Decriminalizing marijuana in Kent
Kent voters will decide whether to approve an ordinance lowering the penalties for misdemeanor marijuana offenses. Specifically, the ordinance calls for:
Reducing the charge for possession of less than 200 grams of marijuana to a minor misdemeanor, eliminating fines for conviction, and eliminating court costs.
According to Portage County Prosecutor Vic Vigluicci, possession of less than 100 grams of marijuana is now a minor misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $150 plus court costs. Police issue a ticket, and there is no possibility of jail time. Possession of 100-199 grams of marijuana is now a fourth-degree misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $250 and not more than 30 days in jail.
Reducing the charge for possession of less than 10 grams of solid hashish or less than 2 grams of liquid hashish to a minor misdemeanor, eliminating fines for conviction, and eliminating court costs.
Possession of 5 to less than 10 grams of solid hashish or less than 2 grams of liquid hashish is now a fourth-degree misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $250 and not more than 30 days in jail.
Reducing the charge for cultivating less than 200 grams of marijuana to a minor misdemeanor, eliminating fines for conviction, and eliminating court costs.
Cultivating or manufacturing less than 100 grams of marijuana is now a minor misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $150 plus court costs, Vigluicci said. Possession of 100-199 grams of marjuana is a fourth-degree misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $250 and not more than 30 days in jail.
Reducing the charge for gifting or offering to gift 20 or fewer grams of marijuana to a minor misdemeanor, eliminating fines for conviction, and eliminating court costs.
Vigluicci said gifting 20 or less grams is currently a minor misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $150 plus court costs.
“The gift clause applies more to sharing marijuana that someone has with a friend,” Kent Police Chief Nicholas Shearer has said. “If money is exchanged, it is a felony no matter how much marijuana is involved because it is no longer a gift.”
Reducing the charge for possessing, selling, manufacturing, or using marijuana or hashish paraphernalia to a minor misdemeanor, eliminating fines for conviction, and eliminating court costs.
Vigluicci said possession of paraphernalia is now a minor misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $150 plus court costs.
Mike Fricke is campaign manager for Sensible Kent, which proposed the ballot initiative.
“It has medicinal properties,” he said. “The reason it isn’t being legalized in Ohio is the Republicans see it as an election threat. When there are issues like Sensible Kent on the ballot, it tends to help Democrats who are running in the election.”
The most important part of legalization is that people will not have their permanent records tarnished for growing, having or selling misdemeanor amounts of marijuana, Fricke said.
“It’s not a crime. The history is something we have to get past. It’s been illegal for so long there’s kind of an inertia there. Some of our leaders have been fighting the drug war for so long that it’s hard for them to say they were wrong,” he said.
Even if voters approve the ordinance, there may still be consequences.
Any drug conviction, including a minor misdemeanor, may result in the loss of driving privileges for six months to five years, Vigluicci said.
Petition author Chad Thompson, a director of Sensible Movement Coalition, the umbrella organization for Sensible Kent, agrees that loss of driving privileges could happen, and the petition does not address that issue.
Fricke admits he is more concerned with long-term consequences.
“The secondary punishments of having a drug conviction are the real problem as they will continue to haunt someone for years on job applications, student loans or joining the military,” Fricke said.
The whole concept of the ordinance is to bypass court altogether, Thompson said.
“We made the minor misdemeanor charges similar to jaywalking. By taking away the fine and the potential fine and the court costs, the idea is the police will just walk away, similar to jaywalking,” he said.
Vigluicci has dismissed Sensible Kent’s efforts as “irrelevant,” emphasizing that police officers are sworn to uphold state law no matter what local laws might be. Shearer has already stated his officers will continue to enforce Ohio law regardless of the referendum results.
Read our previous explainer on the law and what would change if voters approve this ballot measure.
Zoning amendment to allow a 100,000-square-foot industrial development in Aurora
A question on Aurora voters’ ballots would change the city zoning map so that approximately 25.42 acres at South Chillicothe Road/State Route 43 are rezoned from “R-4: Residential” to “I-1: Manufacturing, Processing and Wholesale District.”
A yes vote would clear the way for a 100,000-square-foot industrial development on state Route 43. City council unanimously endorses the idea, which was recommended by the city’s planning commission and backed by Aurora 43 South LLC, which owns the land.
The vacant land is across state Route 43 from Aurora Industrial Park Drive, and backs onto Rainbow’s End, part of Aurora’s Walden development. It is adjacent to industrial land to the south and east. Single-family homes on large lots are to the north, and Walden’s community open space is to the west.
The building could be as tall as 45 feet and will likely be used as a distribution or office site, Aurora Mayor Ann Womer Benjamin has said. No specific use has been mentioned as Aurora 43 South is building the structure on spec, hoping a buyer or tenant will materialize.
Opposing the rezoning bid are some residents of Rainbow’s End, who allege their quality of life could be negatively affected. Resident Harold South pointed out that I-1 districts allow for metal processing, fabrication, plastic molding, oil and gas, and contractor yard storage facilities. None of those uses are light industrial, but all of them would be allowable if the acreage is rezoned, he said.
