New annexation rules could lead to higher taxes for Ohio city residents, municipal leaders say, while helping township residents retain their less taxing lifestyles.

        State Senate Bill 5, the first major revision of Ohio annexation laws in more than three decades, is likely to take effect in September. It passed both chambers of the increasingly township-oriented General Assembly this month after years of near misses.

        “My understanding is that all the participants have finally come together and produced a fair compromise,” Gov. Bob Taft said in a visit to Warren County late last week. “The probability is that we will sign the bill into law.”

        But cities and villages — especially those in fast-growing areas such as Warren County — are not appreciably happier with this bill than any of the previous ones. They're saying residents will suffer.

        The new rules will give county commissioners some leeway to reject annexations they think would hurt the immediate neighborhood. The changes also will force cities to reimburse townships for 12 years for taxes lost when land is taken.

        “If we don't have the ability to expand, then where is our growth going to come from?” Loveland City Manager Fred Enderle says.

        “If you can't grow and expand your tax base, either you have to raise taxes to provide the services that the residents are demanding or you have to reduce services in order to balance the budget.”
       

Annexation opposed

        Typical city services include police and fire protection, garbage pickup, water and sewer utilities and road maintenance.

        Municipalities need to grow to spread out the cost of those services, Morrow Mayor Bob Brown says. The Warren County village has little industry, so it depends on a 1 percent earnings tax collected from residents.

        He'd like to hire more police officers, but the village can't afford it. That hurts both village and township residents, Mr. Brown says, because Morrow has an agreement to aid the county sheriff's department, which patrols surrounding Salem Township.

        Morrow has one annexation petition that the county commissioners will hear in August and it has a couple more planned, the mayor says. But it has struggled for years to convince township residents they'd be better off annexed.

        Many who live in Salem and elsewhere say they like their country lifestyle and lower taxes, and the towns can keep their services. They're accustomed to relying on wells, septic tanks and the sheriff's department.

        “The income tax is a factor, but it's more the lifestyle that we object to” and the laws with which they'd be forced to comply, says Ruth MacKenzie, a Salem resident who is fighting annexation into Morrow.

        She and her husband run a small orchard and vineyard. The trees and vines produce lots of brush that they burn — a practice that would be illegal in the village, Mrs. MacKenzie says. Ditto shooting a gun in the air to scare the birds away.

        “There's nothing to gain and something to lose,” Mrs. MacKenzie says.
       

Growth thwarted?

        Townships can collect taxes for specific uses, but only if residents pass a levy.

        “A township has all of the key powers that a city has, with the possible exception of taxing income,” Deerfield Township Trustees President Larry Backus says. “However, we do have the power to go to our residents and say to them, "If you are willing to pay for this, we are willing to ask you to fund it.'

        “That does not happen in municipalities. Basically, they can get income taxes and use it for whatever they want.”

        Mr. Backus pronounces Deerfield ready to handle additional development if neighboring Mason's ability to annex is limited.

        Mason has doubled its land area to 18 square miles in the past decade — mostly at Deerfield's expense. The annexations have helped fuel a nearly sixfold increase in city spending.

        Mason, of course, remains staunchly opposed to changing the annexation laws that have proved so profitable.

        “The way cities grow — the way employers grow — is through annexation,” Assistant City Manager Eric Hansen says. “... In the future, (companies) are not going to be looking at Mason because of the obstacles of annexing into cities.”

        Lebanon City Manager James Patrick also characterizes the bill as “in essence stopping” annexation.

        Ohio Rep. Tom Raga, R-Deerfield, however, thinks fears of economic development grinding to a halt are overblown. Although the bill gives county commissioners more power, he says, they are unlikely to use it to harm their communities.

        “I think everybody is a little unhappy, but that's usually a sign of a pretty passable piece of legislation,” he said.

Airport tackles runway safety
$1.4B may not be enough
Ohio justices defy convenient labels
UC tuition will rise by 8% in fall
A boost for home buyers
Cities say rules thwart growth
Clinton visits Dayton to accept peace prize
Cops take it where crime happens
Doctors rally against concealed carry
Dulcimer picked as official Ky. instrument
Fair's touchy about animals
Grand jury will hear Lebanon case
Group moves to scrap city's civil service rules
Hospitals won't get Medicaid raise
Kenton teachers get 7% hike
Low-income housing would be controlled
Nature Conservancy buys more land along palisades
No sex indictment against teacher
Ohio PTA award announced
Outside auditor to watch ballpark
Proposal for video slots at racetracks dies in committee
Protester on trial for fest disruption
Officer Roach trial scheduled for Sept. 17
School gets 2nd inspection
Silverton development group launched
United Way pledges other help
Video store bandits use the same script
Welfare reform spending in danger
Worms sicced on Ky.'s coal scars
Kentucky News Briefs
Tristate A.M. Report