Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Township proposes key changes in joint economic agreement

By DAVID S. OWEN
After taking almost three months to review the city's revised and approved draft of the Master Economic Development Agreement, Violet Township officials and their legal team delivered a revised version of the pact back to the city a little more than a week ago.

Pickerington Development Director Tim Hansley, who has been reviewing the revised version, said there are some changes the township is proposing.

He said one proposed change the township suggests is giving the city 30 days, as opposed to 120 days, to respond, yes or no, to entering into a Joint Economic Development District with the township.

''It looks like they don't want to hold up their ground off the market for 120 days,'' Hansley said.

''I would say 30 days is probably too short, and 120 may be little bit long, so, I guess if we were actually negotiating we could look at somewhere between the two dates,'' he said.

''We're willing to talk about anything, but we picked the number to begin with that is realistic that it can happen once a master agreement is worked out,'' said Township Trustee Terry Dunlap.

''It doesn't take four months to decide 'yes' or 'no,' '' he said.

The township also wants to clarify in its revised version of the agreement how it would share taxes with the city.

In the current city approved agreement the conditions on entering into a JEDD with the township requires the township and city to split the income tax in half.

Hansley said it looks like the township wants to make clear that it is only the income tax it will be sharing with the city and not property tax.

''This means in a JEDD area they would collect all the property tax and we would not,'' Hansley said.

When asked if the township could give the city a share of the property tax, Dunlap said, ''No, because it gets too complicated.''

''If we share property tax, then that means that the people who voted for extra police protection in the city would be sharing police protection money with the township and we would be sharing fire protection money with the city,'' Dunlap said.

''It's not a fair an equitable way to do it because it's harmful to the township and the city residents.

''The only way to do that is through income tax on the new area which doesn't hurt any current residents,'' Dunlap said.

Hansley said he thinks there might be a better deal or compromise to be made when they sit down to negotiate.

Another proposed change the township offered for the agreement is on how expenses would be handled.

The language in the current document says income tax would only be shared after expenses were considered.

''What (the township wants) to do is eliminate or reduce the definition of expenses ... and their point is, if we're allowed to count a whole bunch of stuff in as expenses, then there would be no income tax left to share with them,'' Hansley said.

''What they might be saying is, expenses defined by us could be more than half the income tax.

''So they want to continue to talk about the definition of expenses as we have it, and we'll have to negotiate more,'' Hansley said.

more to come.....

Township proposes changes

''All we're asking is to have a cooperative sharing of what's best to the total community so that we can get some business and some commercial going in this area,'' Dunlap said.

''That will help offset the schools cost of operation with more tax dollars coming in from commercial development, and benefit everybody,'' Dunlap said.

''If we're going to share in the good, we need to share in the bad ... the deal needs to make sense for both of us, or the deal ought not to be done,'' Hansley said.

He said although JEDD laws have changed since he was city manager in Dublin during its massive growth period between 1987 and 2001, the city mainly had ''handshake'' agreements with Washington Township.

''When we annexed land from them, we didn't have resistance from them and they went along with it because they benefited from the growth we were experiencing at the time,'' Hansley said.

Some quotes and comments



3-8-2007


?“Pickerington Development Director Tim Hansley, who has been reviewing the revised version, said there are some changes the township is proposing.?”

NOW the development dude is looking at it? Why is Fix allowing this? Shouldn?’t he be more interested in getting the trustees to vote on it rather then piddling around with simple details?

If the city staff wasn?’t brought in earlier to conduct this review BEFORE council was forced to vote on it, why now? Where are the endless emails from Fix assuring his votes on the trustee board like were published when he made the deals with the council?

Gosh Darn It Fix !! (that?’s for the webmaster) MAKE THEM VOTE!!! We want cooperation at ANY cost. Isn?’t that what the trustees want?




?“ ''I would say 30 days is probably too short, and 120 may be little bit long, so, I guess if we were actually negotiating we could look at somewhere between the two dates,'' he said.?”

NEGOTIATING. What a purely simple and novel concept. Good for you Hansley. You seem to have a firmer grasp on the concepts of running a city than your pathetic boss. What a sorry excuse for a city manager. She is feeble to have let politics rule the day for this long.




