, were not defensible in court.
That letter, and an amended version of the charter amendment that was in front of council for a final vote, caused deep concerns among members of the county’s law department.
Several provided public comment during Tuesday’s meeting.
“The charter amendment as it currently is submitted does not get it right,” said Nora Hurley from the county law department.
“As it is currently submitted, it does not protect the future and the existence of the law department.”
Hurley and others pointed to one section of the charter amendment, “Subsection D,” which says, “This section of the code shall not in any way limit the powers and duties of the prosecuting attorney…”
“Subsection D permits the county prosecutor, future or current, to invoke general law authority,” Hurley said.
“And take over labor negotiations, risk management, contract negotiations.
It allows that.
And please be cognizant of that.
Because that one sentence changes everything.”
Council voted earlier in the day to move the amendment out of committee for a final vote, but only by a 6-5 vote.
Only five members voted in favor of it during the full council meeting that night.
Charter amendments require a supermajority of eight members to be placed on the ballot.
Council President Miller said he will schedule a special meeting in August to amend the proposal again and put it up for a vote in early September.
“We’ve heard from the law department representatives, their concern that they’re not protected,” said Miller.
“I think their concerns have validity.”
Speakers
5speakers39%attributed speech494writer words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageYvonne Conwell
34 attributed words11% of attributed speech35% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.