PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2008
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
PUBLIC HEARING
7:30 P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED JOINT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (JEDD) AGREEMENT
Mayor O’Brien opened the public hearing at
7:30 P.M. with the following members present:
Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino,
and Mayor O’Brien. Others present were: Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Rocco Sabatino,
Bill Yaple, Nick LaTorre, Rachel Scofeld, Mayor Mike Ebert (Canal Winchester),
Al Schrader, Chris Strayer, Gary Weltlich, Tony Barletta, Tony Vogel, Gregg
Bigus, William Arnett, Mayor David Smith (Lancaster), and others.
Mayor O’Brien stated this was a continuation
of the Public Hearing held on January 15, 2008, and ascertained three
individuals would like to address this issue.
Mr. Tony Vogel, Utilities Director for
Fairfield County. Mr. Vogel stated he
would like to thank the Mayor and Council for continuing the public hearing and
providing an opportunity for individuals to address this issue. He stated when he first looked through the
JEDD document it was purely for utilities purposes as Fairfield County is the
provider in the area. He stated as he
looked through it further, however, he found several concerns he would have if
he were a member of Council. He stated
the document that Council is considering is a 100 year document, the first part
goes until 2040 and then two consecutive 30 year terms; the document would be done
in 2100, so Council needs to get it right.
He stated if it is not right some entities could be losing a lot of
money, and the decision to terminate the document, if it is not right, has to
be unanimous by all five members. Mr.
Vogel stated there were a few items that need to be looked at in the JEDD
itself. He continued as Mr. Sabatino had
stated at the earlier public hearing, the majority of the property owners can
pull in other property owners, and you need to look at the 2006 judgment on
eminent domain, where the Courts lie with property rights. He stated if two property owners pull a third
property in, he felt there would be a legal battle. Mr. Vogel further stated another area of
concern was that all parties would pay to fight any annexation. Mr. Vogel stated Lithopolis is not far from
the area and could annex an area, and also the Village of Carroll. He stated again, you have to look 100 years
into the contract. Mr. Vogel stated
further the JEDD member board is set up to have a member from the owners and a
member from the working groups. He
stated you could have 100 acres of a variety of businesses represented by
perhaps the first business owner in the JEDD.
Mr. Vogel further stated this is in Fairfield County’s 208 area, it is
their service area, and they intend to service it. He continued that with regard to tax
incentives, if neither Township wanted to provide a CRA or tax incentive, all
parties have to agree on it. He stated
this could be an issue if a company competing to go into Canal Winchester or
the JEDD; it wouldn’t be in Canal Winchester’s interest to approve a CRA or a
tax incentive. He stated other concerns
he had would be the two percent income tax that is in the area, and 70 percent
of that money is not even seen by the business owners; it is going to somewhere
other than the JEDD development area. He
stated as a business owner or property owner, he felt they would like to see
the revenue improve their roads or infrastructure in the JEDD area. Mr. Vogel stated the document also has a
section that states the JEDD will promote the area, and this is somewhat of a
duplication from the Route 33 Corridor Alliance that many of the entities are
also a member of and he questioned how those two groups would work or how they
would function. Mr. Vogel further stated
he was not sure, but the people that hold bonds are the cities, so if there is
major improvement, would the City be holding the bond on this and, if so, how
would you know what your repayment on those debts would be without having
businesses in there. He stated after
reading the document these are the concerns he felt he should bring up, while
it is in the public hearing stages, and this would be the time to make the
changes. Mr. Vogel stated again, this is
a 100-year document and Council would be entering into a contract for four
generations of Pickerington residents so it really needs to provide economic
development, provide a viable area without annexation, and the financial
resources to assist the area.
