Image Group of Toledo, Inc. v. Holland-Springfield Twp. Joint Economic Dev. Zone
93 N.E.3d 343
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Springfield Township and the Village of Holland agreed in July 2014 to create the Holland–Springfield Joint Economic Development Zone (JEDZ); voters approved it in November 2014 and the JEDZ board later adopted a 1.5% income tax to become effective July 1, 2015.
- Appellants are 15 businesses/one individual located inside the JEDZ who sued in June 2015 seeking to void the JEDZ and enjoin the tax, alleging noncompliance with statutory creation requirements (R.C. 715.691 et seq.).
- The trial court found appellants had standing but ruled the JEDZ contract complied with the statutory requirements; a subsequent entry held the income tax invalid, producing an appeal and cross-appeal to this court.
- The Sixth District reviewed cross-appellees’ challenges to standing and multiple statutory-compliance issues on summary judgment; facts concerning meetings, minutes, affidavits about employer size, and an addendum to the contract were part of the record.
- The court affirmed: appellants have standing (their injury from a zone-limited tax is particularized), and the JEDZ’s creation satisfied the statutory requirements at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge JEDZ | Plaintiffs are specially injured because only businesses inside JEDZ will pay the tax | The complaint presents a generalized grievance like the public at large | Plaintiffs have standing; zone-limited tax is a particularized injury |
| R.C. 715.691(B): did Village agree to "share in costs" | Village’s contract language and addendum show it is not required to contribute money or services | Statute allows contributions in any form; Village promised discretionary services and tax administration | Contract satisfies (B); parties may agree to nonmonetary or discretionary contributions |
| R.C. 715.691(C) & (H): must economic plan include schedule for "any new, expanded, or additional" improvements and require 50% spending in zone | Plan must include schedules for all such items; legislature intended affirmative new improvements and H requires 50% be spent on them | "Any" should be read as "if any"; schedule required only if plan includes new/expanded improvements | Court: read "any" as "if any"; no schedule required where no new/expanded improvements identified; did not decide 50% spending due to lack of collected revenue |
| Formation of JEDRC & public process (R.C. 715.692(C)(2)(c), 715.691(D),(E)) | Appellants: appointment process and 30-day availability/filing with BOE were defective | Defendants: they appointed the largest willing/able employers, provided 30-day availability for the contract/plan, and filed the required resolution with the BOE | Court: defendants complied — appointment method adequate, public inspection satisfied, and filing of resolution (not full contract) with BOE met statutory requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. City of Middletown, 975 N.E.2d 977 (Ohio 2012) (standing is reviewed de novo and requires particularized injury traceable to challenged conduct)
- Clifton v. Village of Blanchester, 964 N.E.2d 414 (Ohio 2012) (definition and practical purpose of standing)
- Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 875 N.E.2d 550 (Ohio 2007) (standing principles in Ohio administrative context)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (federal standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- State ex rel. Masterson v. Ohio State Racing Comm., 123 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 1954) (taxpayer standing principles; special interest required to challenge public contracts)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. State, 858 N.E.2d 330 (Ohio 2006) (legislative enactment challenges require direct and concrete injury different from public generally)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 375 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio 1978) (summary judgment standard)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment review principles)
- Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 572 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989) (summary judgment standard at trial-court level)
- Huff v. FirstEnergy Corp., 957 N.E.2d 3 (Ohio 2011) (incidental beneficiary has no enforceable contract rights)
- Reinbolt v. Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 816 N.E.2d 1083 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (courts must avoid issuing advisory opinions)
- Cline v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 573 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio 1991) (statutory construction principles)