?“''We're willing to talk about anything, but we picked the number to begin with that is realistic that it can happen once a master agreement is worked out,'' said Township Trustee Terry Dunlap.?”

Since you are so willing to talk about anything Dunlap, talk about this: WE DON?”T NEED YOU! Talk about how you will function once the city forms its own township. That snowball is rolling faster and growing bigger each and every time your lapdog Owens writes a story.




?“When asked if the township could give the city a share of the property tax, Dunlap said, ''No, because it gets too complicated.'' ?“

Complicated for who Dunlap? Your pea sized brain? At what point did tax sharing become too complicated to be negotiated? Are you saying that this has never been done in Ohio? I hope not because again you would be wrong. Ask Wanda. She seems to be the only one with half a brain in your operation. Ask your buddy Bill. Better yet, ask your fellow Republican bedmate Ed Laramie. If you have the time, Ed has an explanation.




?“''If we share property tax, then that means that the people who voted for extra police protection in the city would be sharing police protection money with the township and we would be sharing fire protection money with the city,'' Dunlap said.

''It's not a fair an equitable way to do it because it's harmful to the township and the city residents.

''The only way to do that is through income tax on the new area which doesn't hurt any current residents,'' Dunlap said.?”

SHARE, SHARE, SHARE!!! Isn?’t that what this gosh darned agreement is all about? The only thing you are willing to share with the city is the air you breathe. It?’s time to be honest with your constituents Dunlap. And that includes us poor city folk. YOU WANT IT ALL. YOU WILL NOT SHARE.


By Posted in wrong thread - SORRY!!

I am on a roll


?“''What (the township wants) to do is eliminate or reduce the definition of expenses ... and their point is, if we're allowed to count a whole bunch of stuff in as expenses, then there would be no income tax left to share with them,'' Hansley said.?”

Well DUH!!!! Try and get this Hansley. They want us to foot the bill for ALL EXPENSES. They want their cut up front based on projections and guesses. They want it all dude.




?“''All we're asking is to have a cooperative sharing of what's best to the total community so that we can get some business and some commercial going in this area,'' Dunlap said.?”

No you moron. All you are asking is that we roll over and beg for your crumbs. You want us on our backs begging you to scratch our bellies just like Fix and Shaver do. Your ?“total community?” exists 100% OUTSIDE the city limits of Pickerington. All you ever want from us is your $250,000 annual extortion fee and our votes AND NOW half our income tax with no expense or effort on your part.




?“''That will help offset the schools cost of operation with more tax dollars coming in from commercial development, and benefit everybody,'' Dunlap said.?”

Don?’t even go there Dunlap. Leave your ?“It?’s all for the kids?” rhetoric to the Weltlich/Reade/Fix Team who are on their quest to Fix Pickerington (no pun intended). It?’s not for the kids, the schools or the city. IT?’S ALL FOR YOU AND YOUR ?“TRUE?” TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS.




?“''If we're going to share in the good, we need to share in the bad ... the deal needs to make sense for both of us, or the deal ought not to be done,'' Hansley said.?”

MY GOSH HANSLEY, what the heck cave have you been living in? THE DEAL IS DONE. By hook or crook, this agreement will never get to the voters. It will be repealed, rewritten to the township?’s specifications and voted on again with the 4-3 success in the bag. Didn?’t you read Fix?’s emails where he tells the trustees and the mayor of Canal that HE HAS DELIVERED?? What you are reviewing on your desk now is just a little bump in the road. It will be overcome because Fix OWNS 4 votes. His three compadres are in this with both feet. If any of them were willing to bite the bullet and change their vote, they had ample times and opportunities to do it. They didn?’t and they won?’t. They are almighty and omnipotent councilmen after all. They are smarter than simple folk like you and me. You are there to be Jumping Judy?’s whipping boy and errand boy to go to the meetings she doesn?’t want to attend and face the residents she can?’t face.

I wish I was a fly on the wall when Jovial Judy reads your quotes. Her freaking head will explode!!!! HOW DARE YOU SAY THE DEAL OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE???? While I appreciate you telling the truth, she will not, that?’s for darned sure. TRUTH IS IRRELEVANT TO HER, pleasing the politicians is her only goal. The city can go straight in the crapper but as long as her masters Shaver and Fix are happy, she?’ll pull the flush handle.



By Posted in wrong thread - SORRY!!