Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

From the SE Messenger.

By Rick Palsgrove
Southeast Editor
Members of the Pickerington City Council finance committee went head to head in a spirited debate on Sept. 21 on the merits of the proposed Pickerington/Violet Township economic development agreement.
The agreement (see sidebar on page 2 of today?’s Southeast Messenger) has been in negotiations since last winter with Councilman Jeff Fix representing the city in talks with the township.
For the agreement
?“I believe this proposal is fair to all involved,?” said Fix.
He said the city has a limited commercial tax base made up of mostly retail and office space and that the potential for bigger commercial growth lies in Violet Township.
?“It would enable Pickerington to participate in the commercial development of non-contiguous land, which we would never have gotten to before,?” said Fix. ?“The thing we have they (Violet Township) want is a promise not to annex. The thing they have we want is land. If we don?’t do this Pickerington will stagnate. The agreement promises peace and prosperity.?”
Fix listed other positive aspects of the proposal including: it would enable the development of the viable U.S. Route 33 corridor in the southeast quadrant of the township; create governmental stability which encourages growth; guarantees equal partnership with the township; and decreases the possibility of more residential development.
Fix said the proposal is designed to attract medical offices and other enterprises with high end salaries, not retail or ?“big box?” developments.
Councilman Keith Smith characterized the proposal as a ?“framework?” for future development.
?“This agreement gets us there. We can say no to any joint economic development agreement we don?’t like,?” said Smith.
Opposing the agreement
Councilman Brian Wisniewski presented a Power Point presentation where he used information from the city?’s Tischler-Bise Land Use Study to illustrate his opposition to the proposal.
?“I?’m not opposed to working with Violet Township, but not at the expense of the residents of Pickerington. This agreement is one sided in the township?’s favor,?” said Wisniewski. ?“We cannot further stress city residents by having them subsidize other government entities.?”
Wisniewski listed several arguments against the proposal including: no other municipality is bound by this proposal and nothing could stop Canal Winchester, Carroll or Baltimore from instituting hostile annexations; no cost/benefit study of the proposal has been made; the proposal would tie the hands of future city councils; no process has been defined as to who determines and tracks costs; no process for solving disputes has been defined; city annexations ?“would be determined by the wishes of the township;?” the proposal could make the city break existing pre-annexation agreements; does not allow the annexation of non-commercial land such as farms, parks, or residential areas; and contradicts codified ordinances.

...

part 2

....

Wisniewski continued to say that a project like the potential big box retail development at Pickerington and Refugee roads would be a losing proposition for the city under the agreement.
?“On such developments over 50,000 square feet we lose money because the services we have to provide will cost more than the tax revenue we would receive,?” said Wisniewski.
He added commercial property that is ?“barely generating positive revenue?” would likely begin to lose money.
?“We?’ll be subsidizing Violet Township,?” said Wisniewski.
Councilman Ted Hackworth said, ?“The cost and requirements of this agreement are more than I?’m willing to pay. We have to protect our borders. We shouldn?’t release our powers to township zoning.?”
Councilman Michael Sabatino, who is not a member of the finance committee, was adamant in his opposition to the proposal.
?“This is the most grandiose, one sided agreement I?’ve ever seen in all my years of doing business,?” said Sabatino. ?“The township wants to control us. We?’re not representing our citizens if we defer to the township. If we do that, why not just unincorporate? The township would be running things any way. Pickerington must control its own destiny and not be in a position to ask the township for permission on decisions that affect city residents.?”
Next steps
Fix asked the finance committee to vote upon the agreement so it could move it forward for full council?’s consideration at council?’s Oct. 3 meeting.
?“We need to move this forward. Time is of the essence,?” said Fix, who hinted other government entities could approach Violet Township if the city failed to act.
Mayor David Shaver concurred saying he did not want to see the agreement bottled up in committee.
Countered Wisniewski, ?“This is the first real debate we?’ve had on this. Why force it through? It?’s too important to just push through something that ties the city for 30 years.?”
The committee decided not to vote on the agreement yet and agreed to continue the debate at a special finance committee meeting on Sept. 25. However, that meeting was cancelled due to a lack of a quorum.
As of the Messenger?’s press time another special finance committee meeting had not been set. The next regular finance committee meeting is Oct. 19, so the issue could be voted on by the committee then and forwarded to council for its Oct. 24 meeting.
If sometime in the future full council were to approve the agreement by a simple majority and not as an emergency, it is conceivable that citizens who oppose the proposed economic development agreement legislation could pursue a ballot referendum and make the legislation subject to a vote of the voters.

Put this on the ballot

The people in the city of Pickerington should be allowed to have theri voices heard on this issue.



By Randy Flagg

Agreed Randy

Councilman Sabatino was called out on this site for the very thing. He took numerous opportunities for trivial matters to demand they go to the voters. Now here we are faced with probably the single biggest issue to face this community for years or decades and may be the biggest for the coming decade and we are stuck relying on a guy who wants to know if you want fries with that setting up our future and selling us out. He was assigned to the position by a guy who runs for his car every time an ambulance goes by. The blind leading the blind. When you have a collective brain trust negotiating this agreement as we have now, I'd have to take a pass on those fries. What pathetic losers we now have running what they claim is the majority of council.