Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

ECONOMIC-DEVELOPMENT TALKS

Pickerington officials balk at $1.5 million fee

Friday, June 23, 2006

Kirk D . Richards

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH





Some Pickerington officials are wondering aloud whether talks on an economic-development agreement with Canal Winchester and Violet Township have been a waste of time.

Representatives of the three neighboring jurisdictions have been meeting for eight months on a plan for sharing income-tax revenue from business developments in the township and ending the long battles over annexations.

But on Tuesday night, Pickerington City Councilman Jeff Fix made it clear to his colleagues that their city would not be invited into a cooperative economic-development agreement that Canal Winchester and Violet Township established about six years ago.

One major hang-up is the two want Pickerington to pay a $1.5 million fee to join.

''I?’m not in favor of continuing talks,'' Councilman Ted Hackworth said. ''We?’ve got areas we?’re trying to develop right in Pickerington. It could be a strain for us to try to do both.''

Councilman Michael Sabatino said the time to pull out of talks has probably come.

''We need to focus on developing ourselves before we worry about cooperation with all these jurisdictions,'' Sabatino said. ''The citizens of Pickerington should be of primary concern.''

Fix contends that continuing the talks is in the best interest of Pickerington residents. He thinks a pact with the village and township over sharing income-tax revenue in the 1,200 acres of township land in the agreement could enhance the city?’s commercial base and ease the tax burden on its property owners.

''Our tax base is so imbalanced that it makes it hard to enjoy living here,'' Fix said.

Council President Brian Wisniewski hasn?’t given up on the concept behind the talks but is less optimistic about the potential results.

''We?’ve been spinning our wheels for several months,'' Wisniewski said. ''Those talks failed to produce anything for the city of Pickerington.''

Hackworth says the $1.5 million fee doesn?’t give the city credit for its contributions to help develop the 1,200 acres covered by the agreement. The area straddles Diley Road from Rt. 33 to Busey Road.

''We supply water to that area,'' Hackworth said. ''We?’re widening Diley Road (from two lanes to five), which is providing access to the area.''

Violet Township Administrator Bill Yaple said the fee is reasonable, given all the investment that the township and Canal Winchester have made to an area that now has more than 10 businesses, including the profitable Nefco Corp., an automotive parts manufacturer.

krichards@dispatch.com

Move on

''Our tax base is so imbalanced that it makes it hard to enjoy living here,'' Fix said.


Move on Dude!

The PATA bias is still there?

Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance
Merger Costly for Pataskala, Bold Moves for Picktown Next?


Pataskala merged with Lima Township


The City of Pataskla taxpayers face an uncertain situation as their merger with Lima Township has proved to be costly as the years go by. Municipalities are required to maintain state roadways within their boundries (Townships are not) and this is projected to be costly for Pataskala as they do not currently have a municipal income tax in place to support growing city needs. See the Dispatch article link below for more information.

As the City of Pickerington officials continue to publically speak in disgust about perceiving themselves not to be considered a part of Violet Township anymore due to the recent CEDA vote by the Trustees to enter into an agreement with Canal Winchester, PATA asks the question....Is the city considering forming its own Township for all lands annexed into the city, effectively removing them from Violet Township and if so, what will this cost the taxpayers of the city? How much does it cost to form your own fire department and equip and staff it to the excellent standards that we enjoy from Violet Township Fire Services?

Please keep in mind that in this Violet Township community of approximately 28,000 residents, that only approximately 9000 of these residents live within the municipal boundries of the City of Pickerington. Of course with all of the thousands of planned housing units on the books in the city, this number is sure to increase, but will it be cheaper to live in the city than right next door in the unincorporated part of the Township?

It is believed by some that the city choosing to take on more infrastructure responsiblities by such bold moves would be costly and difficult to do considering the city currently struggles to maintain the infrastructure it already has in place.

Columbus Dispatch Article on Pataskala
Dispatch.com

PATA was used by the Township

Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance
Amended Violet Township - Village of Canal Winchester CEDA



Revised CEDA text available at Township & Village Offices
As comments and concerns were mentioned in the proceeding weeks and also the March 1st Public Hearing, the proposed CEDA between Violet Township and the Village of Canal Winchester now has the following revision draft. An April 16th letter from Violet Township Officials to City & County Officials included the following cooperative statement -

''In an effort to move the idea of a CEDA between Fairfield County, the City of Pickerington, the Village of Canal Winchester and Violet Township forward, both the village and the township invite you to a meeting to be held April 23 at 9:30 a.m. at the Violet Township Offices at 12970 Rustic Drive in Pickerington. We hope to continue productive discussions on how we can structure a truly regional CEDA.''

This idea was promptly, publicly rebuked by Council members at the Pickerington City Council meeting held on April 17th.

City Residents receive a letter from all 7 Council Members
In a letter dated April 12th and received by city residents April 18th, all 7 Council Members stated:

Dear Fellow Pickerington Residents:

s a Pickerington, Violet Township and Fairfield County resident, you have a stake in the ongoing debate over two separate Cooperative Economic Development Agreements, or CEDA?’s. offered to Violet Township. Canal Winchester, in Franklin County, and two Violet Township trustees have agreed to consider a CEDA for acreage in Fairfield County adjacent to Pickerington, Canal Winchester and Route 33. At the same time, the Fairfield County commissioners are considering an annexation request that would assign land in this same area to Canal Winchester.

As your elected officials, we are deeply concerned about the long-term effects of these proposals and how they could negatively impact our community.

As you know, commercial and industrial developments, especially along the Route 33 corridor between Columbus and Lancaster, will result in new tax revenue for the municipalities and other local governments on which they are built. We believe that development in Fairfield County should benefit Violet Township, the City of Pickerington and the Pickerington school district.

Consider for a moment the two CEDA proposals:

1. Under the terms of the Canal Winchester CEDA, property adjoining Pickerington along Route 33 would be annexed into Canal Winchester which is in Franklin County. Violet Township would receive a share of the income tax revenue generated by future development. Pickerington would be required to provide utilities to the annexed properties but would not receive any tax revenue generated. In addition, Canal Winchester has planned for over 100 acres of high-density residential development in the annexation area covered by the CEDA.

2. The CEDA proposed by the City of Pickerington would bring commercial development sites into Pickerington. Violet Township would receive a share of tax revenues generated from any future development.