Work on an agreement that could curb the practice of "job poaching" among central Ohio cities continues, although Dublin might not stay on board.

Work on an agreement that could curb the practice of "job poaching" among central Ohio cities continues, although Dublin might not stay on board.

Over the past year, Dublin has been working with seven other central Ohio cities to lay the groundwork for sharing services and promoting economic growth.

Dublin, Columbus, Westerville, Upper Arlington, Gahanna, New Albany, Hilliard and Grove City met and "conducted research on best practices across the country, inventoried existing local partnerships and identified new opportunities for partnership on economic growth issues," a staff report to Dublin City Council states.

Columbus initiated the work.

Dublin city manager Marsha Grigsby last week told council members that two items the group has been working on regarding the practice of luring companies from one jurisdiction to another by offering economic incentives - or job poaching - recently were put on hold, while work on other parts of the agreement continue.

According to the staff report to council, the group agrees "that when our jurisdictions are considering job attraction incentives for a company that is currently located within a partnering jurisdiction, we will offer incentives on the 'net new' investment and 'net new jobs' promised by the moving company."

Focusing on new jobs and investment instead of moving jobs from one community to another would be much more lucrative, "thus saving all communities financial resources," the report said.

Grigsby said, however, a problem could arise from focusing on incentives based on income-tax performance. Dublin often utilizes income-tax performance incentives.

According to Grigsby, an agreement focusing on income-tax-based incentives would put Dublin at a disadvantage compared to other communities that don't use incentives based on income-tax performance.

The group also has made progress on a part of the anti-job poaching agreement that would penalize a city that lures existing jobs from another by making them share revenue with the negatively impacted community.

The items previously discussed that were put on hold include a way to make development and redevelopment sites job ready with appropriate site improvements and infrastructure, and the adoption of incentives, policies and programs to better position communities for redevelopment.

Grigsby said the group is expected to meet this week to continue work on the policy.

"We'll try to identify issues and different concerns," she said.

Council members previously have voiced concerns about signing an anti-job poaching agreement, and said cities should be able to utilize incentives to improve the income of their community.