Official opposes multiple state bills

FORT RECOVERY - Village administrator Randy Diller on Monday night sounded the alarm on numerous pieces of pending state legislation that he believes would be detrimental to small towns like Fort Recovery.  

In response, village councilors passed a resolution voicing their opposition to the one that would deal the greatest financial blow to the village's coffers - House Bill 335, introduced by State Rep. David Thomas, R-Jefferson.

The comprehensive property tax reform package that seeks to provide immediate relief to Ohio property taxpayers would also eliminate the ability of all taxing authorities other than townships to collect inside millage beginning Jan. 1, according to The StateHouse Report, a publication of the County Commissioners Association of Ohio.

"Their brilliant idea to lower the real estate tax burden for the residents in Ohio is to eliminate the inside millage," Diller said. "We get 1.7 mills. It's permanent, we don't have to vote on it. It's what we get."

The 1.7 inside mills generates about $72,000 annually, according to Diller.

"It's not a bankrupt amount if we don't get it … it's just the idea that they're going to lower the real estate tax burden by not costing the state any money; it's going to cost every other jurisdiction in this state but them."

The state, Diller pointed out, doesn't collect real estate tax.

"So that's an easy way to do it," he said.

When asked about the reasoning behind the bill, its proponents replied, "They (local governments) all have other ways to raise money," Diller said.

"You're already saying that we're going to have to replace that money, so are you really saving anybody anyway or are you just shifting into another source?" he questioned.

The bill would be a lot worse for bigger cities than Fort Recovery, but where it's really going to hit home is the schools, Diller said.

"The school gets the majority of that inside millage. That's just a killer," he said. "I don't understand how they think they can do that and not have schools be in trouble. If they have to go to pass another levy to replace it and the people vote no - they're out, they're out. I don't know what happens. I just think it's a really short-sighted way to solve the problem."

Councilors unanimously suspended the rules requiring three public readings and passed the resolution opposing House Bill 335.

Another piece of pending state legislation causing Diller concern is House Bill 355, introduced by State Rep. Angie King, R-Celina, and Thomas. The bill would increase the vote threshold for local taxes subject to voter approval.

"That's the one that would require some local tax levies to have to pass by 60%," Diller said. "She (King) has not got back with me yet, so I don't know what that's about. Why would our levies need to pass at 60%? So, I will definitely have that conversation with her."

Diller also drew attention to House Bill 113, which would, among other things, give county commissioners the ability to veto expedited annexations.

Expedited annexations are initiated by a petition signed by 100% of the landowners in the
territory proposed for annexation. Currently, the county is required to approve the annexation if certain factors are met, according to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.

"House Bill 113 is another one that I just shake my head on," Diller said. "Basically what it does is it authorizes the county commissioners to stop a Type 2 annexation if it's not in the general good of the county - and 'general good' is in parentheses," he said.

Every property owner affected has to sign their names in support of a Type 2 annexation, Diller said.

"So why (do) the commissioners get the power to say, 'Those people, we're not going to do what they want to do?'" Diller asked.

State lawmakers, Diller continued, are still "playing around" with Senate Bill 118, "which is a limitation on our recovery of and lien and position on any unpaid utility bills."

"There's nothing that's finalized, nothing that looks like it's close," he said. "The concern with all of these is they're introduced as separate bills but could very easily be thrown in this budget bill that they're going to have to have passed by the end of this month, and if they never have a hearing it will never come to the light of day until it's there. Deal with it. That's what scares me."

The budget bill in itself doesn't have "a lot of these contentious issues in it," Diller said.

"But if history shows itself, they're going to get some of them in there and get them passed and that worries me," he said.

As to the pending biennial budget, state lawmakers have said they're increasing local government funds from 1.7 to 1.75% from the general revenue fund, Diller said.

"But what they don't tell you is if the other tax cut pass(es) … taking the income tax down to a flat rate of 2.75%, the general revenue funds are going to drop about $8 million in the second year," he said. "So we're going to get 1.75% of $8 million less than we're getting 1.7% of now. So is there any savings involved or any increase involved to us? No. It's just playing with the numbers."

Diller also pointed to another issue he has with the state budget bill.

"It allows the (county) budget commission … to reduce millage if they can see that carryovers and different things, the budgets are good enough that they don't need this extra money so we can reduce the millage. So again, they're putting people in charge of making decisions that aren't planning, aren't doing anything like we're doing down here, to decide what we need to do," Diller said. "It's a lot of crazy things."

The council meets next at 7:30 p.m. July 7 in council chambers.