Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

In my humble opinion, there are essentially two deal breakers with Fix?’s economic cooperation deal.

First is the annexation issue. How can he hamstring only the city of Pickerington, to whom he is under sworn oath to serve and protect, with the denial of our ability to grow? No other bordering entities are subject to the restriction. Canal can annex all they want of Violet Township. So can Columbus. Who else can? Anyone but Pickerington. I personally believe that there is a sweet deal contingent on the city/township agreement being signed. Aside from the obvious Yaple Farms deal previously brought to light here, someone else stands to make a bundle if this agreement is signed. Both of other trustees or their families own land in or near Canal. I suspect that an agreement already exists that as soon as the city/township deal is signed you will see a huge announcement of an agreement between Canal and the township either expanding the current CEDA or creating a new one that encompasses the entire area from the current CEDA acreage along both sides of 33 to Allen Road, at least. None of this will include Pickerington. Look at the posting in the PDF section from January, 2001 and you?’ll get an idea of what is happening behind the scenes. What other reasons could there be for Fix being so relentless to get this on the October council agenda? Does he have insider information as the fourth trustee that makes this deal have to happen now with little regard for our city?

Do any of you remember the deals that arose from the sale and rezoning of the Diley Farm? Do any of you remember how much money some locals made in the Preston Trails area? It was enough for some former local public officials to purchase million dollar buildings after they left office. The minimum down payment required for the purchase of these properties was at least $250,000. It was all rush rush and not allow time for public consumption of the terms of the deal. Fortunately the citizens rose to challenge but alas, the city denied the citizens their rights. Are we simply heading down a well traveled road again with deals down along 33?

The other deal breaker is that neither Fix nor the township have provided sound (or any) financial data to prove their claim that entering into this agreement is a financial win/win for both parties. In my experience, and I am sure yours, an economic agreement carries with it potential and forecasted gains and expenditures for each side in the agreement. Unfortunately, Fix may appear to all of us as a used car salesman, but he has nothing to sell us but words. The same for the trustees. Gentlemen, if this is such a good deal for all of us, please take the time to show us the data that proves it. The burden of proof lies squarely on you. Each side in the agreement will be expected to invest an equal amount of dollars and each side will expect to reap an equal amount of the profits, right? You all certainly wouldn?’t sell us something that the city pays for and the township reaps the profits, now would you? Of course not. All we want is proof. You owe us proof and we demand it. Stop telling us it is a good deal and PROVE IT.

Our right to govern ourselves

Anonymous, you should also have addressed commercial development. You addressed this clause:

WHEREAS, the Parties to this Agreement have determined that it is in the best interest of both Violet Township and Pickerington, as well as the community as a whole; and

You are asking for documentation that the Parties provide to the public the data proving that our best interests are indeed best for us.

It is written that all commercial development will be put into a JEDD or other agreement. Don?’t the landowners have a say in that? What if the landowners refuse? Do you all say ?“Darn it?” and move on? What if the landowner is a Mr. Yaple or Dunlap or Myers and they refuse?

1. For any agreement that is executed, Pickerington and Violet Township, agree to share equally, along with any other agreed upon political subdivision partner (unless otherwise negotiated) all tax proceeds from the agreement remaining after any expenses (i.e. initial administrative and legal expenses of agreement creation, as well as annual administrative, marketing, maintenance, and infrastructure improvement costs on a negotiated amortized basis) of the agreement;

Here we agree to share our tax proceeds but so we share costs?

Anyway, back to commercial development. If the city cannot annex a property that will be developed commercially, the city cannot assess impact fees. If you were a developer and you wanted to build in this area, and you were offered the choice of developing in the city and pay impact fees or in the township and not pay the fees, where would you go? Naturally you would o into the township. But then if an agreement is in place, all your employees have to pay income taxes. But wait, the township can?’t provide infrastructure so if you develop in the township you have to pay to play. But wait, if you look for the city to annex and they can provide infrastructure then you might go there. But wait, the city cannot annex so forget about it and go elsewhere. These people don?’t have their heads on straight so why mess with them?

