The Village of Cleves council on July 3 voted 5–0 to adopt a resolution asking the Hamilton County auditor to certify a 4.5‑mill tax levy for the ballot. The levy is described in the resolution as a public‑safety measure to provide for operational expenses, primarily to pay police and fire contract costs.

Council discussion before the vote centered on how large a levy to request. Several council members said a 4‑mill levy would provide significant support; others argued a 4.5‑mill levy would reduce the general fund subsidy required over the five‑year life of the levy. One council member stated, "I strongly support the 4 … The 4 makes sense to me," while another argued a 4.5‑mill levy would cut the general fund supplemental burden more substantially and produce a larger annual yield (staff estimated roughly $375,027 annually at 4.5 mills versus $333,357 at 4.0 mills).

Staff and councilors discussed the effect of the levy over time: projections presented in the meeting show the general fund encumbrance in 2030 would be about $195,207 under a 4.0‑mill scenario and about $87,442 under a 4.5‑mill scenario. Staff cautioned that future contract increases (for example, the sheriff/fire contracts) remain uncertain and that other funding possibilities — including a potential TIF (tax increment financing) for new development — could affect long‑term revenue.

A public commenter raised concerns that residents considering annexation or service switches (for example, merging into Miami Township) should be warned about tax differences; councilors responded with comparative remarks saying the village levy even at 4.5 mills would likely be comparable to or lower than some neighboring service arrangements, but that specific figures depend on valuations and other levies.

Procedurally, the council first voted to suspend rules on the resolution and then voted to adopt Resolution No. 10 to request auditor certification for a 4.5‑mill levy; both votes passed 5–0. After the vote, council asked staff to prepare the formal ordinance language for the ballot and reminded residents that council members may not actively campaign for the levy but that residents may form committees to advocate.

Ending: Council approved placing a 4.5‑mill public‑safety levy on the ballot; staff will submit the certification to the county auditor and prepare public information and next steps for residents and potential volunteer advocacy groups.