The local debate over Toledo Mayor Wade Kapszukiewicz’s Issue 1 income-tax proposal has taken to the national stage, although not in a way the mayor is particularly happy about.
An opinion piece written by a leader of a Washington-area anti-tax foundation that was published Thursday night on Forbes magazine’s website accuses the Kapszukiewicz administration of lying about Toledo’s current municipal income tax rate in comparison with other large Ohio cities, and of trying to sneak a proposed increase past the local electorate by placing it on the upcoming primary ballot instead of waiting for the general election in November.
Mayor Kapszukiewicz angrily denounced the article Friday both in an interview with The Blade and in his Facebook account, dismissing its out-of-town author as “a partisan activist” who never once attempted to contact anyone at the city, The mayor’s called content “entirely full of falsehoods and inaccuracies.”
The mayor has advocated for boosting Toledo’s combined income taxes from 2.25 percent to 2.75 percent for 10 years with “half truths and, in some cases, outright falsehoods when it comes to basic facts,” wrote Patrick Gleason, the vice president of state affairs for Americans for Tax Reform, founded in 1985 and still headed by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist.
Mr. Gleason described as “public miseducation” an assertion he attributed to the mayor that Toledo’s current income tax is lower than that of any other major Ohio city, and as “false” the mayor’s pledge that the income-tax referendum language will oblige the city “to spend this money on roads.”
“Opponents of Issue 1 argue that taxpayers are being sold a plan to fix the roads that is really a plan to grow city government at the mayor’s discretion,” Mr. Gleason wrote.
But Mr. Kapszukiewicz contends Mr. Gleason merely parroted talking points advanced by the Lucas County Young Republicans, who “have been spreading false information about Issue One for months.”
Americans for Tax Reform did not respond to a request Friday seeking an interview with Mr. Gleason. Joshua Culling, a spokesman for the Lucas County Young Republicans, said that while he once worked for Americans for Tax Reform and Mr. Gleason follows him on social media, Mr. Gleason did not contact him during preparation of the Forbes.com article.
Two thirds of revenue from Toledo’s current 2.25 percent income tax, of which 1.5 percent is permanent and 0.75 percent is “temporary” but renewable, is officially assigned for operating expenses and the other third for capital expenses — the latter including street repair.
Over the years, cash-strapped city administrations have often diverted capital funding into the operating accounts. The referendum language forbids such diversions and specifies that revenue from a 2.75 percent income tax be distributed 60 percent to operations and 40 percent to capital.
Among Ohio’s eight largest cities, Toledo’s current 2.25 percent is second lowest (Cincinnati’s is 2.1 percent). All of the others collect 2.5 percent except for Youngstown, which has a 2.75 percent income tax.
Mr. Kapszukiewicz allowed that he might have failed to cite the Cincinnati exception during one of his more than 250 presentations about Issue 1, but that overall his message on that has been consistent.
“While I never recall saying that Toledo’s income tax rate was the lowest of any big city in Ohio – I have always listed Cincinnati as the exception — I can allow that perhaps there may have been a time I misspoke,” the mayor wrote on Facebook. “I don’t recall doing it, but I may have. If so, I apologize. At some point, it is at least conceivable that I may have forgotten to list Cincinnati as an exception.”
Mr. Culling said that just last week, the mayor said “over and over again” during an appearance on the local Scott Sands radio show that Toledo’s income tax is Ohio’s lowest, without citing the Cincinnati exception.
“He stopped saying it when we called him out on it,” said Mr. Cullings said.
Mr. Culling, a Perrysburg resident, will not be able to cast a ballot in the Issue One election, but he said that he cares about what happens in Toledo because he lives in the region.
Postcards mailed out to Toledo residents to promote the tax, meanwhile, have been misleading with the degree they promote the revenue’s use for street repairs while ignoring other uses for the money, he said.
Mr. Kapszukiewicz and his supporters have maintained since announcing their Issue One initiative that $22 million in new money from the tax increase would be used to hire more police officers, fight blight, invest in youth recreational programming, and help pay for universal preschool for all Toledo 4-year-olds. That compares to $40 million that would be spent on roads.
But neither Mr. Culling nor Mr. Gleason are the first individuals to criticize the mayor on whether he’s been totally clear about that point. A member of his own party — city councilman and Democrat Larry Sykes — raised a similar concern all the way back in November during Issue One’s infancy.
While the mayor was making a presentation to city council, Mr. Sykes accused Mr. Kapszukiewicz of telling him that the tax increase was entirely for roads.
The mayor told Mr. Sykes that was not true.
Mr. Kapszukiewicz on Friday said he and the ballot language are transparent about how income-tax revenue will be spent. He also argued that the tax proposal’s most important aspect is not in the rate comparison with other cities, but that it represents investment in Toledo’s future.
“We spend less per capita than any other city in the state, and even when Issue One passes, we will still spend less than any other big city,” Mr. Kapszukiewicz said.
“It’s a function that we don’t have as much wealth in Toledo” as other cities do, he acknowledged, “but the most important thing in a city is how much can we invest in ourselves.”
After chiding the mayor about placing the question on a primary ballot rather than waiting for a general election — it “tells volumes about the confidence, or lack thereof, that the mayor has in his own proposal” — Mr. Gleason wrote that the situation supports the case for state legislation requiring county or municipal tax increases be placed only on general-election ballots.
Mr. Kapszukiewicz responded that the legislation Mr. Gleason suggested “may actually have some merit” but should be a topic for policy debate, while the notion that his administration is trying to sneak its tax increase past voters is “absurd.”
“Issue 1 is being placed before the voters in a presidential election cycle that will likely break records for turnout,” the mayor wrote. “Issue 1 is being placed before the voters during what will, quite literally, be among the highest turnout elections during any 4-year election cycle.”
First Published March 7, 2020, 12:19 a.m.
