Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

JEDD would include several entities
Thursday, March 8, 2007
By ROBERT PASCHEN, and SEAN CASEY
ThisWeek Staff Writers
After trying to forge an overarching development pact with Pickerington, Violet Township is now reaching out to other municipalities.
Township leaders have proposed a memorandum of understanding with Lancaster and Canal Winchester that would lead to the creation of Joint Economic Development Districts along the U.S. Route 33 corridor. JEDDs are development agreements in which participating entities share the costs and revenues associated with attracting commercial investment to specified tracts of land.
The document states the city of Pickerington would also receive an invitation to sign the agreement, once the other three governments adopt it.
Lancaster City Council heard the first reading of the proposal on Feb. 26. The document has yet to have an official reading in Canal Winchester.
Under the terms of the proposal, all or some of the participating entities would negotiate the formation of individual JEDDs. The parties would then determine how expenses and profits are divided and who will provide services to the areas.
The contract does not, however, preclude the municipalities from forging cooperative development agreements with other parties not included in the memorandum of understanding.
No specific prospective JEDDs are identified in the document, but Violet Township Administrator Bill Yaple said the agreement would help maximize the resources of the region.
According to Canal Winchester Mayor Jeff Miller, the memorandum also could enhance the attractiveness of the U.S. 33 corridor to companies by eliminating complexities associated with determining jurisdictional boundaries, utility provision and taxing authorities for a development project.
''This is an opportunity for a seamless transition for businesses to come in,'' Miller said. ''The JEDD is almost like a single point of information.''
He added that the agreement represents a significant step forward in the cooperation he believes is necessary in order for the area to benefit from the transformation of U.S. 33 into a high-speed, limited-access highway.
''Regionally, we all gain or we all lose,'' he said.
Lancaster Development Director Mike Pettit echoed Miller's optimism for the proposal.
''This is not creating conflict,'' Pettit said. ''This is creating a speedy pathway to getting the job done. Let's try to figure out a win-win and get the jobs here.''
Members of Pickerington City Council said they were unaware of specific negotiations among Violet Township and the other municipalities until late February, more than a month after the body adopted its agreement with the township and more than a year since talks between Pickerington and the township had begun. However, Yaple said the township has considered forging development pacts with Canal Winchester and Lancaster since 2001, when they jointly formed the Route 33 Growth Alliance, a group of public and private entities dedicated to marketing the corridor to commercial developers.
After hearing about the proposal last month, Keith Smith, president of Pickerington City Council, suggested introducing a resolution to rescind the city's agreement with the township. Yet, Councilmen Michael Sabatino and Brian Wisniewski, both opponents of the agreement, rejected the notion, reaffirming support of a pair of citizen petitions they helped circulate this winter.

cont...

Pickerington not considered

The first petition, which has already met legal criteria, will likely place the master agreement between the city and Violet Township before Pickerington voters in November. A second petition to put up for vote a measure prohibiting city council from surrendering the city's powers to annex land or conform its municipal boundaries is in the verification process.
In its agreement with Violet Township, Pickerington agreed not to incorporate residential land or form a ''paper township'' for the duration of the pact, in return for participating in commercial development projects on township parcels.
The first referendum has postponed the effective date of the master agreement until after the November election, and the second could require a revision of the document, if voters approve the deal.
''Would I like to see this go away forever in its current form? Absolutely, but 900 people (who signed the two petitions) in this community have spoken, and they deserve to have their voices heard,'' Wisniewski said.
Councilman Jeff Fix, who negotiated the agreement with Violet Township on behalf of the city, has said the commitments Pickerington made in the contract are necessary to foster trust between the historically adversarial city and township governments, and by doing so, the parties can build a strong partnership for attracting commercial growth.