Mr. Rocco Sabatino, Pickerington. Mr. Sabatino stated he has read every page of
the document and there are a fair number of problems in it, however, in his
opinion the single, biggest, problem is in Section 12 regarding zoning,
planning, building standards. Mr. Sabatino
stated this has to do with people’s rights and the right of self-determination
on what their property is going to be and what they are going to do with
it. He stated it is absolutely wrong for
any government entity to come in and take control of that person’s property,
without reimbursement, and quite possibly harm the value of their
property. He stated this is the element
of force that is in this agreement the way it is written and what he considers
to be the most offensive part of this entire agreement. Mr. Sabatino stated the agreement states that
each Township shall be the zoning and planning authority for the JEDD territory
located within the Township’s boundaries.
Further, the Townships agree to establish and maintain, to the extent
permitted by law, the zoning of the JEDD territory and expansion areas as
business, commercial, or industrial zoning.
Mr. Sabatino stated by doing this other uses of the property have been
excluded. He further stated the document
states this is so as to discourage residential uses that would be detrimental
to the JEDD. Mr. Sabatino stated his
question was what about what was detrimental to the citizen? Mr. Sabatino continued the without regard to
people’s rights or what their desires are for their own property, this element
of force, is very offensive; especially when it is done under the banner of
economic development. Mr. Sabatino
stated it is one thing if you have to build a bridge or a road for the public’s
welfare or safety, but it is another matter when someone’s idea of economic
development now gives license for the government to take people’s property
rights away from them. He further
questioned how the JEDD District would be any better then the landowner in
deciding what a person’s property is best developed as. Mr. Sabatino stated this is a very slippery
slope, to take away people’s rights for something as superfluous as economic
development. Mr. Sabatino stated
economic development can be important, but one person’s idea of economic
development can be another person’s idea of economic disaster. He stated here you could have five entities
gang up to oppose one citizen with regard to their property.
Mr. Sabatino stated with regard to
discouraging residential uses that would be detrimental to the JEDD, perhaps
someone could sell their property for homes.
He stated some homes, such as those being built in Violet Township that
cost between $700,000 and $1.2 million pay an exorbitant amount of real estate
taxes and are an economic asset to help pay for the schools, etc. He stated all residential is not always bad;
there are bad elements to residential such as high-density apartments, but all
residential is not bad. Mr. Sabatino
stated with this agreement “all” residential is ruled out, and the way the agreement
is written when deciding what to do with their property, the landowner is
completely left out and they have no say-so.
Mr. Sabatino stated the document requires any developer or landowner who
desires to utilize the planned district zoning to agree to join the JEDD as
part of the zoning approval. He stated
in analyzing that, if you want to do a planned district for a housing
development you are required to join the JEDD, and in being required to join
the JEDD you cannot do the housing development because residential is not
permitted in the JEDD. Mr. Sabatino
stated this is where the individual’s right of self-determination has been
stolen from them by this document. Mr.
Sabatino stated if this were done so it is voluntary to join the JEDD, he would
have no problem with it. He stated all
of the other problems in the document do not matter if no one is being forced
to participate in the JEDD. If they join
the JEDD of their own free will, then they have to deal with the other
problems.
Mr. Sabatino stated this JEDD can be done,
but it needs to have something to offer the citizens, and there are plenty of
things they can offer, such as utilities, marketing of the property, etc. Mr. Sabatino stated if this were done with
the element of force removed, then you have something. He stated lacking that, he felt this was
something every citizen should resist and it should not be allowed to stand the
way it is. Mr. Sabatino stated in doing
this under the banner of economic development, that means someone is going to
make money, and it isn’t necessarily going to be the landowner the way it is
now. Mr. Sabatino stated if you remove
the element of force, he felt this could be a wonderful JEDD and could be a
real asset to the citizens as well as the communities.
Mr. William Arnett, Fairfield County Economic
Development Director. Mr. Arnett stated
he would like to thank Mayor O’Brien for inviting him to participate in this
public hearing. Mr. Arnett stated he had
only three issues to speak about this evening, as property rights have already been
addressed. He stated if you look at the
proposed JEDD contract and the JEDD statute it stated a JEDD is formed to
create or retain jobs; it truly is about making life better. Mr. Arnett stated he has read the JEDD will
help speed development of the corridor, that things will happen more quickly
with the JEDD than without it. Mr.
