-
Login
-
Digital Edition
-
Print Edition
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« News Home
Austintown, Canfield make first moves vs. city
TweetBy Ed Runyan
Canfield Township agreed to share in the cost of a Columbus law firm.
Township trustees in Austintown and Canfield spoke of the meeting with a Columbus law firm last week as a good step toward staving off Youngstown’s effort to use water to extract tax dollars from them.
Austintown Trustee David Ditzler and Canfield Trustee Bill Reese said they feel confident that Albers and Albers of Columbus, with its experience in creating Joint Economic Development Districts in more than 40 locations around Ohio, can help the townships create an alternative water district.
“They truly have the expertise,” Austintown Trustee Bo Pritchard said at the township’s trustees meeting Monday.
Ditzler said he thinks last week’s meeting gave the townships a lot of ideas for protecting themselves from Youngstown maneuvers and also for creating a better future for the townships.
Reese, at the Canfield trustees meeting Monday, said: “We’re trying to create our own water district so we’re not beholden to Youngstown.”
The townships have reacted unfavorably to the proposal the city made to Austintown and Boardman this year that calls for workers in parts of the two townships that use Youngstown water to pay a 2 percent income tax to the city.
In exchange, the city promises to reduce its surcharge on its water from 40 percent to 20 percent, reduce its income tax rate from 2.75 percent to 2.25 percent and provide economic development help to the townships.
Though the city has denied that it will use annexation as a means to secure the additional income tax money, officials in the three townships say they think the city will either use annexation or higher water costs to secure the money.
Canfield trustees on Monday passed a resolution agreeing to participate in the cost of the legal help from Albers and Albers. The resolution didn’t state a maximum amount the township is willing to contribute.
Reese said he is estimating the cost to be between $6,000 and $10,000 and that Austintown, Boardman and Canfield townships will contribute an equal amount, along with the private water supplier Aqua Ohio.
Reese noted that Canfield Township’s population of about 8,000 is much smaller than Austintown and Boardman’s combined 80,000, so it might be possible for Canfield to pay less.
As for why Canfield needs to be part of the legal action, Reese said the township would surely be next if Youngstown successfully secured a JEDD income tax from Austintown and Boardman.
Reese said he would file a taxpayer lawsuit against the city if necessary on the grounds that the city’s JEDD proposal doesn’t agree with state law that requires a JEDD to create or preserve jobs.
The city’s proposal will cost jobs, not create them, Reese added.
runyan@vindy.com
Comments
Great idea, let's sue our neighboring city over something as trivial as a small water tax, which would go towards revitalizing Youngstown, therefore making all surrounding areas more valuable. Instead, you're giving the money from the tax and then some to a law firm in Columbus. It’s hard for Youngstown to implement its 2010 plan when they have to spend time and money dealing with frivolous lawsuits from greedy surrounding communities. In order to improve the valley, we need to be working together, not against each other.
If the yuppies in Boardman, Canfield and Austintown weren't so racially intolerant maybe we could turn this city around. One of these days they will be begging for Youngstown to do them a favor and I hope the city says,"Remember that time when..."
MCC wrote: 'Great idea, let's sue our neighboring city over something as trivial as a small water tax'
Easy to say when it's not coming out of your pocket.
The city’s proposal will cost jobs, not create them.
You've got the greed part backwards.
MCC has it backwards. It's Youngstown that is using their water to extort the suburbs. How many trust the city to develop a plan to bring jobs and spend money wisely when they've done a miserable job in the city proper? The suburbs are the only redeeming (growing) areas in the Mahoning Valley and Williams seems determined to export his blight to us too. Picking the pockets of sububanites is hardly the solution to Youngstowns and the Valleys problems. I don't seem to recall how higher taxes leads to economic development. No wonder the city is in such bad shape.
By mcc11783 on 06/10/08
your a moron. you must be part of the youngstown city jedd concern.
it is not some small water tax moron. it is a 2 to 2.25% income tax. i have an idea like i've said before. do away with youngstown and split up the land to all neighboring municipalities. either youngstown can run its own city or the city is to far gone to save. either way this has been going on long enough. stop the bleeding, cut off the infected part. youngstown city politics and divvy up youngstown to all localities.
This is not some simple tax. It is an income tax of 2-2.25%. That is $675.00 for a year per person that makes $30,000.00 a year! By the way, there is no lawsuit as of yet, although we are getting preparred to fight this. Those of us that live in the townships are doing fine without Youngstown's so called help. One of the many benefits of living in our township is not having an income tax, although we do pay much higher property taxes. We are currently paying a 40% surcharge on water that is in our township to begin with. Meander Reservoir is in Austintown, North Jackson and Mineral Ridge. The water travels through our township to get to Youngstown, maybe we should add a surcharge to Youngstown to pay for all of the issues we have to put up with having the water district here.