The Cuyahoga County Community Development and Housing Committee heard testimony on Ordinance 2025-0011, a county "pay to stay" proposal that would allow tenants to avoid eviction by paying owed rent and reasonable late fees before a judgment is executed, then agreed to hold the item for a future meeting to gather more information and hear landlord perspectives.

The ordinance sponsor said pay to stay is intended to prevent unnecessary evictions and the disruption they cause, and described the proposed mechanism: a tenant who pays past-due rent plus reasonable late fees prior to entry of judgment could assert that payment as an affirmative defense; if payment is made after a judgment but before execution, the eviction order would be vacated. The sponsor said "reasonable late fees" in the draft are defined as the greater of $25 or 5% of the rent.

Barbara Reisloff, supervising attorney with the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, spoke in favor. Reisloff told the committee that pay to stay targets a relatively small subset of eviction cases and "will give those tenants who are just a little bit behind a chance to catch up." She said the change could modestly reduce caseloads and help prevent homelessness, benefiting tenants, landlords and county services.

A member of the public, Jeanette Wright, testified in opposition, saying she appreciated the ordinance's goals but worried the county should focus on proactive programs such as homeownership and job creation rather than adding countywide regulation. "I do stand here in opposition to the ordinance," Wright said, urging review of municipalities' experience before extending countywide rules.

The sponsor cited written testimony from Lakewood Judge Tess Neff showing that from 01/01/2025 to 10/31/2025 Lakewood municipal court landlords filed 451 eviction cases and 165 were dismissed; the sponsor said a portion of dismissals involved pay-to-stay payments. Committee members pressed for clearer, itemized data and asked for testimony from landlords and municipal officials to understand how the municipal ordinances are working in practice. One member proposed adding a "one-bite" clause to limit repeated monthly use of the defense.

After debate, the chair said, without objection, the committee would hold the ordinance for another meeting, invite additional witnesses (including landlords and municipal representatives), and consider amendments. There was no vote on the ordinance at this session.

Separately, the committee approved the minutes from its Oct. 20 meeting after a motion and second; the chair announced the ayes had it.

The committee adjourned with the ordinance scheduled for further consideration at a later meeting.