MANSFIELD — Eric Miller and supporters of the Mansfield Water Main Initiative don’t plan to take no for an answer.
“We are going to ask City Council to reverse their decision not to put this issue back before the voters in March,” said Miller, who noted organizers do not have time and sufficient manpower to circulate petitions and get an estimated 1,200 signatures from registered voters by the Dec. 20 deadline.
Miller said he and his group plan to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday to make their request.
A long-time Mansfield attorney, Miller is the lead organizer of the proposed 0.25-percent income tax increase to fund the process of replacing 53 miles of aging, four-inch water mains, some of which are more than a century old.
related reading
In June, council approved placing the citizen-led issue on the November ballot where it failed by less than 5 percent. According to the Richland County Board of Elections, there were 5,865 votes against the tax increase (52.76 percent), compared to 5,251 (47.24) in favor.
The new tax would generate $17 to $18 million over its four-year life span. It would be enough to start the effort to help solve a lack of fire hydrant water pressure due to inadequate water lines, which affects 2,400 addresses in the city.
“We felt like we had momentum, getting so many votes the first time it was on the ballot,” said Miller, who helped create the successful “Pothole Haters Tax” in the city in 1984.
That effort that has been renewed every four years since its inception and is responsible for annual paving road paving efforts around the city
Organizers last week asked City Council to give them anther chance by placing it on the March 19 primary ballot.
However, council voted 6-1 against the idea, saying the voters had spoken in November, a move Miller said came by surprise.
“Our committee naively believed Council would either put us back on the ballot since we almost succeeded, or that (they) would respect our efforts enough to at least allow us some debate in a committee meeting before voting against us,” Miller said this week.
At-large City Councilwoman Stephanie Zader said it seemed “disrespectful” for local lawmakers to put the initiative on the ballot again after it failed in November.
“I’m not opposed to the replacement of fire hydrants, I just wanna make that clear,” Zader said during the Nov. 21 meeting. “What I’m opposed to is saying to the voters, ‘your vote didn’t matter.’
“I didn’t like the fact that we did that before … We put it on the ballot, they spoke. I think it’s disrespectful to then come say, ‘Hey, guess what? Thanks for showing up, but we don’t care. We’re gonna put it on the ballot again.'”
Instead, council members suggested Miller and his group circulate petitions to place the issue on the ballot themselves. With Ohio’s primary moved up to March due to the presidential election year, local legislators basically gave them a month to get the work done.
In a letter Monday to 3rd Ward Councilman Rev. El Akuchie, Miller said it’s simply not possible.
“For our group, it would take at least 250 hours by motivated volunteers to get the signatures necessary. So you are asking us to put this time in on cold December days when it gets dark by 6 p.m. in order to duplicate a task that you could complete in a few minutes,” Miller wrote.
Miller said council members, who circulate petitions to get their names on the ballot, do not understand the work required to get petitions signed by a a sufficient number of registered voters who are being asked to support a proposed tax increase.
“Suggesting we get this issue back on the ballot by circulating a petition is like asking us to cut our grass with scissors instead of a lawnmower. If you view it as your job to support fire safety in Mansfield, I ask you to help us get the job done,” Miller wrote.
The 73-year-old Miller said the group will not seek to have the issue on the general election ballot next November due to it being a presidential election cycle.
“The issue would get lost in the cacophony of noise during that election,” he said.
He said the following year would also not be a good idea since it could be on the ballot at the same time as the city’s safety forces tax.
“Your choice is to get it back on the ballot now or wait at least three years and hope for a better citizens’ group than the one you have now. But as you know, ‘hope is not a plan,'” he wrote.
