Village of Cleves council members told residents at a public meeting that they intend to place a safety levy on the ballot this summer to fund police and fire contracts, presenting three millage options and a timeline that must meet county filing deadlines.

The council framed the levy as a means to preserve basic public‑safety services rather than add new spending. "This levy is not about adding new expenses," the mayor said, and council members argued a levy is necessary to avoid drawing additional millions from the general fund or risking the village becoming insolvent.

Why it matters: Council members and staff told residents the general fund is projected to run short by 2029 without additional revenue. Officials said police and fire contracts are the primary driver of increasing costs — the village paid about $635,000 for safety services in 2025 and projects that figure could rise toward $955,000 by 2030 — and that supplementing those contracts from the general fund is unsustainable.

At the meeting the village presented three certified revenue estimates from the Hamilton County auditor: a 3.5‑mill safety levy would generate about $291,000 a year, 4.0 mills about $333,000, and 4.5 mills about $375,000. Council members discussed the tradeoffs and signaled support for the higher option to reduce the amount the general fund would need to supplement safety services in future years.

Officials described three main public‑safety changes since 2021: restoration of a minimal village police authority (including an investigator/detective position), reactivation of the mayor’s court and property maintenance court, and full compliance with Ohio EPA stormwater rules after previously withdrawing from the Hamilton County Stormwater District. The council said restoring local capacity costs were modest compared with overall contract obligations — the local police authority was described as having been reestablished at a cost of about $60,000.

On enforcement scope and authority, Justin, the village marshal, said the locally hired investigators and officers are sworn through the Ohio Police Officer Training Commission and operate under the same criminal‑justice authority as other Ohio law‑enforcement officers. "They're sworn officers through the Ohio Police Officer Training Commission," Justin said, adding that the village has arranged communications and backup procedures with the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office.

Residents raised questions about the limits of county enforcement, why Hamilton County deputies do not enforce village ordinances such as zoning or nuisance codes, and whether part‑time village officers might create liability or staffing gaps. Council and staff replied that county deputies are not generally set up to enforce local ordinances or appear routinely in a village mayor's court, and that the village's investigator role is intended primarily to address quality‑of‑life and nuisance properties while coordinating with the sheriff for backup.

Officials also addressed emergency medical runs and fire response. The village reported an average of 435 combined EMS and fire calls annually from 2020–2023; councilors said the fire/EMS contract negotiations reduced a proposed expense from $412,000 to $369,000 for the current year, and that the fire/EMS provider does “soft billing” to recover some costs from patient insurance (with unpaid amounts written off and reimbursement flowing to the township).

Infrastructure questions included the maintenance of fire hydrants. Staff said waterworks — separate from the village general fund — is responsible for hydrant repairs; the village reported a recent 8% water rate increase and plans to use a portion of that revenue to replace or repair high‑priority hydrants (individual hydrant replacement costs were estimated at roughly $7,000 each, with supply‑chain lead times).

Next steps and timeline: officials said a resolution of necessity was being drafted for the council meeting on July 9 and that the county must receive certification in time to place a measure on the ballot; staff identified an August 6 filing/ballot deadline for this cycle and scheduled a special council meeting on July 18 to finalize placement once the auditor’s certification is returned.

Formal action taken: the council voted to set aside $10,000 to cover immediate abatement and property‑maintenance costs for problem properties; the motion was made by Linda Bolton, seconded by Trustee Gary Meister, and recorded as passed (detailed roll call not audible on the record). Officials said work on abatements is typically paid up front by the village and later assessed to the property owner through the tax roll or other recovery processes.

Council members emphasized that state law limits what the village can do to promote a levy financially: the village can provide factual budget information but cannot spend public funds to advocate for a ballot issue. Councilors said they will rely on a resident committee to organize any campaign for the levy, and they plan to distribute factual materials through the village website, a mayoral Facebook page, and short podcasts.

The council and staff asked residents to weigh the affordability tradeoffs: a 1‑mill difference in this village’s valuation is roughly $82,000 in annual revenue, and the difference between 4.0 and 4.5 mills was presented as approximately $18 per $100,000 of market value per year.

The meeting included extended public Q&A on policing scope, potential dissolution consequences if the village became insolvent (including transfer of some services to Miami Township and possible changes to zoning and service levels), hydrant maintenance, and the mechanics of EMS billing.

The council did not adopt a final millage at the meeting; it set the procedural next steps (resolution to be presented July 9; special meeting July 18) and approved the $10,000 abatement set‑aside. If council formally votes to place a levy on the ballot, the village will publish certified revenue estimates and further factual materials to residents prior to the filing deadline.