|
|
Two Agreements in the paper can confuss the average reader. It can confuss people on what they are voting on. Many involved should bring it down a notch, and explain to the readers what is really going on, if they still get to vote, and what each agreement means.
People need to know that if they vote for the city retaining it's rights, it can and will cancel out the over priced agreement with the trustees. That agreement is still out there and not being discussed in order to confuss the residents on which agreement has passed and which is still out there waiting to take the city's rights for 30 years.
Step up to bat and explain the situation to all readers. That Agreement with the trustees is just waiting in the wings for that moment when no one is watching, then quick in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A long way to go
You use the word agreement in your posting a couple of times. Certainly the newspaper reporters understand the word agreement. Sometimes when the reporter writes his/her article they tend to leave out important details. Agreements become agreements when they are executed. They are executed when they are signed by the authorities?’ of each party.
In the case of Pickerington, the City Council passed an MOU. That ordinance on March 20th only authorized the City Manager to sign the MOU when the other parties have also passed this ?“SAME?” MOU. If the wording of this MOU is changed by one of the other parties then they must come back to the council to amend or not to amend and vote again. Hopefully we had the professionals and the lawyers work out all of the bugs PRIOR to voting. I also believe that this MOU could be the subject to a referendum until April 20th or there abouts.
So to answer the first question is the Pickerington City Manager will be authorized to sign the five party MOU after April 20th 2007 if no referenda are filed and circulated. So far I have not heard of anyone filing a referendum. In the meantime, the other four parties must get the MOU passed by their legislative authority and then that agreement will be signed by all parties thus making it an effective agreement.
In many ways this appears to be a victory for the minority members of council. It will force all five parties to enter into ?“talks?” if a commercial development were to materialize. I think at that point it would be a hard sell to say to Pickerington that you must agree to different terms than the other two municipal parties.
The next issue on the docket is the Master Economic Development agreement passed by City Council on January 2nd 2007. The ordinance passed authorized the Pickerington City Manager to sign an agreement based on the wording presented to council that evening. That ordinance and that agreement are the subject of a referendum. So the effective date of that ordinance and that agreement and its wording of January 2nd will not become effective until after the November election and after the board of Elections certify those election results. If the voters turn it down then it never becomes effective.
The options before council are: they could amend the wording on the document/agreement and then vote to amend the ordinance thus making the November election null and void. This agreement is in conflict with the MOU and here again it would be a hard sell on the part of the Council Majority to get this passed one more time before November. However with that said we have seen previous councils knowing that their collective power was about to be curtailed vote anyway. (See the fall of 2002).
|
|
|
Slow down for the turn on May 8
The third issue in play is the citizen?’s initiative. So that we are clear I have transcribed the wording below:
?“Section 2.10 Preservation of Rights to conform Township Lines to Municipal Limits
The rights of Citizens of the City of Pickerington or of the Pickerington City Council to change or seek to change the township lines in order to make them identical, in whole or part, with the City?’s municipal corporations limits or to erect a new township out of a portion of a township included within the municipal corporation limits or to annex or seek to annex territory to the City shall not be encumbered or relinquished for any period of time by any act of the Council?”
This will basically remove from the table the terms that so often lately are showing up in these PROPOSED agreements between the City of Pickerington and Violet Township. If the voters approve this charter amendment it will basically gut the current Master Economic Development agreement between the City and the Township and the one being referred.
It will also gut the pre-annexation agreement that is tabled in Finance between the City and the Township. That annexation could still go forward but the City would not be giving away its future tax dollars for no services in return.
If this initiative passes and the Charter is amended it will put to rest these unreasonable demands placed on the City leaders and those types of demands that have been ongoing for a long time. Pickerington will then need to be treated like an equal partner at the table instead of the scapegoat when the Trustees go off on their own. I will have more to say about the charter amendment the closer we get to the election.
Finally before Finance is a pre-annexation agreement for 3.3 acres on Wright Road. In that agreement the township wants the City to pledge not to remove any territory from the township and they want 40% of the future income tax dollars for this parcel. They are not providing any services for their cut. If the initiative does pass it will limit this pre-annexation agreement and probably render it null and void.
So the key here is if the Citizen of Pickerington pass the proposed Charter Amendment on May 8th a good douse of reality will be injected into the Mayor and some majority members of council and that also includes the Trustees.
|
