Court OKs watershed fee

Property owners will see an increase on their tax bills next month after a recent court ruling cleared the way for $210 million in new assessments for flood control and water quality projects along the Muskingum watershed.

Judges of Ohio's 5th District Court of Appeals have agreed with the decisions of a lower court to permit assessments of property owners by the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District.

The assessment will be charged to approximately 1 million households and businesses throughout the 18-county district over the next 20 years. About $125 million would go to pay for the local share for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' work to upgrade the district's dams and facilities.

Opponents had argued that a local share wasn't required and the assessment amounted to taxation without representation because the district's board members are not elected, but appointed by judges of the Conservancy Court.

Most property owners will see a $12 increase in their annual property tax. Businesses and farms could see significantly higher assessments, depending on land size and use.

Scott Levengood, of Mineral City, is one of several people who has fought the assessment. Now he plans to take the case to the state's Supreme Court.

"Assessments are only legal if your property is going to benefit," Levengood said. "We were almost positive we couldn't lose this (appeal). We felt the law was on our side and we were shocked when we got the ruling."

The appeals court affirmed the decisions of the Conservancy Court and held that the appraisal methodology was reasonable and that all procedural and due process requirements had been met. The Conservancy Court holds jurisdiction over the MWCD and is a court of common pleas that consists of one judge from each of the 18 counties in the conservancy district region, except Washington County, which is represented by a judge from another county after local judges resigned or declined to serve on the controversial court.

"We are pleased by the decision and we'll do our best to uphold the public's trust in administering the maintenance plan," said John M. Hoopingarner, MWCD executive director/secretary, in a news release. "We're looking forward to getting the maintenance projects started as soon as possible."

According to the MWCD, the assessments and maintenance plan will protect and create hundreds of private-sector jobs in upcoming years and lead to the potential investment of more than $600 million by the federal government in the watershed.

The watershed - which includes about one-third of Ohio - eventually drains into the Muskingum River before emptying into the Ohio River at Marietta.

In addition to appealing to the Supreme Court, Levengood said he plans to file a taxpayers' lawsuit. He said a similar lawsuit blocked an attempt to impose an assessment in the region in the 1930s.

"I'm going to do everything I can to fight this," Levengood said. "There are still a lot of people who don't realize they are going to be affected by this. They still have the right to fight this."

According to Washington County Auditor Bill McFarland, the following cities, villages and townships are included in the assessment: Marietta City; the villages of Beverly, Lowell, Lower Salem and Macksburg; and the townships of Adams, Aurelius, Fearing, Marietta, Muskingum, Palmer, Salem, Warren, Waterford and Watertown. Portions of Barlow and Wesley townships are also included.

McFarland said local officials have no control over the assessments and all questions should be directed to the watershed group.

Watershed spokesman Darrin Lautenschleger said the group is still developing plans for the assessment.

"Over the next few weeks, we will be finalizing some of the projects we will be working on in the reservoirs and waterways," he said. "I would expect in the next few weeks we will be making some announcements on those projects."

Member Comments

View Comments: | 1-7 | Post a comment

hockeypuck
01-03-09 3:41 PM »Report Abuse	No welfare for me, I work a day job and run a small business at night. Bet you don't.
hockeypuck
01-01-09 11:10 AM »Report Abuse	alchemy, just another Parrothead in disguise.
alchemy
01-01-09 9:59 AM »Report Abuse	PS, this is the only artricle Ive ever seen that hints to the public of something other than the "just 12.00" lie. Even the county offices have only told people "12.00." The real truth of thousands to all business has been deliberately hidden from the public. THATS FRAUD!
alchemy
01-01-09 9:54 AM »Report Abuse	"Most property owners will see a $12 increase in their annual property tax. Businesses and farms could see significantly higher assessments, depending on land size and use." It was never addressed as the fraud it was. All of the power for it was by telling everyone it would be "12.00" while deloberately hiding the fact that businesses would pay an IMPOSSIBLE thousands per year especially business that use land. I believe its 500.00/yr per acre! TRY TO IMAGINE THAT! This group is little more than a private organization (even having their own judges) with a big money scheme by acting like a government agency to the pont that real judges think they must oblidge them. ITS FRAUD, PERIOD! ANY JUDGE WHO COWARDLY BOWS TO THEM SHOULD BE RAN OUT AND PROSECUTED.
hockeypuck
12-31-08 9:22 PM »Report Abuse	There could be consequences either way. So, which way do you want them?
Birdlover
12-31-08 9:40 AM »Report Abuse	Any good news??? ;-(
Roscoe
12-31-08 8:57 AM »Report Abuse	Tax, tax, tax, tax.....

You must first login before you can comment.

Existing Member Login
Not a Member?	Create a Member Account
*Your email address:		<--Email REQUIRED!
*Password:	Forgot Password?	<--Password REQUIRED!
	Remember my email address.