Ohio's May 6 ballot will feature local primaries and money asks, but only one statewide question, on whether to renew a nearly 40-year-old initiative that allows the state to issue bonds to pay for local infrastructure projects.
Every ten years since 1987, Ohio voters are asked to approve putting the state’s full faith and credit on the line to help cities, counties, villages and townships repair and build infrastructure. The bipartisan public works initiative was proposed by then-state senator Scott Oeslager (R-North Canton), who's now a state representative. He said when introducing the proposal in October that local officials have told him over the years that they need this money, which they’d otherwise have to raise with local tax hikes.
“I've been approached by, many times, very small governments, lifetime township trustees who have shared with me in the tough times for them that this funding was sometimes the only funding they would have in their political subdivisions for roads, bridges, water and sewer systems," Oelslager said.
Because the 1851 Ohio constitution limits the state’s borrowing power to $750,000, voters must approve this as an amendment. The amount that can be borrowed for the State Capital Improvement Program over every 10-year period has gradually grown, from $1.2 billion in 1987 to the requested $2.5 billion this time.
“We've seen the price increases, supply chain issues, the materials, etc., so that at least is necessary," said Rep. Dan Troy (D-Willowick), the Democratic joint sponsor of the proposal. "This will be paid through state general obligation bonds. There is no tax increase involved here."
Troy said the emphasis is on repairing existing infrastructure, not building new bridges and roads.
The County Engineers Association of Ohio is among more than 80 organizations supporting Issue 2. Jeff Stauch is the engineer in Union County, one of the fastest growing counties in the state. He said projects are scored based on their impact and on if they are done in partnership with other communities.
“The score sheets are reviewed. A small committee that's local helped choose the projects. We submit them to the state for approval for the funding," Stauch said. "I think that's a good component because it helps separate the best projects from the ones that that won't have quite the same impact.”
He added that there's a small government fund that's part of the program for communities of fewer than 5,000 residents.
No organized opposition to Issue 2, but it has its critics
There's no official, organized opposition to Issue 2. But five conservative Republican lawmakers voted against putting it on the ballot in December. One of them was Rep. Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester), who noted in an interview that she’s a member of Ohio’s DOGE caucus looking at cutting state spending.
“I might have approved of a smaller increase because of inflation. And you could argue that in ten years, 31%-plus increase in spending in this particular amendment is reasonable. I don't think so," Gross said. "I don't see the need. We started it as a as a fix and as government will do. It never ended. And all it does is keep increasing and spending.”
The money to pay back the bonds is already built into the state budget. Critics have said they think these projects should be in the capital budget, which comes from sales, income and other taxes that create the state’s general revenue fund. Or they suggest the transportation budget, which is funded by gas taxes, which were raised in 2019. But the Ohio Department of Transportation has said that money isn’t going as far as it used to because of rising costs and more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Issue 2's backers note these funds aren't for sports facilities
Bonds as a vehicle for governments to raise money are sometimes not well understood. The budget passed by House Republicans includes $600 million in bonds for a domed stadium and development for the Cleveland Browns in Brook Park. Issue 2 supporters said the funds can only be used for roads, bridges and water projects and not for a professional sports facility. But Stauch admits they’re trying to fight possible confusion.
“We try to do a good job locally. I know other engineers and city engineers out there try to share where the funds come from to build a certain project, a roundabout or a bridge," Stauch said. "And hopefully people remember that and they do a little bit of research to be able to separate the true from the not true.”
Amendments need a simple majority to pass, and voters have approved this public works program overwhelmingly three times. Nearly 71% voted "yes" the first time it was on the ballot in 1987, and around two-thirds of voters approved renewals in 1995 and 2014. The closest vote was 54.1% approval of the second renewal in 2005.
Coincidentally, the original ballot question in 1987 was also Issue 2, as it is this time – though it’s the only statewide issue on the May 6 ballot. Ohio’s law requiring sequential numbering of statewide ballot issues took effect with the redistricting issue last fall, which was Issue 1. So there won’t be another Issue 2 for decades at least.
