Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

service comm

make money. Mr. Hackworth asked if there were public records at the County about what was happening down there. Ms Gilleland clarified Mr. Hackworth was referring to the existing CEDA area, and stated she did not know what records the County had. Mr. Hackworth stated further some of the infrastructure was not in our school district and he did not know how to protect us in that. He stated Townships can?’t take on debt and he was not sure if we would get generous developers who would build roads for us. Mr. Hartmann stated the agreement is written in very general terms because all it is, is an agreement to establish other agreements. He stated he felt the worst thing you can do is put in to many limitations because these are issues that will be absolutely spelled out in any JEDD or annexation agreement that follows. He stated right now it is virtually impossible to anticipate what is going to go in. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to see the flat out 50 percent off the top removed from this. Mr. Hartmann stated that is certainly an issue to debate. Mr. Hackworth stated one of his proposed amendments addressed this issue. Mr. Fix stated he would request, at this hour, not to debate amendments to this agreement. Mr. Sabatino inquired what the purpose of this discussion was if we were not going to discuss the agreement and how to get where we want to go. Mr. Fix stated he understood when we entered this conversation we would go through the document and clarify things while the law director was here and have questions brought forth, it was not the time to debate the merits of any individual point or any individual amendment proposed. Mr. Sabatino stated he thought the purpose was to discuss the agreement. Mrs. Riggs stated she felt the purpose tonight was to figure out where we are fundamentally with the agreement, not make amendments. She stated she felt some of the key things in the agreement were the duration and giving up the right to annex. She stated if a JEDD is brought to us out of this agreement, and we don?’t like it, we don?’t have to participate in it. Mr. Hartmann stated there is a clause that allows us not to participate in a JEDD if we don?’t want to. Mr. Sabatino stated that is all the more reason we should not enter into a blanket agreement. Mrs. Hammond questioned if this agreement could be worded along the lines that any division of monies would be agreed upon with each individual agreement. Mr. Hartmann stated that is something that can be changed instead of locking in on a percentage. Mr. Sabatino stated we would have no bargaining power at that point, we would be committed for 30 years in this agreement. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we have questions for Mr. Hartmann that is what we should get into, not specific changes. He stated he is hearing a lot of problems with the agreement from a lot of different people on Council, and these changes could be made at a later date. Mr. Hackworth questioned if this agreement has been agreed to by the Township, and Mr. Hartmann stated the Township has not seen this agreement. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we are annexing the land, and we are annexing the roads, and we?’re maintaining the roads, then why are we paying them a fee for something that they are not supporting? Mr. Hartmann stated he did not make any of the policy decisions on this, but there is currently an ordinance in place. Mr. Fix stated that is correct, it is an agreement from 2000 or 2001 that basically said that and they wanted it included here if we gave away taxes. Mr. Hartman stated that ordinance was very general, and Mr. Wisniewski clarified this was an ordinance passed by Council that basically says that the road and bridge levy equivalent will be reimbursed to the Township if they do not oppose us on the annexation. Mr. Hartmann stated Council certainly can revisit this issue. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would

service comm

like to clarify that if this went forward as is, did it base the fees on the approved value of the land or land as it was when it was annexed. Mr. Hackworth stated it was on the approved value. Mr. Wisniewski stated he has a problem with paying service fees on roads that we are maintaining. Mr. Hackworth questioned why the clause was in there that said we agreed not to conform our boundaries and he did not understand why we would give that up. Mr. Fix stated this was an agreement where both parties give things up to improve their situation and Mr. Sabatino inquired what the Township would be giving up. Mr. Fix responded that they would include us in every form of commercial development they do when they don?’t have to do that. Mr. Sabatino stated they are offering us to participate based upon their terms. Mr. Hackworth stated they were offering us to participate in JEDDs, but they were also going to be able to create income tax revenue that they can?’t create on their own. Mr. Fix stated if the Township would do a JEDD with Canal Winchester, twice the income tax would be collected than if they did a JEDD with Pickerington. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was under the assumption that that JEDD was going to be 50-50, and no agreements they have entered into with Canal Winchester to this point has anything that even approached fifty percent. Ms Gilleland stated in a couple of our annexation agreements we have agreed not to conform our boundaries in those areas, and Mr. Sabatino stated those annexation agreements were the ones where we are being sued by the Township.
Mr. Hackworth stated once we enter into this agreement it will be for 30 years, and to terminate it has to be by mutual agreement. Mr. Hackworth stated in most agreements both parties have responsibilities and if either party does not perform as expected you have an escape clause, and this pretty well locks us in for 30 years. Mr. Hartmann stated Council needs to make the policy decision as to whether or not this is appropriate for the City. Mr. Sabatino stated he would like to know if there was any reason this would be advantageous to the City and its taxpayers. Mr. Hartmann stated the one reason he has heard is that it also locks them in so they can?’t enter into agreements with someone else. Mr. Fix stated the thought process behind this was that it would take some time for commercial development to come to this area and if we give up our rights to annex for ten years, and at that point we are just starting to get into the real commercial development, and then they could walk away from the agreement because it says they can. Then we will have given up our rights to annex in return for very little, if anything. Mr. Sabatino stated based on what Mr. Fix had just stated, he was at a loss to reconcile the need for expediency on this. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to know the purpose of the ten-year increments, and Mr. Hartmann stated contracts are usually written with renewal periods, and that is how this has been written. Mr. Hartmann stated if both parties wanted to get out of it before ten years, you could agree to that too. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the problem was that it required both parties to agree because he could not see why the Township would ever agree to get out of a deal like this. Mr. Hackworth summarized that if the Township did not want to get out of the agreement, the City would be stuck for 30 years, and Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct, it would be a binding agreement for 30 years.
Mr. Hackworth ascertained there were no further questions anyone would like to ask the law director at this time. Mrs. Riggs stated for the work session she felt Council should determine what they do not like in the agreement, what they would like to change, and

in their own words

invite the Township to attend as well to get their input. Mr. Hackworth stated once again he had distributed tonight his suggestions for amendments to this agreement. Mr. Wisniewski stated inviting the Township Trustees to discuss issues in the past has been met with less than an enthusiastic response, but he would be very interested in hearing their thoughts. Mrs. Riggs stated she would just like to get all of the input she can get, whether from the law director, city staff, the Township, whatever, so every card is on the table. Mr. Sabatino stated he concurred with Mrs. Riggs?’ suggestion to invite the Township and hopefully all three of them would show up. Mr. Wisniewski asked Ms Gilleland to take care of that and she stated she would be glad to. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt Council should come to that work session prepared and willing to discuss what they want to see out of this agreement, what they want changed and what they find acceptable.
9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mrs. Hammond moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mrs. Hammond voted ?“Aye.?” Motion carried, 3-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 10:58 P.M., October 12, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk