Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Economic pact debate goes on


By Rick Palsgrove
Southeast Editor

Pickerington City Councilman Jeff Fix defended the embattled proposed Pickerington/Violet Township economic development agreement at a special council work session on Oct. 24.

For the proposal
?“Increasing our tax base is the most viable option for our community,?” said Fix before launching into a slide presentation supporting the agreement.

Fix noted the city is not able to pay down its debt nor provide amenities - such as an improved parks system for the residents - under its current financial situation, but added the proposed economic development agreement would help the city grow its commercial tax base.
Fix outlined four potential growth areas identified by the Partnership 2020 report by consultants Mike Arcari and John McGory:

?•An area bounded by Hill Road, Busey Road, Amanda Northern Road, and U.S. 33 that is projected for a mix of light industry, medical, service and office use that could be 100 percent developed in 25 years. (A good portion of which is in the Canal Winchester school district.)
?•Carroll Northern Road from U.S. 33 to Interstate 70 is a projected industrial area that could feed off the Rickenbacker developments.
?•Diley Road from U.S. 33 to state Route 256 for small office, medical, and retail.
?•Refugee Road east and west of current development.

Fix said staying the current course for development planning will not work for the city.
?“Doing what we?’ve always done will get us the results we?’ve always gotten and leave us where we already are,?” said Fix. ?“This agreement is the best opportunity for the city to grow commercially.?”

Fix presented these arguments for the proposal:
?•It will stabilize relations between the city and township and thereby attract development.
?•Allows for annexation agreements for commercial developments on contiguous properties and allows for inclusion in all joint economic development agreements formed by the township in non-contiguous properties.
?•Splits income tax after expenses.
?•Fix said the city will gain potential development opportunities which will benefit the citizens if it gives up its right to annex.
?•Does not allow for conforming boundaries. Fix feels that if the city conformed its boundaries and made a paper township it would be costly to the city and ?“tear our community apart.?”

Against the proposal

Councilman Brian Wisniewski presented arguments against the proposal at council?’s Oct. 12 service committee meeting.

He based his presentation to the service committee on the following established studies: Tischler-Bise Cost of Land Use Study; the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission?’s (MORPC) Traffic Analysis Zones; and the Partnership 2020 report by consultants Mike Arcari and John McGory.

continued...

More Pain...No Gain

Wisniewski listed several arguments against the proposal including:
?•it is a 30 year agreement with no escape clause for the city;
?•would not allow the city to conform its boundaries to remove incorporated areas from the township;
?•townships cannot borrow money so city residents would be responsible for the debt costs to build the infrastructures brought on by development;
?•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;
?•restricts city annexations and that city annexations ?“would be determined by the wishes of the township;?”
?•the proposal could make the city break existing pre-annexation agreements;
?•it does not allow the annexation of non-commercial land such as farms, parks, or residential areas.
Wisniewski also believes, under this agreement, the city would lose revenue on some commercial projects because the cost of providing city services to the developments would be higher than the tax revenue the city could take in.
He also noted, according to MORPC?’s traffic analysis and the Arcari/McGory Partnership 2020 report, there is limited commercial development potential for land along the U.S. Route 33 corridor in southeastern Violet Township.
Other viewpoints
?•Councilwoman Cristie Hammond commented, ?“Maybe we?’re making more of this agreement than we need to.?”
She said the agreement amounts to an ?“agreement to agree?” and that each development opportunity can be looked at on a parcel by parcel basis. She added some Violet Township officials have ?“lead me to believe that if we don?’t come to an agreement soon they will leave us and approach other entities.?”
?•Wisniewski said the city should not give up its right to annex and questioned why the township is insisting on making it a requirement in the agreement.
?“Why would Violet Township care if we annex if we don?’t remove it (the property) from the township??” asked Wisniewski. ?“No one can show me what the township loses if we annex. I want to know why they want this in the agreement.?”
?•City Manager Judy Gilleland suggested that, rather than agree to a ban on annexations, the city could: agree not to annex within a joint economic development district; consider sharing 5 to 10 percent of income tax revenues in annexed areas; and reimburse the township?’s road and bridge funds.
Council will discuss the proposed economic development agreement further at the service committee meeting on Nov. 9 at 7:30 p.m. in city hall, 100 Lockville Road.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Meet Yogi


What?’s really a shame in this article is how Fix compares in the research, analysis and presentation of himself and his side of the argument compared to Wisniewski. Bad move Fix. Before you launch into a tirade about this as you did in the breaking the law thread below, understand this ?– you have been outmanned, outgunned and outclassed.