Arnett stated his question was if the contracting parties have looked at the
JEDD expansion area and identified infrastructure improvements that would
facilitate development happening more quickly.
He stated if they have, and have determined what they need to fix to
make the area more marketable, have they decided who is literally going to take
on the debt? He questioned if someone
would take on the debt while you wait for a business to land in the JEDD or an
income tax be generated to pay off the debt service? He stated if that is not the plan, if the
plan is to have a JEDD, have a business, have an income tax, and then make the
necessary improvements, then he did not see how that would speed development in
the corridor. Mr. Arnett stated
additionally the contract speaks to 30 percent going to the maintenance and
infrastructure fund and the JEDD Board, not the contracting parties, decide how
that 30 percent is used. He continued
that 70 percent goes to the five contracting parties. Mr. Arnett stated as Mr. Sabatino had
discussed, there is a lot of verbiage about planning, zoning, development
districts, and he was wondering if another layer of bureaucracy was being
created on top of the government that is already in place, and is that
potentially a drawback or hindrance to development. He further stated he has heard discussion
that the JEDD will be a revenue source for local governments, but at the
beginning of the JEDD discussions he heard that it was about development, about
creating jobs. Mr. Arnett stated he
would question if this were for development or revenue generation or both.
Mr. Arnett stated he would speak to the JEDD
as a development tool not as a business incentive. He stated a JEDD is sort of like a CEDA or a
TIF, it is a development tool; you can use it potentially to make
infrastructure improvements to facilitate a project or to make a development
site more attractive for development, but it is not a business incentive. He stated if you look at the Ohio Department
of Development’s site database sheet, you might see Community Reinvestment
Areas, Enterprise Zones, Federal Empowerment Zones, or Foreign Trade Zones, but
it does not say anything about JEDDs. He
stated a JEDD does not necessarily have a tangible business advantage for the
developer or the business. Mr. Arnett
stated he would like to speak to cooperation; certainly we want cooperation in
Fairfield County. Mr. Arnett stated if
all things were equal a company would want to locate in an area where people
cooperate not where they are fighting.
He stated the question would be where that fell on a company’s
decision-making list; is it a “must have” or is it an “I’d like to have.” He stated he believed it would be in the “I’d
like to have it” category. He stated the
“must have” would include needing to be near an interstate highway, be able to
access a CRA tax abatement, be able to access Foreign Trade Zone benefits,
etc. He stated the question for a
private sector business would be if they could clearly understand the process
to get his permit, to build his building, and start shipping his product out
the door to his customers. Mr. Arnett
stated as far as cooperation, the Route 33 Corridor Alliance has more public
sector partners than there are in the JEDD, three local Chambers of Commerce
all strongly support and lead the effort, and about 30 private sector
businesses have given money to show they believe in what they are doing. Mr. Arnett stated the question was if this
particular JEDD strongly linked to development, will someone actually take on
the debt to make the infrastructure improvements before a project lands in the
corridor, and if not, it will not speed development of the corridor. Further, a JEDD is not a business incentive,
it is a development tool. He stated,
finally, as far as cooperation, he felt it was already there in the Route 33
Corridor Alliance.
Mr. Al Schrader, Attorney representing Violet
Township Trustees on the JEDD issue. Mr.
Schrader stated the purpose of the public hearings is to educate; the public
officials want to be educated by how the citizens feel and we want to educate
the citizens as to what is going on as well.
Mr. Schrader stated he had listened to Mr. Arnett speak about the
difference between a development incentive and development tool and he was not
sure that he understood that distinction or if it were important. Mr. Schrader stated when he is trying to fix
something, he needs the right tool, so if a JEDD is an economic development
tool it is better to have the tool than not.
He stated he would like to point out that the last thing you do when you
create a JEDD is send it to the Ohio Department of Development, so it must mean
something to them. Mr. Schrader stated
there are some misunderstandings regarding this JEDD as he does believe this
will help speed development of the corridor.
