|
|
record pg 5
The next comment I made in the 2002 posting ?“I would call on them to work with Canal Winchester and use the sewer capacity that they have agreed to provide to Pickerington residents. I would call on them to work with Fairfield County utilities to provide sewer capacity to these newly annexed areas. These two mentioned entities already have there plants in place?“.
One of my first days on office in 2004 I meet with the acting City Manager Frank Wiseman and this is much of what we talked about. After over a year of negotiating the City did adopt a new 208 plan which outlines the different areas of the township where the City will provide sewer service in the future. This plan was filed with the OHIO EPA early in 2006. Unfortunately Canal Winchester declined to sign on to the agreement but we are hopeful they will sign into the agreement once a couple of court cases are settled, in the Ohio Supreme Court.
When we took office we were faced with a massive expansion of the Pickerington waste water plant. It would have nearly tripled the size of our current plant. The cost would have required us to sell over 300 sewer taps each year to pay the mortgage. If you are that interested, Mr. Saunders, please lookup the Council minutes from May of 2004 I lead the way in killing that plant expansion. Later in 2004 we (Mayor Shaver, Brian Wisniewski, and myself) met with the Ohio EPA to tell them of our decision. They pledged to work with us in this effort.
Later in 2004 we commissioned a study from R D Zande to do a stress test on the current plant. This test determined that we could actually process up to 1.6 MGD per day and still remain within the limits of our NPDES permit. In early 2005 they allowed us to amend the rating on our permit to the 1.6 MGD. Why is this significant? It allows us to sell more tap fees to pay more debt down before expanding and it keeps the future debt lower than we would have had in 2004 if we have gone with that plant expansion as planned. That means we will not be under the gun or have pressure on us to sell more sewer tap fees than our infrastructure like schools can handle in the future.
I have worked two years to get the Utilities Fee Commission established and under way. We had our first meeting almost a year ago and now sitting on the agenda of the Finance committee is an ordinance to raise the water and sewer rates. One reason to sell the policy of uncontrolled growth is that we can?’t pay our bills without 300 or more sewer taps each year. Hopefully we will do away with the use of that excuse before I leave office.
So what I was saying in 2002 I have followed through on.
By Ted Hackworth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Record pg6
I would ask that the city contact the township to find and work out a similar development area (CEDA type) within the PLSD for commercial development. I also call on the City of Pickerington to call a MORITORIUM on new housing starts for the next two years (2002).
First the CEDA. As many of you know the City passed an MOU late last year to enter into talks with Canal Winchester and Violet Township to become a partner in the CEDA currently between Canal and Violet Township. Initially the City manager and I were members of the city negotiating team. In February the Mayor threw the City Manager and I off the team and he went solely with Councilman Fix.
In late May we were told that Canal and Violet would not allow us to be their partner in the current CEDA. If they changed their minds it would cost the City of Pickerington $1.5 Million cash up front to enter. This by the way never came to council so all I can say is that what every the offer was or maybe still is only few people know what was in the offer. The City Council did not have the opportunity to look at or discuss the decision made by either the Mayor of Councilman Fix.
I would support a CEDA agreement if one existed that was fair to the City. Here again I have not seen anything close to a CEDA and when I suggested it to a township trustee a few months, I got my head bit off with ranting and raving for 20 minutes. This is going to take a lot work before we can move on this.
This statement about the moratorium was my private citizen support of then Councilman David Shaver who had presented a one year moratorium in service and the Chairman was sitting on it. It took until March of 2003 before it got to council. I did circulate a two year moratorium in 2003 only to find yet another technicality which prevented it from making to the ballot.
As you all may know the BIA sued the City in November of 2003 and the one year moratorium was one the their issues. If you remember I did sponsor an extension (Check the minutes) of that one year moratorium in July of 2004 but we reached a deal with the BIA to not extend it in exchange for them not dumping housing starts on us. I am not sure they lived up to their side of the bargain but we did. One problem we have is that the builders of Sycamore Creek and Fox Glen have a sewer agreement with Canal Winchester and they must sell at least 100 sewer taps each year to get credit back for the $ 6 Million they advanced to Canal to provide sewer service to southern areas of Pickerington. This has put additional pressure (like what I was trying to avoid with the Pickerington Sewer Plant) to sell more homes that are connected to the Canal sewer system. They have three and half years before we are can impose another moratorium and I am hopeful we will have gotten rid of the un-controlled growth by then.
