Ballot language may mislead Mount Blanchard voters

MOUNT BLANCHARD — Voters who live in Mount Blanchard will see an additional 5-mill tax levy on the primary ballot in May. But it's not a new tax, according to Jim Mason, president of village council. "It's a levy that first passed in 2005 so we've had it for 20 years. And the reason it couldn't be put on as a renewal is that the tax had lapsed," he said. "Evidently there was a miscommunication somewhere and we were not notified that it was lapsing and was up for renewal last year." So the issue has to go on the ballot as a new levy and an additional tax. "We couldn't even consider it a continuation," said Mason. "From 2005 to 2025, a lot of the language has changed so it had to be rewritten in updated language. So it's not really considered a continuation, even though it really is." He said the village is asking for exactly the same 5-mills that was first approved 20 years ago. As it always has before, the money generated from the tax goes into the general fund for operating expenses, said Mason. "We're not asking for anything more. We tried everything we could legally to get it put on as just a continuation or a renewal, and it couldn't be done," he said. He said the levy should have been on the ballot last year. "And it should have come up as a renewal. It comes up every five years. And in 2025, it should have been on the ballot to just continue," he said. Mistakenly, the page about the issue on the Hancock County Board of Elections' website also said the 5-mill levy would generate $9,852,390 annually for the Hancock County village. "No," Mason said. "I know it says $9 million. That was actually a typo when they turned it into the state. That was done by somebody outside of our area, obviously. That had nothing to do with us. "We were like, if we were getting $9 million a year, this village would by exploding right now," he said. The levy does generate about $25,000 each year for current expenses which can include anything from park maintenance to a broken waterline, said Mason. "Now if you read the paperwork, I think the maximum it can generate was up to $49,000. But in the 20 years, we've never received more than $25,000," he said. For the person who owns a home valued at $100,000, the tax they per year is about $175, he said. Mason said the whole issue is confusing for residents. "That's why we have tried to get out in front of it. We just started posting our minutes (from council meetings), explaining what happened because a lot of people are like, why are you asking for more when we have a 1% income tax," he related. "We all feel like taxation is a huge topic," he added. "And when you're in such a small community, I mean, we have 139 dwellings and about 472 people. Every penny really counts." It does for council as well, noted Mason. "We don't like the idea of looking at somebody, we live in a village with almost a 70% poverty rate and about 45-50% retired, so everybody here is on a fixed income. And the idea to even ask for an extra dollar is really tough," he said. As soon as the tax issue was people, Mason said people started contacting the village asking why the tax is new. That's when they discovered the tax had lapsed. Council had to approve a new ordinance and submit it to the State of Ohio to get the issue added to the ballot on time. Mason said that legislature was just passed in March. "If they put that out there, they would have been taxing everybody to try and generate $9 million," Mason said. "That $175 for everybody's household would have been $175,000." "We're not trying to throw anybody under the bus because we don't know who the miscommunication was, but every year we get something from the auditor saying this tax is up, this tax is old, new, needs renewed or is going away. We never received that last year," he said.