He stated one of the things the JEDD Board can do, if it needs to, is
some of the PR in selling. He stated the
parties will not have to do that because you do have the Route 33 Corridor
Alliance and as long as they do what they are supposed to, then the JEDD Board
will not have to do it. He stated the
members of the JEDD Board are set by statute; there is nothing that can be done
about that. Mr. Schrader stated the idea
on zoning is not to force anyone to do anything. Every community zones property, and the
reason the JEDD document says the zoning will be done by the Township in which
the JEDD property is located is because none of the JEDD property happens to be
in any of the cities or villages. He
stated in the Township the way zoning occurs is there is a request to zone
property in a particular way, it goes to Regional Planning for expert advice,
then it goes back to the Township Zoning Commission, they hold a public
hearing, and the Commission then makes a recommendation to the Township
Trustees where another public hearing is held before a zoning is granted, so
property rights are not being taken away.
Mr. Schrader further stated that no-one is forced into the JEDD, in
fact, to join the JEDD you have to sign a petition if you are a landowner,
business owner, and, the majority rules.
He stated if the five JEDD partners might decide to make it unanimous,
but that is up to them. He stated if it
is unanimous to come in, then it is only fair to be unanimous to get out. Mr. Schrader stated with regard to utilities,
he felt the contract could be amended to make it clear that the County will be
the utility provider.
Mr. Schrader stated his concern is it is
important to understand the contract. He
continued it is not an issue of if there is a JEDD or there is no JEDD, there
is a whole section on amending the JEDD; it is not like the JEDD has to end if
someone doesn’t like it. There is a
section on how to amend the JEDD. He
stated further the majority issue is kind of the same standard that has been
used in annexations, in annexation petitions the majority of the people signed
an annexation petition and maybe someone who did not want their land annexed
got in anyway. Mr. Schrader stated the
statute requires a JEDD Board, but they have tried to limit its power to the
extent that there will not be some additional bureaucracy that does terrible
things to people. Further, on the
zoning, people that live in million dollar homes commonly do not want to live
next to a Wal-Mart or industrial or commercial area. Therefore, the reason for the language that
says they will encourage commercial or industrial use in the JEDD is because by
law you cannot have residential in a JEDD and also because they recognize that
many residential areas do not want to abut a Wal-Mart or commercial area. Mr. Schrader stated you need money to provide
services to your residents, and if you do it by a JEDD it encourages economic
development and provides the money to give the citizens the services that they
want without raising income taxes or property taxes and provides the benefit of
providing jobs for the people in the communities that need them.
Mr. Schrader stated each of the communities
have held public hearings he would answer any questions anyone might have.
Mr. Greg Bigus ascertained Mr. Schrader has
done other JEDDs throughout the State, including Boston Township. He questioned why in that JEDD there was a
provision for the property owners in the Township to vote to approve the JEDD,
and that why that was not in this JEDD.
Mr. Schrader stated there were two ways to create a JEDD in Ohio, one where
the people in the community vote, and the second where a JEDD is created by a
unanimous vote of one of the Boards of Trustees that are involved in it. Mr. Schrader stated the Boston Township
Trustees specifically wanted there to be a vote because that was generated
specifically by an annexation and you had to do an annexation agreement with
the city. Mr. Bigus inquired if Mr.
Schrader would have no objection to any of these municipalities involved in the
JEDD would like to have a vote. Mr.
Schrader stated he is the attorney, he does not have a say in the policy. Mr. Bigus clarified further the City is in
the Township. Mr. Schrader stated there
are some communities in Ohio where the Township and the City lines overlap and
where that occurs, and sometimes not all of the City overlaps, so only the
portion that overlaps in the Township would be included in that vote as a
Township voter. Mr. Bigus inquired if
the landowners in the proposed JEDD area have been consulted, and Mr. Schrader
stated not among all of them. Mr.
Schrader stated he knew the Trustees have spoken with certain landowners that
would like to be involved early on, but there has not been a landowner’s
meeting. Mr. Schrader stated before
speaking to the landowners the details usually need to be nailed down in order
to have something to sell to them. Mr.