Read our previous reporting on the impact of this ballot measure.
Zoning amendment to allow a housing development in Streetsboro
This amendment would rezone 16 acres on Page Road from “I-1: Industrial, Research and Office” to “R-1: Low Density Urban Residential” in accordance with the city’s comprehensive master plan.
Property owner Matt Miller has stated his intent to put in a small housing development if the rezoning bid is successful. City leaders acceded to his request that the original ballot language be amended to assure residents that the proposed zoning jives with the city’s master plan.
Updating contracting procedures in Streetsboro
A charter amendment would create a Board of Control; require competitive bidding for purchases; specify the authority of the mayor, the Board of Control, and City Council in awarding contracts; prohibit the evasion of contracting requirements; and require city council to approve certain non-purchase contracts.
Taken as a whole, the proposed charter amendment is meant to modernize the city’s purchasing and contracting functions, the ballot language states.
Streetsboro Mayor Glenn Broska characterized the amendment as a “housekeeping measure,” updating procedures that have been in place since Streetsboro was a village and had a service director as its only full-time employee.
“It’s not groundbreaking,” he said. “Nothing will change. It’s just that the service director won’t be awarding contracts anymore.”
Allowing Streetsboro leaders to update zoning in Market Square
Approving this measure would exempt the city’s downtown district from the requirement for voter approval of changes to zoning district classification and density regulations.
Streetsboro Mayor Glenn Broska said the amendment only affects the Market Square area, and that any zoning proposals would still have to go through him, the city planner, the planning commission, the city engineer, and city council.
Proposed zoning changes elsewhere in the city would still need to be put on the ballot for voter approval, he said, citing a resident’s current bid to rezone 16 acres on Page Road.
Broska said city residents have been steadfast in their requests to create a downtown area.
“For us to move forward, we need to react to a developer or a buyer,” he said. “If we have to go through referendum zoning, we can only do it twice a year, in May and November, and it may close the window on our ability to develop that property.”
Should developers miss a filing deadline, it could be nine months before they are able to put their projects before city voters, “and the way things are in this world nowadays, things may change in that period of time,” Broska said.
Residents can rest easy that city leaders will not blindly approve a developer’s plan for apartments or anything else, the mayor said.
“We got one shot at this, to make sure that if a developer comes in with a good plan, we can look at the plan, send it to planning commission for review, have planning commission review and approve or disapprove, and then send it to council to approve,” Broska said.
A five-year, 1.5% income tax for Waterloo schools
Waterloo Local School District is seeking a five-year, 1.5% annual income tax hike, effective Jan. 1, to cover current operating expenses.
Waterloo voters have not passed a levy for new money since 2013, and its last renewal levy passed in 2018. The renewal levy is still generating funds for the district, but that one drops off at the end of this year, Waterloo Fiscal Consultant Sherry Tyson said.
“All school districts can choose to do an earned income tax or a property tax, but looking at past voting records, we were closer to passing the levies when they were earned income tax rather than property taxes,” Superintendent Angela Terella said.
Should voters approve the district’s current levy bid, Waterloo could realize $2.5 million total, though yearly proceeds could vary according to residents’ incomes, she said.
That could lift the district out of fiscal caution, a designation the state reserves for school districts that have not brought in new money for so long that they cannot sustain current operations.
Despite that designation, in the past year Waterloo added a computer science and engineering essentials course, and started servicing gifted students, Terella said.
“This levy would allow us to continue those programs as well as to offer art to additional grade levels, and expand the STEM courses to seventh and eighth grade and the elementary,” she said.
Currently art is only offered at the elementary school and, in a limited fashion, at the high school, she said. Voter approval would not only expand high school art offerings, but could potentially bring choir and wood shop classes back as well, though Terella emphasized there is no guarantee.
Should the levy bid fail, Terella noted that Waterloo faces a $2.5 million deficit in two years.
“All programs and staffing could potentially be at risk,” Terella said. “We would have to make cuts.”
Optimistic, Terella voiced her belief in the school district and its staff.
“We’ve really made an effort to bring a lot of community events back, and we’re making a lot of forward progress,” she said. “I really think that if we can pass new money, we can continue the progress that has already been made to make a really solid, comprehensive educational program for our students, and really strengthen our support system for our community.”
Renewal levy for infrastructure in Franklin Township
Franklin Township is seeking a five-year, 0.5 mill tax levy (renewal) for road and bridge construction and repair.
Renewal levies do not raise taxes. The levy now in place provides the township with about $51,337 annually, which translates to property owners paying about $7.66 per $100,00 of fair market valuation. The levy is effective in 2022, with tax bills arriving in 2023.
If approved, priority roads include Sixth Avenue, Carlton/Caranor, and streets in Twin Lakes and Brady Lake, Fiscal Officer Lise Russell said. Trustees also have their eyes on Phases 4 and 5 of Hudson Road, the completion of which will cap off a program begun in 2021.