Effectively under this agreement the township has a say in all commercial development the city looks at. What a sweet deal for our new Economic Development Director. Sorry, Timmy, YOU?’RE FIRED. We don?’t need you because we have the trustees to lead us. Hey Doug Blake and Tory Kramer and the gang ?– YOU?’RE FIRED. We don?’t need no steenking planning and zoning commission. The township already has one and we saw their stellar performance on the Wal-Mart deal up by North. Who needs you when they can pack the crowds in the way they do?

See what I am saying here? Under this agreement we are effectively giving up our rights to govern ourselves. Future commercial development is the lifeblood of this city and we are bleeding out to the township. We won?’t need no steenking city hall or council or anything. Let?’s cut to the chase in all this crap and just unincorporate the city. Let?’s turn the reins over to our beloved trustees.
Back to the giving up our rights to govern ourselves statement, it?’s kind of funny that just the other day my sister was dining at a local establishment and was seated behind one of our beloved bald trustees and he was essentially make the same observation. Something along the lines of ?“When these idiots finally sign, and they will, WE GOT ?‘EM?”

Tell them your feelings

I believe if this piece of crap passes by the four to three votes and those four have already have agreed there will be a law suit filed soon after the passage.

I would also see a referendum being circulated soon after passage.

I am told that not only did Trustee Fix not provide supporting data but he made wholesale changes to the document after the Law Director had added his amendments. This documents is wholly Trustee Fix's creation. I understand changes were made and presented to the Finance Committee 24 hours prior to the September 21st Finance meeting and on the 21st the Law Director was still reviewing the document. Cleary Trustee Fix is a danger to not only himself but this community.

I would recommend emailing Cristie Hammond and Keith Smith to ask their position on this document that will tie the city's hands for the next 30 years. I would give you Heidi's email but she wouldn't read the document anyway.

chammand@pickerington.net

ksmith@pickerington.net

Existing Preannexation Agreement

To the trustees who are running our city and their proxies:

Correct me if I?’m wrong, but didn?’t council pass numerous pieces of legislation to settle a lawsuit with the township regarding two annexations ?– one up north and one down south (the infamous 316 and 362)?

Correct me if I?’m wrong, but didn?’t the preannexation agreements (a legal contract) with the landowners require the city to aggressively pursue the annexation of the properties?

Correct me if I?’m wrong, but isn?’t the city legally and contractually bound to pay all legal expenses on behalf or the landowners to conduct the annexations?

Correct me if I?’m wrong, but if 4 members of council approve the economic agreement with the township and give up the city?’s right to annex, would that not constitute a breach of contract with the aforementioned landowners?

Correct me if I?’m wrong, but aren?’t there penalties spelled out in state law that will be imposed if elected officials of a municipality enact legislation that violates the law?

So I say let these 4 people follow trustee Fix and his handlers blindly and violate the law and breach the contract already set in stone with the landowners. Once the vote is taken, all necessary evidence will be in place to begin an immediate recall process and recall election.

The city residents pay about $200,000 a year from our taxes to the township for ?“Administrative Fees?”. The township then uses this money to pay lawyers to sue us and then we have to appropriate more money to defend ourselves from the lawsuits we already pay for. Now the trustees and their 4 minions on city council and the township mayor want us to breach a contract with the landowners covered in the preannexation agreements wherein we will be forced to pay all their legal costs for them to sue us and then pay above and beyond our contractual costs for the city law director to defend ourselves against lawsuits we are already paying for.

I?’m dizzy from this. I want to know, nay, I demand to know why the City Manager is allowing any of this to happen. I demand to know why the City Law Director is allowing any of this to happen.

Obviously trustee/councilman Fix has no regard for the law as evidenced in his written admission to violating the Sunshine LAW (not sunshine recommendation). Doesn?’t the City Manager of the City Law Director have some regard for the law in not breaching contract and putting us in a position to pay to both sue the city and pay to defend against those suits?