Bigus stated not all of the land is commercial now, some of it zoned as
agricultural. He stated then there has
not been a landowners forum with regard to any of this and questioned how many
acres were involved or how many landowners were involved. Mr. Schrader stated he does not know the
number of acres or landowners right off.
Mr. Schrader stated one of the reason public hearings are held is to provide
a forum for the landowners to come and speak.
Mr. Schrader stated there was a comment that 70 percent of the income
tax goes to the cities and townships. He
stated he pays tax to the State and Federal Government, and they never ask him
where he wants his money spent. He
stated in this case, at least 30 percent of the money will go back to the
neighborhood. Mr. Bigus inquired if
there would be a meeting for the people who are impacted by this JEDD. Mr. Schrader stated he has advised his client
that after they have established the JEDD, then have a meeting with the
landowners and the business owners if there are any businesses in the JEDD, and
explain to them exactly what the JEDD document says. He stated the reason he suggests having the
meeting after the JEDD is approved is so you have something to explain to
them.
Mr. Rocco Sabatino stated Mr. Schrader is
extensively involved in JEDDs, and as far as his not being able to understand
the part about force, when you have in the document that the township agrees to
establish and maintain, to the extent permitted by law, the zoning of the JEDD
territory and expansion areas as business, commercial or industrial zoning to
discourage residential uses that would be detrimental to the JEDD, you have
taken away the self-determination right of the property owner. He stated if they want to sell their property
for a housing development, you will have taken away their right to even
ask. He stated this creates another
level of bureaucracy and usurps these people’s rights. Mr. Schrader stated the reason that is in
there is that cities do not want to agree not to annex an area and then have
the Township trustees pull a fast one and decide to zone everything residential
when they know residential can’t be in the JEDD. Mr. Schrader stated if there is someone that
can prove the land use of residential is proper, then if the law says that is
what is supposed to happen then that is what will happen. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the attorneys
want litigation, they want the small landowner to sue to get his rights, and
that is what this would force them to do.
Mr. Sabatino stated the language in the document states, “initially the
contracting parties agree to require any developer or landowner who desires to
utilize the planned district zoning to agree to join the JEDD as part of the
zoning approval.” Mr. Sabatino stated
the word “required” is used and if you want to do a housing subdivision it is
usually planned development. He stated
further when the landowner is required to join the JEDD, they can no longer do
residential because it can’t be in the JEDD.
He stated that is ruling out that person’s right to do with their
property what they want. Mr. Sabatino
stated this is about taking away people’s rights, and if you have something of
merit people would be clamoring to join it, you do not need that element of
force. Mr. Schrader stated the planned
development district in the document is not a planned residential development
district; it is a planned business or commercial district.
Councilman Fix stated all governments do land
use planning and all the entities involved in this have plans on how the land
should be used in the future, and the zoning is structured accordingly. Councilman Fix stated part of what is trying
to be accomplished by this JEDD is to set up an area, plan for the land use
along the Route 33 corridor, so that it is used for the best benefit of the
land, of the landowners, and of the citizens of the surrounding
communities. He stated in looking at
making this entire corridor a commercial, industrial development area, it is
because that is the best use of the area for the entire community. Councilman Fix further stated he understood
the individual landowner may have a difference of opinion with that, but it is
the government’s responsibility to plan for the land use. He stated they do not go in and force someone
out, they do not go in and force someone to change their zoning; only when a
change in zoning is requested would the JEDD come into play. Mr. Sabatino stated that is the problem; the
landowner has the right to ask for their property to be rezoned. He stated for some people, that is their
retirement. They sell their property and
move to Florida or whatever. Councilman
Fix stated in this corridor the property owner would get more money for the
land. Mr. Sabatino stated that was
Councilman Fix’ opinion, but this has removed a potential customer; this would
make it so the land could only be rezoned to commercial or industrial. Mr. Sabatino stated the landowner may have an
offer on the table from a developer to put in senior housing or whatever, and
this would preclude that from happening and would remove the possibility of
that person selling their property for something like the senior housing. Mr. Sabatino stated when you restrict what
the land can be sold for you no longer have an open and free market. He stated then it could only be sold for a
specific purpose as the JEDD Board dictates.
