Officials ponder water situation, Youngstown mayor's remarks

Trustees want to hire legal help for questions about the waterlines and annexation.
By JEANNE STARMACK
VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER
AUSTINTOWN -- Cooperate, or the city will stop supplying your water.
Township trustees have been wary for the last year that might be Youngstown's intent, even though Mayor Jay Williams has insisted it's not his plan to force a water-for-income-tax program on the township.
Township Trustee Lisa Oles, for example, said she doesn't trust "what the mayor is saying."
Williams does have a plan that seems well-intentioned and even beneficial to the townships: He is considering Joint Economic Development Districts to provide economic incentives to businesses in them. The city has considered JEDDs within Austintown, Boardman and Canfield townships.
In exchange, the city could impose an income tax on workers in the JEDDs. That could lower the city's income tax of 2.5 percent to 2 percent, he said. The city could also reduce or eliminate the 40 percent surcharge on rates for the water it gets from the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District and resells to the suburbs.
It's not the idea of JEDDs that have officials in the townships on their guard. They say that, depending on the terms of agreement for a JEDD, it could work well.
What has officials so upset in Austintown is what Williams told The Vindicator in August. He cited a March 2006 Ohio Supreme Court decision that permits a city to force nonresidents to agree to annexation so they can continue to receive water service. That case could prompt those who aren't interested in his JEDD proposal to the table, he said.
He also said another option for the city would be to increase the rate surcharge.
Williams said the city doesn't want to shut off water or annex property in townships -- then pointed out if it wanted to, it could.
Or can it? Austintown trustees and administrators are exploring options that include possibly finding another water supplier -- even if that means the township becomes a city first.
Recent ruling
Oles also doesn't trust a recent opinion from Mahoning County Prosecutor Paul Gains that says waterlines in the suburbs belong to Youngstown, which took them over from the county from the 1920s through the 1960s and now maintains them. Gains wrote the opinion for Boardman, but the implication for Austintown is the same.
"Under prior agreements, the county relinquished control, ownership and maintenance in the unincorporated areas to the city," the opinion says.
"As a practical matter, it does not matter who holds title to the real property. The city has continually maintained and operated the water system," it continues.
If the waterlines belong to Youngstown, the city might be able to stop water service in the townships -- though a court fight over that would be a certainty.
"We fully expect to fight in court. We expect to end up there," Oles said. However, she said, Gains' opinion is just that -- an opinion. If the city can't prove it owns the lines, she said, Austintown may be able to get water elsewhere. She has talked to Aqua Ohio about it.
Another opinion cited
She and Trustee David Ditzler point to another attorney's opinion from 1999, when trustees were considering buying water from Niles instead of Youngstown.
"Neither the city nor its law department, responding to several inquiries by me, can point to any public record filed or recorded documents that could prove ownership," wrote Atty. Scott Rawlings of Rocky River, Ohio.
Oles said trustees intend to hire a law firm that specializes in the types of issues the township has over ownership of the waterlines, annexation and JEDDs. "We are interviewing four firms from Cleveland and Columbus." Boardman is considering joining in.
One way for Austintown to acquire the waterlines would be for voters to allow it to incorporate. The township meets the criteria for incorporation, including area in square miles, population density, contiguity and property valuation.
In Ohio, Municipal Home Rule allows a city to acquire public utilities and their infrastructure through a process called condemnation, which would force the city to accept market value payment for the lines.
But how does that benefit taxpayers, asked Trustee Bo Pritchard, when the market value will be millions of dollars?
Pritchard said he believes, as does Ditzler, that many people who live in Austintown do so because it is a township.
"I believe residents came here to get away from the municipal structure," Ditzler said. "We don't have the bureaucracy, and we accomplish the same things. I wouldn't be in favor of incorporation."
Pritchard also said he agrees with Oles' assessment that, if it came down to incorporation vs. annexation, Austintown voters would allow incorporation.
What Ditzler said
Ditzler said that he believes the issue of incorporation will fall by the wayside as in the end, "cooler heads prevail."
"I think all Youngstown wants is economic stability," he said.
"A lot of it is faulty assumptions," Pritchard said. "I don't think the city wants any of our residential areas," he said, pointing out that the JEDD proposal aims at businesses. "So our residents should be reassured. The city doesn't want their homes."
Pritchard questioned whether the Ohio Supreme Court case has any bearing on circumstances in the Youngstown area. "The city of Youngstown doesn't have a resolution: 'We provide the water, we have the right to annex,'" he said, as did the city featured in the court case. He acknowledged Youngstown could pass one.
He predicted that any annexation effort would result "in a multiyear lawsuit."
All three trustees agree that getting advice and guidance on who owns the waterlines and what the suburbs' rights are is going to be beneficial. Oles said trustees may take action on hiring "a high-powered firm" in March.