You really need to sit down and learn the city budget. Granted, this will take you out of your element and your comfort zone with talk, talk, talk and force you to learn, comprehend and then run your mouth. The city budget is what it is. There is X amount of dollars coming in and X going out. Increasing the tax base is but one option you seven have to work with to provide amenities.

Maybe the next time you and the city manager are out getting sloshed in a bar, she can explain the budget and the process to you while your brains are lubed up. You need to learn if the increases in the tax base you ?“think?” may result from giving up the city?’s ability to govern itself can subsidize the amenities you desire in ours or our children?’s lifetimes or the next 30 years, whichever comes first.

I guess you didn?’t send a copy of your presentation to the PATA webmaster to post as someone did Brian?’s so those of us not in attendance at the meeting have to speculate at and rely on the media for what you presented. Did you make citations of studies with an argument to support or refute it like Brian did or did you simply offer your opinion?

You have earned a new nickname with the following statement ?‘?“Doing what we?’ve always done will get us the results we?’ve always gotten and leave us where we already are,?” said Fix.?’ Welcome to the world according to Yogi Fix. I?’ll bet the reporters had to spend an hour trying to figure out what you said in that sentence. It took me a while. Thanks Yogi for offering your opinion unsupported by facts.

Further opinion: ?“It will stabilize relations between the city and township and thereby attract development.?”

Fact: The overall opinion of the township in the commercial development community is twofold. On one side you have those who think they?’re dealing strictly with yokels and the recent fiasco with the big box out by North proves it. You now have the same fodder for jokes being made about them in their professional circles as Gilleland gives other city management professionals in their circles. Also, it is an opinion that this will stabilize relationships. Did you make any citations where anyone from the development community validated your opinion? No, because it?’s not true. Commercial development in the city is on the rise both in quantity and quality. That is thanks to the P and Z commission and their professionalism not the state of affairs of two governments. The developers know the ground rules before coming to the city and they comply. The cooperation or friendliness of the governments of the city and township are irrelevant. For each commercial venture you need a customer base. Pickerington provides the customer base irrespective of who governs who.

More Yogi to come.....

More Yogi Fix


Opinion: ?“Splits income tax after expenses.?“
Fact: Despite numerous repeated requests and even please for data to document the expenses to be incurred by the city, there is no basis to use splitting income tax as a positive for the city. Since only the city can borrow money there is a huge risk that the city will incur much more, if not all of the expenses. Therefore, only the township will benefit from split income taxes given their low to no expenses. Hey Yogi, explain again how this benefits the city you swore to serve!

Opinion: ?“Does not allow for conforming boundaries. Fix feels that if the city conformed its boundaries and made a paper township it would be costly to the city and ?“tear our community apart.?”?”

Fact: This community is united by two bonds, a zip code and a school district not their friggin governments. Read Patriot?’s postings.

Opinion: ?“Fix said the city will gain potential development opportunities which will benefit the citizens if it gives up its right to annex.?”

Fact: Yogi, the operative word here is ?“potential?”. How about for once in your snake oil salesman life, give us some concrete substantiated data that proves your point? Potential developments opportunities mean as much to this city as you potentially ever getting reelected. Read that citizen?’s comments in last week?’s papers about a pig in a poke. Your only certainty in this ?“deal?” is giving up rights of the city in exchange for potentially getting something in return. Lie my grand daddy used to say, ?“Son, I got some beachfront property in Kansas I can sell you real cheap.?”

I am out of space and out of time.

Yogi Fix, go on down to Ricart Ford and work there. That is where your ?“We?’re Dealin?’?” approach to dealing away the city?’s future will be appreciated.