Local State Representative Wants Annexation Law Change

New State Representative Newman introduces House Bill 113

Last year, residents of Bethel Township were finding themselves facing an aggressive annexation from their southern neighbor, Huber Heights. The latest annexation, encompassing over 500 acres, came on the heels of other annexations over the decades that have overwhelmed the local school district and strained infrastructure.

Residents found themselves unable to advocate for themselves, especially when it came to their efforts to enlist the help of both their own township trustees and county commissioners. Current annexation laws provided no substantive voice to these forms of local government in the annexation process.

Well, things might change. Our new State Representative Johnathan Newman has teamed up with Representative Adam Bird of New Richmond, and together they are the main sponsors of House Bill 113, a new set of annexation reforms that both are seeking to help level playing field from such predatory annexations. If adopted, the legislation will have far-reaching implications for townships, county commissioners, and school districts. The bill aims to streamline and modify the annexation process while balancing the interests of various stakeholders involved.

The legislation introduces several key changes to the annexation procedures outlined in Chapter 709 of the Ohio Revised Code. One of the most notable modifications is the emphasis on cooperative agreements between municipalities and townships during annexations. When a petition for annexation is filed under sections 709.022 or 709.023, it must now include agreements such as an annexation agreement or a cooperative economic development agreement. This requirement is designed to foster collaboration between the parties involved, ensuring that issues like service provision and tax revenue sharing are addressed proactively.

County commissioners see their role significantly expanded under House Bill 113. The bill extends the timeframe for commissioners to review annexation petitions from 45 to 90 days, providing more time for thorough evaluation. Commissioners are now required to assess whether "on balance, the general good of the territory proposed to be annexed will be served, and the benefits to the territory proposed to be annexed and the surrounding area will outweigh the detriments." This broader evaluation criterion gives commissioners more discretion in their decision-making process.

For townships, the bill introduces both challenges and protections. While it potentially makes annexation easier in some cases, it also includes provisions to protect township interests. For instance, the bill maintains that if township services continue to be provided within annexed territory, that territory shall not be excluded from the township and remains subject to township property taxes that support those services. This provision helps preserve the tax base for townships even after annexation occurs.

The legislation also addresses concerns about the impact of annexation on local school districts. A significant addition is Section 3311.222, which mandates the transfer of school district boundaries when a municipal corporation annexes new territory. Under this provision, any territory annexed under Section 709.023 will be transferred to the school district primarily serving the annexing municipality if it differs from the district originally serving the area. This change takes effect on July 1 following at least 180 days after the effective date of the annexation. This school district provision has substantial implications.

It aligns school district boundaries with municipal boundaries, potentially improving administrative coherence and service delivery efficiency. However, it could also disrupt existing arrangements in districts losing territory, impacting their funding, student population, and long-term planning. To mitigate some disruptions, the bill includes a grandfathering clause for students in grades nine through twelve who reside in transferred territories, allowing them to continue attending their original district until graduation if they were enrolled there before the transfer.

The bill also intersects with financial considerations through its amendments to Section 3735.67 regarding community reinvestment area (CRA) tax exemptions. It requires school district approval for residential property tax exemptions within CRAs, ensuring that districts have a say in decisions affecting their revenue base. This measure seeks to balance economic development incentives with educational funding needs.

House Bill 113 introduces a special procedure for annexing land for significant economic development projects. This provision empowers county commissioners to play a crucial role in balancing economic development opportunities with the interests of existing jurisdictions and residents. The bill outlines specific criteria for what constitutes a significant economic development project, including minimum investment thresholds and job creation requirements.

The proposed changes in House Bill 113 reflect a shift towards more localized control over annexation decisions, with an emphasis on considering the broader impacts on territories and surrounding areas. The enhanced role of county commissioners, the protection of township interests, and the consideration of school district boundaries demonstrate an attempt to create a more balanced approach to annexation.

While introducing a bill is no guarantee of it’s adoption, credit is due to Representative Newman for even bringing up House Bill 113. The new lawmaker obviously heard the concerns of his constituents and is already delivering measurable progress on this local issue in his first few weeks in office. The level of detail in the legislation shows that he is working with our local county commissioners to create a new process that is more fair and more equitable to stakeholders that have been left out of the process up to this point. This is representative government at its best.

What Are Your Thoughts?

What are your thoughts on House Bill 113? Do our annexation laws need reformed? Our paid subscribers are welcome to leave their thoughts in the comment section!

Of course, longer pieces are always welcome. If you want to share your thoughts without the limits of word counts and paywalls, you can always send your writing to pinnaclestrategiesltd@gmail.com and it will be run in a future edition of Civic Capacity.

Check out our New YouTube Channel!

Our goal with the Civic Capacity YouTube Channel is to be a centralized location where residents can watch videos of local government meetings in action and also provide comments and insights. You can check out the channel here!

You Can Help Support This Work!

Our readers and subscribers have been asking for a new way to support the work being done here at Civic Capacity! Some of our readers do not like the idea of having to sign up for another subscription service. Some of our subscribers occasionally want to give more support through a one-time transaction.

Civic Capacity is partnering with “Buy Me A Coffee” to give our readers, subscribers and friends an opportunity to give one-time support to Civic Capacity. Personally, I don’t like coffee, but I will never turn down a nice iced tea. If you feel compelled to support this effort, just click the button below.

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.

Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!