Lakewood Gets Some Support in Opposition to House Bill 5
The Ohio Municipal League and communities from across Ohio submitted one uniform message containing “twenty-one points of municipal income tax uniformity” to the state representatives who introduced the measure.
City officials didn’t like the idea of the state taking over income tax collection when it was introduced as House Bill 601 last year.
And they still didn’t like it when it was reintroduced as HB 5 earlier this year.
Lakewood officials took the lead in creating a website specifically geared to opposition the tax measure.
And earlier this year, Lakewood City Council passed a resolution officially opposing the measure that would “gut the home-rule guarantees of the Ohio Constitution by imposing a state-mandated tax scheme on local governments.”
The Ohio Municipal League and communities from across Ohio — including those surrounding Cleveland, Dayton, and Cincinnati — submitted one uniform message containing “twenty-one points of municipal income tax uniformity” to state representatives Cheryl Grossman (R-Grove City) and Michael Henne (R-Vandalia).
Those suggestions came after Grossman asked for input from state officials from around the state about possible changes to House Bill 5.
“Purported to be an attempt at revenue neutral tax uniformity and simplicity, HB 5 will complicate the current 40-page municipal tax code with 141 pages of new rules and regulations,” according to a Lakewood news release.
“Some poorly conceived provisions found in HB 5 will cost cities and villages upwards of $35.1 million in revenue according to information submitted by municipalities across Ohio to advocacy group Ohio United.”
Lakewood officials have said the measure could cost the city millions of dollars in lost revenue.
"The notion that 'one size fits all' as uniformity defies common sense,” said Mayor Michael Summers, who is also the vice-chair of the Northeast Ohio First Suburbs Consortium.
“The proposed Tax Policy Board takes away the authority and wisdom of locally elected city councils, violating the very essence of home rule provision which has guided and served local communities for over 200 years.”
Michael Bowen
8:18 am on Monday, March 18, 2013
If you want to see more details about HB 5, please visit www.ohmuniadvocates.com
Barb Benton
9:24 am on Monday, March 18, 2013
This story is very one-sided. To understand why Ohio is pursuing these important changes and to learn how Ohio is the only state in the country where businesses can be forced to file almost 600 local returns each year, please visit www.munitaxreform.org
Steve
1:37 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
I so totally love that last paragraph. Maybe it's time to end 'home rule' as it is now. The cities are far to often given power that they do not deserve. "One size fits all" certainly did not apply to dogs, but the state sees it differently. Lakewood is not an association that can dictate their own bylaws for the good of city hall, not the people who live here.
Just Sayin'
3:33 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
There are more reasons to coordinate than not. Business owner are pounded by the filing they must do, but so are citizens. No coordination, I file in 4 communities this year and that will mean 3 different types of forms, (RITA, CCA, and Lakewood). I can't imagine what it's like for a business owner. I've lived in numerous states with local income taxes. Generally coordinated and payed with state return. I've also never payed taxes like in Ohio. Everything is taxed, usually multiple times. I was told when i moved here the cost of living was lower than anywhere. What a joke. My tax burden here is higher than any of the other 5 states I've lived in, and the most difficult to file. The only people who think cost of living is lower here are those who have never lived anywhere else, or those that want to compare it to New York or Chicago, or LA (real cities not wannabees). Think of the taxpayer....let's vote on it..city of Lakewood you'll lose.