city hall.JPG

Cleveland officials appear to recognize that it is necessary, otherwise the city would be forced to make cuts to staff and services.

(File photo)

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland's mayor has insisted that court-mandated reforms to the city's police department are not the only reason he is asking voters for a municipal income tax increase, but officials appear to recognize that it is necessary, otherwise the city would be forced to make cuts to staff and services.

The reforms are mandatory, and if the city doesn't have more money, something will likely have to give.

The head of the team monitoring the city's reforms says his goal is to not force the city to pay for things it doesn't need. At the same time, he said the team must hold the city to a settlement it reached with the U.S. Justice Department, known as a consent decree, and make the necessary changes to the police department.

The City Council will vote Wednesday on whether to put the proposed tax increase, which would raise the municipal rate from 2 percent to 2.5 percent, in front of the voters. If passed, it is expected to generate more than $80 million in additional revenue the first year.

It remains unclear whether the council's approval would put the measure on a ballot in November or May.

The costs associated with the police department reforms became more clear last week during a Committee of the Whole meeting, when police administrators presented a staffing request that asked for 120 additional officers over the next four years at a cost of more than $11.7 million. It was the first time the department gave a glimpse into what a reformed department could look like.

Police Chief Calvin Williams said that about half those positions are directly related to the consent decree. Many of the additional officers are geared toward community-oriented policing.

Williams and his administrators are asking for less than 10 percent of the money out of the money that would be generated by the tax increase in the first year. But councilmen have noted that cuts would need to be made in other departments -- which could mean layoffs and reductions in city services such as plowing and keeping up maintenance in city properties -- to pay for the consent decree, should the tax increase not pass.

And the amount discussed at Thursday's hearing also does not account for the money the city must pay the monitoring team, as well as the cost of updating the police department's aging technology.

To be sure, much of the discussion during Williams' presentation involved city councilmembers telling police officials what they needed to see in order to vote to put the tax increase on the ballot.

Councilman Matt Zone recognized this the urgency of paying for the consent decree with tax-increase money an interview Friday saying "there are certain benchmarks we have to meet."

Zone, who heads the City Council's public safety committee, continued, "If this income tax does not pass, we still are required to meet those benchmarks, since we are required to do that. Other city services are going to severely be scaled back and hurt as a result of that."

Jackson's office did not directly respond to questions sent by cleveland.com. Spokesman Dan Williams said in a voicemail that the "intentionally this is not about the consent decree." in an email, he said that consent decree costs are "only a small portion of the increase.

"We would have sought the .5 (percent) increase whether or not we were under the consent decree," Williams wrote in the email.

But Jackson said in an interview with the cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer editorial board in February that that a vote against the income tax would mean the city has a $40 million budget hole, which would result in mass layoffs and a decline in city services.

"The choice people will have is, do you want a structurally balanced budget that increases capacity to deliver services, or do you want a budget that is balanced but reduces service and lays off people?" Jackson told the editorial board. "... It's a very clear choice. Either way it will not be as it is today."

It was not immediately clear whether the city has discussed the proposed increase with the Justice Department and team monitoring the city's consent decree. U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Mike Tobin declined to comment.

Matthew Barge, the head of the monitoring team, said in an emailed statement that his team is reviewing the city's staffing plan, and that an it will try to develop requirements that use the police department's current resources more efficiently.

As for Cleveland's budgetary woes, he said members of the monitoring team have experience dealing with cash-strapped cities.

"Accordingly, our determination of what is adequate for purposes of the (consent decree) will not be tied to unrealistic, unduly, or unnecessary expenditures," Barge wrote in an email. "At the same time, as we oversee implementation of the Consent Decree on behalf of the Court, our goal is to ensure that the provisions to which the Decree that the City and United States previously agreed are substantially and effectively implemented."

Zone said that he has not yet had discussions on what the city would do to pay for the consent decree. He said he is aware of the city administration's plans to create budgets that would increase city services, decrease them and keep them at the same level.

Councilman Zack Reed also said those discussions, if necessary, would be held after the vote. He said it is important to tell voters what other services and improvements they will see in order to get support for the increase.

The Committee of the Whole is expected to again discuss the staffing study in August.

An earlier version of this story inaccurately reported how much revenue would be generated by raising Cleveland's income tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent.