Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee moves Summit County anti‑poaching MOU forward after staff detail thresholds and past payments
Summary
The Intergovernmental & Utilities Committee reviewed Resolution 2025‑R44, a Summit County memorandum on job‑creation and tax‑revenue sharing; administration explained a $4.5 million payroll threshold, five county communities have withdrawn, and staff estimated 39 local employers exceed the threshold.
The Intergovernmental & Utilities Committee moved Resolution 2025‑R44 forward for a council vote after administration staff summarized changes to the Summit County memorandum of understanding on job creation and tax‑revenue sharing.
Chair Spade described the MOU as an "anti‑poaching" agreement among county communities. Administration representative Miss Russell said the updated agreement raised the payroll threshold to $4.5 million and that five communities — Hudson, Richfield Township, Stow, Copley Township and Twinsburg — have elected not to participate to date.
Miss Russell described two recent examples of firms that relocated and the resulting revenue: Diebold relocated to Hudson and provided payments to Green for two years before moving again; FedEx Custom Critical paid Green for five years under the prior arrangement. She said that, under the new $4.5 million threshold, the city has 39 employers whose payrolls exceed that level and that the average payroll for that group is around $9 million, which staff estimated would equate to about $180,000 in income‑tax revenue to the city — subject to the tax‑sharing formulas in the MOU.
Councilmembers questioned whether not participating might give a recruitment advantage to cities that opt out and whether Summit County actively markets sites. Miss Russell said the county engages in recruitment through partners such as Elevate Greater Akron and Team NEO, uses JobsOhio for state RFIs, and runs programs such as RightSites to market shovel‑ready parcels.
Several committee members said Green has historically benefited from the county agreement and that clawback provisions and annual reviews of the MOU help protect municipal interests. The committee agreed to move the resolution forward for a vote that evening; no final vote on the resolution occurred in committee.
A separate item, Resolution 2025‑R45, establishing a street‑lighting district for Jacob's Ridge phases 1–5, was set for a public hearing at 7 p.m. in council chambers and deferred to that hearing for discussion.
