Annexation could save 700 jobs

[obie7661]

http://www.indeonline.com/index.php?ID=19035&r=0&Category=

[longtimefirsttime]

I think we all agree that Stark County cannot afford to lose any more jobs. And it sounds clear that if this isn't accomplished, they're gone. What would it cost to extend the needed utilities?

[Obie Wan]

One might do well to remember the whole Greif Board fiasco. We annexed the land, we paid to run the sewer, now we're blaming them for the smell at the turd factory. And frankly, after watching the way the city screwed Greif in that deal, it's surprising that Shearer would want to risk walking the same path.

There's a second issue, as well: how much do we pay to run sewer and how much revenue do we get from taxes?

And a third: what prevents Shearer's from paying for the sewer line without being annexed?

If the company wants to be annexed, it generally means that they have calculated they they will spend less money on taxes than they would spend on sewer. Of course, that means the flip side is also true: Massillon would spend more to run the sewer than they would recoup in taxes.

Saving jobs is a laudable goal, but if we are paying for those jobs, then it becomes, for all intents and purposes, a welfare program. Massillon should make very sure that this arrangement is financially sensible before being lured in by the buzzword of "job preservation".

[Paul Brown]

And a third: what prevents Shearer's from paying for the sewer line without being annexed?



Why would a city RUN a sewer line to someone who isn't in the city?

[Spize]

One might do well to remember the whole Greif Board fiasco. We annexed the land, we paid to run the sewer, now we're blaming them for the smell at the turd factory. And frankly, after watching the way the city screwed Greif in that deal, it's surprising that Shearer would want to risk walking the same path.

There's a second issue, as well: how much do we pay to run sewer and how much revenue do we get from taxes?

And a third: what prevents Shearer's from paying for the sewer line without being annexed?

If the company wants to be annexed, it generally means that they have calculated they they will spend less money on taxes than they would spend on sewer. Of course, that means the flip side is also true: Massillon would spend more to run the sewer than they would recoup in taxes.

Saving jobs is a laudable goal, but if we are paying for those jobs, then it becomes, for all intents and purposes, a welfare program. Massillon should make very sure that this arrangement is financially sensible before being lured in by the buzzword of "job preservation".

You should factor in another thing that the company does not... the income tax of the workers.

Sure the company can get sewer and pay less in taxes than to run the swer pipe... sound like a loss to the city... Until you factor in how many of this workers live in the city and pay taxes... they lose that job, no more tax money. Not to mention how many other workers there now pay no city income tax.

[Obie Wan]

And a third: what prevents Shearer's from paying for the sewer line without being annexed?

Why would a city RUN a sewer line to someone who isn't in the city?
1. The city wouldn't run anything -- Shearer's would pay for it.
2. It's not strictly the city's plant -- lots of customers aren't in Massillon. In fact, most of the sewage the plants treats is from outside of Massillon.

You should factor in another thing that the company does not... the income tax of the workers.

Sure the company can get sewer and pay less in taxes than to run the swer pipe... sound like a loss to the city... Until you factor in how many of this workers live in the city and pay taxes... they lose that job, no more tax money. Not to mention how many other workers there now pay no city income tax.
I believe that the question "how much revenue do we get from taxes" addresses that point.

[massillon catholic]

Maybe I missed something, but if the jobs aren't currently in Massillon and annexation must occur to have those jobs in Massillon. How could Massillon lose the jobs? In other words, how do you lose something that you don't already have?

[The Butler]

mc, you didn't miss anything. It's not that Massillon would lose the jobs, it's that the area and maybe Massillon residents, would lose the jobs.

[massillon catholic]

mc, you didn't miss anything. It's not that Massillon would lose the jobs, it's that the area and maybe Massillon residents, would lose the jobs.

Got it! Thanks.

[Mr.Deedee]

I for one am happy to hear the news. We all better hope that this happens. Let's all hope, too that the Perry trustess don't do anything stupid, as in opposing it. I've known and worked with Frank Cicchinelli for decades and I am sure that he has taken into consideration all of the above issues (and more that we don't know about.) We are fortunate to have Frank as our mayor. Massillon has weathered some tough economic times and has survived financially and has shown a population growth. This has been a result of Frank's foresight and aggressive annexation policy--and his undying (and sometimes obsessive) love for Massillon--the city and the schools.

[obie7661]

Perry peeved over annexation plan

http://www.indeonline.com/index.php?ID=19100&r=0&Category=

[Al.]

Well, let's just have a pity party for the Perry Trustees :poke:

[longtimefirsttime]

They're obviously upset, as are many townships throughout the state. But when Shearer's came to Massillon leaders with this plan, what are they supposed to say (if it's not cost prohibitive), "no?"