Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

The Columbus Dispatch
Columbus, Ohio January 11, 2008

Editorial:

Expensive favor

Township governments shouldn't be propped up with duplicate taxation
Friday, January 11, 2008 3:13 AM

When Ohio lawmakers tried to give a gift to their friends in township government in 2002, they created an irresponsible policy for municipal annexation, bound to create conflict and problems for cities and townships as well as property owners.

Just how bad an idea this policy is has become clear through situations such as the one in Perry Township. There, a few dozen property owners are figuring out that annexation of their land to Columbus didn't remove them from township tax rolls, so they're paying twice for fire and police protection, road maintenance and other services.

Since the annexation ''reform'' law took effect, almost all annexations have been carried out under an option that allows double taxation. In central Ohio, the practice has been used most for Plain Township land being annexed to Columbus.

The law was meant to be a consolation to township governments, which, under previous law, lost tax revenue when territory was annexed to a city or village. In exchange, it assures developers and other would-be annexers -- who usually seek annexation to get water and sewer service through the municipality involved -- that the annexation will be approved.
For all intents and purposes, though, under the law, the land doesn't leave the township. The township continues to collect taxes and provide services. But property owners in the annexed territory start paying city income tax along with their township property taxes, and they receive services from both governments. This is an extravagance few homeowners would choose.
The law also ignores the fact that as township lands are developed into urban areas, the township's reason for being fades. Artificially and expensively prolonging a township's viability, especially in mostly urban counties such as Franklin, is bad policy.

Though residents whose properties were annexed under the new law should have understood the terms from the start, not all of them did. The double taxation has become more noticeable in Perry Township because the township is asking voters to approve a 9.1-mill operating levy to support its police department.

The law may have an unintended consequence: As new-style annexations turn more and more people who intended to be city dwellers into unwilling, double-taxed township hostages, those residents quite likely will vote against township taxes, regardless of the needs of people in unannexed areas of the township.

If township trustees increasingly have to deal with unhappy, involuntary residents who become angry voters, the 2002 law's gift won't seem so valuable after all.

response

Letters to the Editor in the Columbus Dispatch January 27, 2008

'Dispatch' editorial unfair to townships
Sunday, January 27, 2008 3:43 AM


I respond to the Jan. 11 Dispatch editorial ''Expensive favor,'' regarding townships, annexation and taxation. The Dispatch, once again, made very misleading statements and relied on selective and questionable ''facts.'' I wonder who The Dispatch talks to when writing about townships because it does not allow anything to come between it and its preconceived conclusions.

There are two responses to be made. First, the editorial talked about the unfairness of annexed properties paying some township taxes. No mention was made of the unfair Columbus municipal earnings taxes paid by township residents at the same rate as Columbus residents. Speaking about propping up governments! I would expect soon an editorial decrying this unfair and nonsupportable situation.

Second, the editorial criticized the 2002 annexation law, which allows township taxes to remain after an annexation. The editorial makes it appear that the reform legislation created this situation when, in fact, it has existed in well over half the state for decades. In those areas of the state, there was also relative peace between townships and cities over annexation and boundary disputes, so the legislature merely codified something that had been working for a long time.

Finally, it should be noted that the landowners in question chose to be part of the ''double'' taxation situation. The property owners chose to annex and, therefore, chose to be subject to both taxing jurisdictions. No township imposed it on them. When one chooses to follow a legal procedure, he accepts the benefits and any perceived negatives. That is exactly what these residents did, and they should not now complain over something they voluntarily entered into.

It should be further noted the ''double taxation'' is only the township portion of the inside millage, which usually is around 1 to 1.5 mills and amounts to a very small amount of money for any taxpayer.

The 2002 amendment for the annexation laws has proved to be helpful to all parties. There is much less arguing and fighting over annexation and much more cooperation between city and township officials. While it is not perfect, it has at least created a much better atmosphere. This is something I think even The Dispatch would support.

MICHAEL H. COCHRAN
Executive director

Ohio Township Association


Blacklick