Residents raise property-tax appeals, Israel-bond investments and stadium concerns during Cuyahoga County public comment

Several residents used the public-comment period at the March 25 Cuyahoga County Council meeting to press elected officials on three distinct issues: individual property-tax appeals, the county’s investment in Israel bonds, and potential costs tied to a planned stadium.

Daryl Houston of Bedford Heights told the council he had appealed his property valuation and been denied, calling the county’s assessment process “unfair and biased” and asking the council to investigate. “You take my property taxes up twice as much as it's worth now,” Houston said, adding he owns multiple properties and wants the council to look “into the processes of [the] county building.”

Two speakers raised questions about the county’s holdings and investment strategy. Marlene Weinstein said she had learned that “$2,000,000 of the remaining $13,000,000 of Israel bonds held by Cuyahoga County will mature on 12/01/2025,” and urged leaders not to yield to divestment demands. Sherry Saxe, who said she reviewed the county investment advisory committee minutes, cited a January 2024 note that the Treasury team had increased investment in Israel bonds and that there was a plan to invest an additional $6,000,000; she also warned of potential reputational risks and noted liquidity and legal constraints under the Ohio Revised Code.

“Regardless of failing to reinvest in Israel bonds, it could be interpreted to be in violation of the Ohio Revised Code,” Saxe said, urging clarity from staff and committee members.

Essey Williams of Ward 2 spoke about public dollars and stadium arrangements, asking whether the Haslam group planned legal action seeking $1.2 billion and questioning the disparity in ongoing payments: “Cleveland residents are still paying $762,000 every year for the present stadium…and we will be paying that amount until 2028. However, the Haslam group is only paying $250,000.”

Council members did not take substantive action during the public-comment period; the president closed public comment and the meeting moved on to business. The county may address the investment and assessment questions in committee or through staff follow-up; no specific follow-up actions were announced on the record during the meeting.