By Ted Hackworth
|
|
|
Record pg 7
I call on the Violet Township Trustees to do a study and report to the public about the possibility of forming a HOME RULE TOWNSHIP or some call it a CHARTER TOWNSHIP. Each time I have tried to find a way to control our growth, in the township, I run into the antiquated zoning code and the Township?’s lack of power in enforcing any kind of growth plan.
Yes the Township residents did vote to form a Limited Home Rule Township and my disappointment is NOW PLEASE USE IT! I hope it was not at my suggestion but that they felt a real value or that it could improve their local control. To date, I am not aware of them embracing their newly found powers.
They refuse to impose impact fees or any kind of other residential growth control. So if we don?’t as a community plug the holes in our housing system then once the housing market recovers you will see that growth move outside the City?’s boundaries.
?“I would call on them to STOP their aggressive annexation polices.?”
I have not advocated aggressive annexations in the two and half years that I have been in office. I doubt I will change that any time soon. As you know Mr. Saunders, about the time I was writing this 2002 posting I was fighting to get on the ballot issue 19. I had started running those citizens initiative in 2001 and the first petitions we turned in were rejected because the wording on the petitions were not correct. Even thought the Secretary of State indicated they would accept them. We then went back to the Citizens with a second petition to restrict using the emergency powers of City Council in ANNEXATIONS and ZONINGS. In 2005 I supported Mr. O?’Brien effort to once again put his on the ballot to amend the City Charter that would prohibit passing ANNEXATIONS and ZONINGS as emergency. We couldn?’t get the required five votes to place it in the ballot. There is a charter review commission being worked on and hopefully this issue will be considered. If they choose to include this restriction on annexations I would support it.
Now Mr. Saunders maybe it is time you show yourself and tell us who you really are. Yet with all of the work I have done over the last five or six years I have never seen your name or even seen where you were registered to vote. If you have ideas that might help lets hear them. Trying to bash what I am saying or talking about gets us no where. Trying to restate what I am saying to fit your argument of stay the course isn?’t getting it my mind when our school levy is up for the fifth time now and I am hearing absolutely NO IDEAS coming from anyone. Only nay Sayers.
By Ted Hackworth
|
|
|
Record pg 8
Now Mr. Saunders lets talk JEDDs which was left out of 2002 posting because at the time JEDDs were not being talked about because they had so many problems.
Basically a JEDD is an agreement between the City or municipalities, the Township and a land owners. Normally in Ohio you will see remote large tracts of land in a township doing JEDDs because being a Township is very restrictive on what they can and can not do.
Lets talk about the 3.3 acres on Wright Road. This 3.3 acres is basically inside of a residential development. A few months ago the current owners were riding their dirt bikes and it was a Sunday afternoon and they were making a lot of noise. The residents called the City Police Department and since it was in the township they had no authority to enforce our ordinances and laws on these people in the township. The resident then call the Sheriff. They would not come out because they were a city resident this same city resident who pays taxes to the county and part of his salary. So the current bikers stood on their side of the fence in a close neighborhood and continued to ride their bikes. Late I was told that the County Sheriff department can not enforce the noise ordinance because the noise ordinance was written specially for the night club down near US 33 and it only pertained to ?“EVENING HOURS.?” The township can only their regulations with civil actions.
The residents complained about the loading and unloading of trucks during the evening hours. The Township placed a covenant in the deed and the citizens mush hire an attorney to file a civil action against the offender and obviously the truck will be gone before the motion ever reaches the court room.
Clearly the City and her taxpayers have made that property more valuable by widening Diley Road. Now before that project even begins the township is busy rezoning with out ever listening to the City residents.
So why does the township need a municipality to partner with in these JEDD agreements?
First there is the income tax and that is probably the biggest issue they need. Then we hear they want to partner with Canal because they have a 2% income tax and we all know 2% is more than 1%. If they truly (Violet twp) want to work with Pickerington then wouldn?’t be logical to find a way to help Pickerington get a 2% income tax and help our schools by lowering property taxes?
One issue that came up with the recent TIF was the Trustees complaining about the impact our TIF would have on ?“OUR?” Fire Department. Here is a second reason for the township to work with the city in getting a 2% income tax.
It was reported today in the Southeast Messenger that the current Violet Township Fire department budget is at $7.1 Million and the fire levy revenues were at $6.3 Million. In 2003 the fire department budget was coming in under their revenues. Clearly they are working out of their reserves right now and they will need a renewal levy very soon. When will they need a renewal? Will it be 4 mill? 5 mills? How will this affect the school levies? Aren?’t they do for renewals also?
By Ted Hackworth
|
