Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Pickerington council divides on land deal
30-year pact would keep city from annexing some parts of Violet Township
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Kirk D . Richards
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH



An economic agreement that would allow Violet Township to block Pickerington from annexing land for 30 years is headed to the Pickerington City Council.
City administrators recommended reducing the term to 15 years.
But a council committee rejected that.
Administrators suggested that the agreement allow Pickerington to one day split from Violet Township and form its own township.
The committee dismissed that idea, too.
The Service Committee voted 2-1 to send the agreement, with few changes, to the entire council, which is to have its first public reading of the agreement on Tuesday. It could go to a final vote Dec. 19.
The agreement is alarming to some council members, who fear Pickerington will give up its authority to annex residential and agricultural land for decades.
The city could annex commercial land from the township but would have to share half of the income taxes from new businesses.
''This whole agreement is so stupid and one-sided,'' Councilman Michael Sabatino said. ''The staff made recommendations, and I can?’t think of any one of them that was considered.'' The committee is ''intent on forcing this down the citizens?’ throats.''
Sabatino also is frustrated that the Service Committee rejected another change the administration recommended: Instead of paying half the income taxes from commercial land the city annexes, the city would reimburse the township for lost revenues from its road and bridge levy and pay 5 percent of income-tax receipts generated there.
''They chose to go with what the politicians wanted and ignored the trained, professional staff,'' said Council President Brian Wisniewski, who is also against the proposal.
The legislation?’s sponsor, Councilman Jeff Fix, said he remains open to amendments.
''I?’ve worked hard on this,'' Fix said. ''I?’m pleased with the document, but there?’s still room for discussion, and that?’s what we?’ve wanted all along.''
Fix promotes the proposal as a way for Pickerington to increase the city?’s commercial tax base, reduce reliance on property taxes and secure cooperation from the township for the benefit of the entire community.
Wisniewski, however, contends that there are no studies to demonstrate whether the idea would be profitable. He says there are only 42 acres of commercial land available for development and asserts that 30 years is too long to tie the hands of future officials.
Fix is banking on colleagues Keith Smith, Cristie Hammond and Heidi Riggs to give him the four votes he needs on the seven-member council.
''Every commercial annexation, we?’ll share equally,'' Smith said. ''So it makes both of us full partners in finding commercial development, regardless of where it goes.''
Councilman Ted Hackworth, however, notes that nothing would prevent Canal Winchester from annexing commercial land that the city might want during the life of the agreement.
krichards@dispatch.com

The Silent Partners

Yesterday there was concern that idiots like me cut and paste newspaper articles without comment and feel if people are too lazy or too stupid to read the paper then that is their personal problem.

I actually had to do some research on this one. The Service Committee consists of Councilman Hackworth, Councilwoman Riggs and Councilwoman Hammond. Judging by the article as it was voted out of Service on a 2 to 1 vote I assume that Hackworth voted against the agreement and Hammond and Riggs voted in favor of the agreement. So now it moves on to council.

Once in council ?“Fix is banking on Smith, Hammond and Riggs?” to vote in favor of the agreement. I also read a few weeks back that Mr. Fix was wanting to put this agreement in front of council to have full council debate.

What is worrisome to me is that either the Dispatch reporter is only talking to those that oppose this agreement or those that favor the agreement are not responding to questions from the reporter. If this is the former then I am afraid the reporting is being very biased. If it is the latter then I am afraid a majority of our Pickerington City Council is trying to hide something or they have no idea what they are voting on.

Since the article in the Lancaster Eagle Gazette also only highlighted quotes from Mr. Fix then the other three are taking what Mr. Fix says at face value. That is a serious issue and a problem our city has had for years now. Remember when we all complained about the 7 to zero votes time and again prior to 2003? Now we have a 1 to 3 vote with the majority members not talking.

The first question is do these ?“OTHER?” members of council have a responsibility to at least make a statement of why they support this agreement?

Has Mr. Fix instructed ?“HIS?” members to remain silent?

I see that Mr. Smith did venture out on his own and stated that this was a partnership with the Township. I took the liberty to look up the definition of partner and partnership.

?“business associate: an owner of part of a company, usually a company he or she works in, who shares both the financial risks and the profits of the business Encarta ?® World English Dictionary ?© & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.?”

So my first question to Mr. Smith does YOUR agreement fit the definition above?

To Mr. Fix since JEDD agreements are properties developed in the township and they stay in the township how does the JEDD area increase the City?’s tax base?

To Mr. Fix if the city shares all of its future revenue from annexations with the township and in many cases the Township provides nothing to either develop that property to commercial nor do they provide services after development how does this provide an increased city tax base? I believe if you simply look around to the other communities in Central Ohio you will find that most suburban cities have a 2% income tax. How can we out of one side of our mouth talk about increasing the City?’s tax base and then out of the other side say in ?“full partnership?” with the township we give away have of that new revenues? Are you proposing that we make this loss of revenues up in volume?

Finally I believe the reason that this agreement didn?’t move out of Service in October was that Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Hammond wanted to hear staff recommendations. So to councilpersons Riggs and Hammond why do you now ignore those staff recommendations?

What's my line anyway?

?“Fix promotes the proposal as a way for Pickerington to increase the city?’s commercial tax base, reduce reliance on property taxes and secure cooperation from the township for the benefit of the entire community?”

Jeffy what are you smoking. I swear I saw you this weekend selling used cars somewhere. That is such a line of crap!!

Sorry!

I am sorry. I got carried away with my comments. I didn't mean to slander the used car salesmen of the area.