Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Shaver says JEDD agreement will enhance growth
By Patti Wigington

Staff Writer

Pickerington city officials are discussing the prospect of a Joint Economic Development District (JEDD) with Violet Township, and Mayor David Shaver said attorneys are reviewing a JEDD template for further growth around the city.

A JEDD agreement is essentially a cooperative effort between municipalities that allows them to share the benefits and expenses of servicing developments in designated areas. In the past, the city of Pickerington has had an ongoing rift with the township due to disputes over annexation.

Shaver said that a JEDD agreement would allow the city the opportunity for additional income and growth as well as a chance to build a good relationship with Violet Township.

One area being looked at for a possible JEDD agreement is a three-acre parcel on Wright Road, which is slated for development as an office park. Neighbors of the property asked Violet Township officials to turn down a rezoning proposal, but trustees approved the amendment to the zoning code last month.

The creation of a JEDD with Violet Township could lead to Pickerington eventually being included in a CEDA (Cooperative Economic Development Agreement) that already exists between the township and Canal Winchester. Unlike a CEDA, however, a JEDD agreement allows participating entities to expand coverage to include land parcels which are non-contiguous, which provides municipalities with a bit more flexibility.

Other news

?•Shaver presented members of the Tree Commission with a proclamation declaring Arbor Day to be recognized on April 28. Shaver thanked all the volunteers who have contributed to making Pickerington a recognized Tree City by the National Arbor Day Foundation. A tree will be dedicated at the arboretum on Arbor Day at 7 pm in honor of former city services director Frank Wiseman.

?•Pickerington schools superintendent Dr. Robert Thiede addressed council, discussing the need for the upcoming bond issue on May 2. He stated that the 2.3 mill bond issue would generate enough money to build two new elementary schools and provide for significant capital improvements at existing schools.

?•Council approved the construction of a water line along Anita Drive and Willard Drive. The project calls for the replacement of nearly 1,800 feet of 8 inch pipe, and will include house connections and pavement restoration.

?•A contract was authorized with Stillion Brothers to build an emergency water line along Lockville Road. This will allow the city to receive water from Fairfield County in the event of a water emergency.

?•Council members passed legislation for consulting services related to the design and construction of a new one million gallon elevated water storage tank.

?•A contract with Heiberger Paving was approved for the resurfacing of the Sycamore Park tennis courts. The courts will be finished with a synthetic surface that has a 25 year warranty. Work should be completed by July 1.

?•An ordinance regarding stream mitigation at the Ashton Crossing development was tabled, due to ongoing negotiations.

What's in it for the City?

What is with this Mayor of Violet Township and the City residents? He ignores the City?’s residents and agrees with the Township in some kind of deal just to make them happy in the Township. Shouldn?’t this Mayor be looking out for Pickerington before trying to cooperative with its neighbors?

Why does the City need to be cooperative with their neighbors?

It seems the three acres on Wright road is a pain to many of the Pickerington residents living around this project and yet the trustees ignored these residents and rezone the area to commercial and then have the guts to ask the city to cooperate with them the township. In other words, we made the city?’s zoning decisions for them so you reward us for our hard headiness. The Pickerington Mayor wanting desperately to fit in some where then starts talking about how good growth is. Hey Shaver why do you just propose that the City write the Township a check each year and forget about the one sided cooperative aggreements?

Now it appears the City can?’t enter into a CEDA unless they pay the requirement ransoms to the Township.

I SAY LETS WALK AWAY NOW BEFORE WE ARE ALL COMPELETY BUSTED. TO HELL WITH THE JEDD TO HELL WITH THE CEDA.

The City's advisor

Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance Discussions


Letter to Dispatch 12/15/03

12-15-2003
Impact fees only serve to worsen sprawl

Monday, December 15, 2003



Columbus city officials should use the impending discussions of whether to implement impact fees as a dialogue on regional growth issues. If the city implements growth-related impact fees, many other central Ohio communities are sure to follow suit. We need to consider the regional implication of this change in policy and how it will change central Ohio.

Impact fees will accomplish two things: They will raise money for new growth, and they will increase the cost of housing throughout central Ohio. The federal courts consistently have ruled that impact fees must be used to the benefit of those who pay the fees. Impact fees are not taxes that can be spent throughout the city that collects them. So the fees will be spent, by and large, in the newer areas of the city.

The second point is that impact fees increase the cost of housing. Headline writers always get this point wrong when they state in 36-point type, ''Builders to pay impact fees.'' Builders are providing a product for a profit. They roll all their costs into producing that product and set a price. So when the fees go up, so does the price of the new house.

So, as an example, when Columbus implements a $600-per-house fee, Dublin, Westerville and Hilliard are sure to follow with even higher impact fees. Each of those communities will then have the money to build nice roads on the outskirts of town. Commercial development will come soon after the new homes. This sounds a lot like what anti-growth advocates call sprawl.

There is a need for infrastructure capital in central Ohio. But impact fees can be a hurtful tool if they are not a part of a central Ohio growth strategy. Transportation issues, diversity issues, economic development, keeping for-sale and rental housing affordable near employment centers and numerous environmental issues are but a few of the items to be considered when changing a region?’s growth policy.

If these issues are not considered, then impact fees can simply become a way to take care of the more affluent members of society while hurting the less fortunate. I would encourage Columbus leaders to reach out to suburban communities when considering impact fees. It is the perfect time to consider not only how we fund growth but also how we grow as a region.

JOHN McGORY

Westerville