“Should the levy fail, we will have to re-prioritize the list of needs and do what we can with what we have,” she said, adding that she hopes township residents will continue their long standing support.
Preventing the Mogadore mayor from holding other offices
Mogadore voters will decide whether to prevent the mayor from holding any other elective office, public office, or any other employment with any other local, state, or federal government body. The mayor would be permitted to hold volunteer positions with any political subdivisions, provided they receive no compensation.
If approved, the charter amendment would be effective Jan. 1.
Mogadore Mayor Mike Rick said the village’s charter review commission meets every four years and wished to clarify vague language in the document.
“It wasn’t initiated by anything that happened,” he said. “It was just looking into the future, we wanted to make sure that no mayor could hold any other elected office or have a job that could lead to a conflict of interest. [Law Director Marshal M. Pitchford] wanted to make sure it would not happen in the future at all.”
Changing requirements for Mogadore Zoning Appeals Board members
This charter amendment would remove the requirement that one member of the Board of Zoning Appeals be a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and replace it with a requirement that one member of the BZA be a member of Village Council, who will serve as long as that person is in office.
In the case of a vacancy by that council member, council would appoint a different council member to serve for the remainder of that person’s term.
“Right now they have one volunteer position, and the person’s on both the Planning and Zoning Board, and the Zoning Appeals board,” Rick explained. “That’s a good amount of work and time to be on both.”
Installing a council member on the BZA would reduce the community’s member’s expected commitment, Rick said.
“We haven’t had any issues in the past, but the law director and the charter review commission were looking in the future,” he said.
Rootstown renewal levy for emergency services
Rootstown Township is seeking a five-year, 1.5 mill renewal tax levy to:
- Provide and maintain fire apparatus, mechanical resuscitators, underwater rescue and recovery equipment, or other fire equipment and appliances
- Provide and maintain buildings and sites, or sources of water supply and materials
- establish and maintain lines of fire alarm communications
- Pay firefighting companies or permanent, part-time, or volunteer firefighting, emergency medical service, administrative or communications personnel
- Cover employer contributions required for such personnel
- Purchase ambulance equipment
- Provide ambulance, paramedic, or other emergency medical services, and cover related costs
Renewal levies do not raise taxes. The levy currently in place provides the fire department with about $312,688 annually, which translates to property owners paying about $40.92 per $100,000 of fair market value. Those taxes would be due in 2024.
Voters first approved the levy five years ago, Chief Charles Palmer said. If voters do so again in November, funds will continue to sustain the fire department’s daily operations, he said. Faced with rising costs, though, a loss would leave him further streamlining expenses and analyzing what could be cut back or cut altogether.
Suffield renewal levy for emergency services
Suffield Township is seeking a five-year, 1.25 mill renewal levy to:
- Provide and maintain fire apparatus, buildings and sites, or sources of water supply and materials
- Establish and maintain lines of fire alarm telegraph
- Pay firefighting companies or permanent, part-time, or volunteer firefighting, emergency medical service, administrative or communications personnel
- Cover employer contributions required for such personnel
- Purchase ambulance equipment
- Provide ambulance, paramedic, or other emergency medical services, and cover related costs
Renewal levies do not raise taxes. The levy now in place provides the Suffield Fire Department with about $181,225 annually, which translates to property owners paying about $33.62 per $100,000 of fair market valuation. Taxes would first be paid in 2024.
Though he wants to hire three additional full time staff members to guarantee sufficient round-the-clock coverage, Fire Chief Bob Rasnick says now is not the time to do so.
“We recognize the hardships a lot of people are having right now, and want to be conservative with our planning, so we are just renewing this levy,” he said.
Should voters approve the levy, proceeds would be used to fund and maintain daily operations, he said. If the measure fails, though, possible staffing and service cuts may be considered.
Windham fire district levy
The Windham Joint Fire District, which serves Windham Township and the Village of Windham, is seeking a five-year, 3.79 mill tax levy.
Passage of the levy would replace an existing 2 mill levy and add another 1.79 mills to:
- Provide and maintain fire apparatus, appliances, buildings, and sites
- Provide and maintain sources of water supply and materials
- Establish and maintain lines of fire alarm telegraph
- Pay firefighting companies or permanent, part-time, or volunteer firefighting, emergency medical service, administrative or communications personnel
- Cover employer contributions required for such personnel
- Purchase ambulance equipment
- Provide ambulance, paramedic, or other emergency medical services, and cover related costs
Levy approval would provide the fire district with about $212,530 annually.
Windham Township and Village of Windham property owners are now paying $57.29 per $100,000 of fair market valuation on the district’s existing 2 mill levy. That bill would increase to $132.65, with tax bills arriving in 2024.
Fire Chief Rich Gano did not return The Portager’s requests for comment.
Wendy DiAlesandro is a former Record Publishing Co. reporter and contributing writer for The Portager.