Double Dealing

This only points out the double dealing that the trustees have been doing for years now and trying to blame the problem of not reaching a deal with the City on the City government. In 2003, basically a new City government was elected and they still failed to reach a deal with the City only this time the documents became public and exposed their double dealing. They were double dealing with Pickerington in 2001 when they signed the CEDA deal with Canal and blocked Pickerington from recovering any revenues on the investments that the City had made on the Water Field and Diley Road ( both of which made the industrial park possible). Again in 2005 they wanted to ?“talk?” with the City to get the City into the current CEDA. New Mayor new government and low and behold the City is rejected in May of 2006 because things were too complicated to figure out. Don?’t let anyone BS you folks that these talks were set up for political cover for the trustees. They wanted to say they tried again but the city was too stubborn to see it our way so we broke off talks. What now comes out is that the trustees were also talking with Lancaster at the same time the were holding talks with Jeff Fix and Shaver. Then they come up with this one sided agreement and I think they thought that the entire city council would reject the agreement and they would be off the hook and able to deal with any body but Pickerington for their proposed future JEDDs. I don?’t think they figured that they would find 4 members of council stupid enough to go along with the deal. Even with this sweetheart deal they still found problems and asked for even more. Lucky for Pickerington the citizens saw into the scheme before the council majority and intervened with their referendum and initiative. Apparently Lancaster spilled the beans in announcing too soon and before they had finished sticking it to the city once more. Now how many lies do we have to catch the trustee in a lie before we look inward and take care of the City taxpayers and not worry about these poorly thought out schemes by the township?

I know those in the township have for years complained that they would never consider a merger with the City. Many of the revenue problems that the township face today could be resolved by a merger and forming a new government. What you and your trustees are doing is dividing up all of the available lands that have any commercial value and they will try to form JEDDs. So instead of keeping the commercial revenues here in the Community like they claim those revenues will be shared with places like Lancaster and Canal. The future patch work of JEDDs around the township will make a future merger impossible. If Dunlap thinks dividing up the revnues with Pickerington would be too complicated then try dividing them up with four or five other cities that have no stake in the welfare of the PLSD. For those that like the rural setting of the township you might want to kiss the vision good by. The trustees have already shown you all how they are very willing to spot zone any property no matter the size or the location. You will get what you desire soon.


By Predictor

Terry Dunlap's ''Gift''

PROPOSAL TO LANCASTER, CANAL WINCHESTER

Violet Township offers tax-sharing

By Kirk D . Richards and Mary Beth Lane
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH


Land along Rt. 33 in Fairfield County that is ripe for development has spurred Violet Township officials to begin talking to Canal Winchester and Lancaster about ways they can share the tax dollars new businesses could pay.
Townships normally can?’t collect income taxes, but they can if they create a joint economic-development district with a city or village. Under such an agreement, for example, income taxes paid by a business in Violet Township could be shared by Lancaster, more than 10 miles away.
The township has invited Canal Winchester and Lancaster to sign an agreement to cooperate, should the opportunity arise to set up a district.
That has upset Pickerington Councilman Michael Sabatino, who thinks those towns are getting a better deal than Picke rington did.
He was on the losing side of a 4-3 vote in which the council gave Violet Township veto power over land annexations for 30 years in exchange for sharing taxes from new businesses that locate in the township. Picker ington also agreed to give the township half the income taxes it collects on commercial land it annexes from the township.
The proposed deal among the township, Canal Winchester and Lancaster, however, says they would agree to negotiate how they would share taxes and costs when a joint economicdevelopment district was created.
There are different agreements for communities that share different relationships, said Mike Pettit, Lancaster?’s economic-development director. ''Sometimes, you get along with someone down the street better than you do with your next-door neighbor.''
Pickerington residents will get to vote in November on the city?’s deal with Violet Township because some who don?’t like what the council did circulated a referendum petition to get it on the ballot. Violet Township hasn?’t approved the agreement, either, and sent it back to Pickerington for revisions at the request of its attorneys.
Township Trustee Terry Dunlap said he doesn?’t understand Sabatino?’s viewpoint.
Much of the land that is ripe for development is in Violet Township, outside any city limits. ''We have the land along Rt. 33, and we?’re offering a gift, and they (in Pickerington ) want to negotiate the terms of the gift,'' Dunlap said. The township?’s goals ''are only to protect our tax base.''
If the township, Canal Winchester and Lancaster all sign what is known as a memorandum of understanding, ''The city of Pickerington will be offered the opportunity to be included as a party,'' the agreement says. The Lancaster City Council is expected to approve the agreement today, and the Canal Winchester Village Council is still discussing it.
Canal Winchester Mayor Jeffery Miller described the agreement as ''fairly innocuous'' because it is not binding, but merely a frame of reference for beginning talks on cooperation.
''We?’re looking at what is best not only for our own communities, but what is best regionally,'' he said.


More ''Gift'' to come...