(MAP: EXTRACT FROM GOOGLE MAPS)
VIDEOS
Stark County Commissioner Janet Weir Creighton
on
SHOULD THERE BE AN "UNIMPOSED SALES TAX INCREASE"
IF SO, HOW SHOULD IT BE ADMINISTERED?
Denny Saunier
CEO/President of Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce
Responds
Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce (CRCC) president and CEO Denny Saunier unsettled county officials when in the Q&A session at the Stark Civic Group's "Strengthening Stark" session at the Pro Football Hall of Fame (Gold Jacket Room) on Tuesday he made this statement:
Saunier's response was in reaction to this Stark County Commissioner (Board president) Janet Weir Creighton's challenge (re: additional sales tax to finance Stark County economic development) to the Strengthening Stark assembled group of elected officials from the Canton Municipal Court Stark County political subdivisions who make up the court district: (the Creighton challenge: "speak now [on possible sales tax increase]or forever hold your peace" on whether or not a not-imposed sales tax increase should be considered and under what parameters:
The Stark County Political Report (since Tuesday's event) has learned that from the perspective of county officials Saunier's organization (CRCC) has a tag-team (a expression from professional wrestling) relationship with The Canton Repository (SCPR monikered "NS-MA-Gang of Two") to cudgel commissioners into "imposing" a sales tax increase to fund Stark County economic development.
Of course, anybody who knows anything about sales tax issues and Stark County voters know that absolutely a surefire way to get rejected!
Here is an extracted (from commissioner administration compilation) graphic which absolutely shows that "imposed" is NOT a way to go.
(Note: In order to get an enlarged view of the following graphics, click on any of the five panels included)
It is likely that Saunier/Porter for their respective organizations deny they a pushing for an "imposed" sales tax.
However, in SCPR discussions with a variety of county officials, The Report's takeaway is that they are clearly viewing Saunier's spiel when coupled with other emanations from 500 Market Avenue, South and 222 Market Avenue, North as being pressure to "impose" an additional county sales tax.
The SCPR back in 2011 advocated for a 3/4 cent added county sales tax rather than the 1/2 cent settled on. Moreover, the SCPR opposed "imposing" sales tax increases no matter the scale of same.
There is no doubt that Stark County needs to have financial resources to spur economic development across Stark County.
However, any such voter approved addition SHOULD NOT and the SCPR believes would not be used by the current board of county commissioners to bailout Canton and/or the HOF-VP.
There ought to be a concern about what a future board of commissioners will do and measures ought to be included in any sales tax initiative that would prohibit bailouts for inefficiently/irresponsibly run political subdivision government units or in private enterprise projects not having private financing in place at the timing of announcing such projects to totally pay for ir. Of course, the latter factor is a reference to, as an example of, the HOF-VP.
To so structure a prospective Stark County sales tax increase, it might be necessary for
the Stark County delegation to the Ohio General Assembly to get to work to empower county governments across Ohio to specify restrictions on the the use of county sales tax revenues that are binding on future boards of county commissioners.
Try as they may but the North/South Market Avenue Gang of Two will find that there is no way in Hell that the current Board of Stark County Commissioners would impose an additional sales tax on top of the current 1/2 cent being collected.
No comments:
Post a Comment