Committee pauses action on county opt-in to Downtown Cleveland improvement district

Cuyahoga County Councils Economic Development & Planning Committee heard on Feb. 3 a request authorizing the county executive to sign a petition to opt certain county-owned properties into the Downtown Cleveland Special Improvement District (SID). Michael Diemer, president and CEO of Downtown Cleveland Inc., and Debbie Berry, Cuyahoga Countys chief of integrated development, presented the proposal and answered members questions.

Diemer told the committee the SID provides services critical to downtown and called county participation a "strong signal of support" for the district. He said the organization is collecting property-owner petition signatures and was "right around 55 to 56 percent" toward the 60% threshold needed for reauthorization and expected to reach 60% within about a month. Berry said the county has historically paid operating support from the general fund and expects to transition those payments to the SID assessment after the SID becomes effective, and that public works would administer any charge-backs for leased county properties.

The presentation also described proposed boundary adjustments: the Columbus Road Peninsula would not be included because large Metroparks ownership made service inefficient, and some eastern and southern perimeter parcels would be included only if property owners sign the petition. Diemer offered to provide the committee a parcel list and said final boundaries submitted to the city would reflect owner support.

Several members raised procedural and fiscal concerns. Councilman Gallagher questioned earlier published numbers and asked how the countys voting share was calculated; Diemer acknowledged a prior 6.3% figure came from an earlier property list and said the substitute legislation before the committee reflected the countys properties as about 3.3% of the district's voting power. Gallagher also warned that a county vote could "tip the scale" on an assessment decision. Council members stressed they did not want to be the deciding factor on whether the SID reaches the 60% petition threshold.

Committee members also discussed timing: the petition and city process must move quickly to allow the city to complete administrative review and certification ahead of tax bill and assessment schedules. Because the city of Cleveland is proceeding with its petition process and the committee still lacked a final 60% verification and a county parcel list, the committee chose to hold the resolution for follow-up at the next economic development meeting rather than advance it out of committee that day.

The committee did not take final action on Resolution 20250044; members said they expect updated petition totals and a verified list of county parcels and will revisit the request at the next meeting.