Mr. Schrader stated all governments do that, and Mr. Sabatino questioned
if that made it right. Mr. Schrader
stated generally, a person who decides to sell their property gets a higher
value in return if it is sold commercially or industrially. Mr. Sabatino assuming this JEDD is a couple
of thousand acres reserved for these uses only, the price of that land is going
down. Councilman Fix stated there are
only three uses possible, agricultural, industrial and commercial, and
residential. He stated that means you
can keep it as farmland, you can build homes on it, or you can put businesses
on it. Mr. Sabatino stated it can also
be used for educational purposes.
Councilman Fix stated his point was, you cannot say there is only one
use for that land, there are thousands of different types of commercial and
industrial that may want to compete for that land so he didn’t know if this
would reduce land values. Councilman Fix
stated there is a reason that governmental entities plan for zoning and plan
for land use, and that is to do the most effective, global vision, land use for
that particular area. Mr. Sabatino
stated withholding zoning is an element of force and it is wrong. Mr. Sabatino stated so far he did not feel
the citizens interests have not been represented in this document, and
Councilman Fix stated that is why the hearing is being held tonight. Mr. Sabatino stated it is his opinion this
will not stand if it continues down the road of forcing people to be in
it. He stated when you have to use force
it is because you have no merit, let people join this of their own free will,
let there be some merit to it. He stated
then you would have something that not one single citizen can complain
about.
Councilman Sabatino stated he has been
outspoken as a person concerned about citizen rights and property rights and he
could see some potential issues with this document. He stated Mr. Bigus brought up an important
point; when you are dealing with something of this magnitude and in being fair
to property owners, public hearings do not satisfy notification. He continued if we are trying to be fair,
that is something that should be thought about.
Councilman Sabatino stated when issues come up he speaks to people in
the community or they come and ask him questions, and some concerns that he has
heard is that they don’t really get it in terms of the Route 33 Corridor and
this JEDD and the fact that it has been in the newspaper that the governments
are contributing one-half million dollars to promote the Route 33 thing. He stated some comments have been that if
they are doing that why did we need the JEDD. He stated he has also spoken to
some people who have done developments, and they have said this adds nothing to
their project other than cost. He
further stated he felt we were trying to make this instrument do something that
it really wasn’t designed for. He stated
the way the JEDD Board is structured, not all five entities would have a
vote. Councilman Sabatino stated
whenever this gets to the point where there is a final version, he would hope
the Mayor would allow for the opportunity of another public hearing so the
people can see the document they will be dealing with and he hoped Council
would have that before they would be voting on it as a body.
Councilman Sauer stated he has been looking
over this document for some time, and he understood Mr. Sabatino’s concerns as
well as why the governments were doing this.
Councilman Sauer stated he felt the primary focal point on this is to
find a way to benefit the community as a whole, not just the City of
Pickerington, but Fairfield County. He
stated when you look at Fairfield County in reference to a number of other
counties throughout the State of Ohio, and you look at development in this
particular community, we do not rank to well when it comes to development. Councilman Sauer continued that he felt one
of the primary issue to be focused on is what is the best avenue to get
economic development to this area, how do we do that successfully while easing
some of the burden the taxpayers are seeing because we are so residential. Councilman Sauer stated he would certainly
like to see the responses to the property owners concerns and that would be an
issue that would have to be weighed when the final draft was done. He stated there is an overriding sentiment in
this community to see good, positive development and to see the communities
cooperate in the future. Councilman
Sauer stated he did not want to lose focus on the fact that this is an idea to
try to foster economic development in the community and help offset some of the
taxes of the citizens and also to bring jobs to our community as well.
Mayor O’Brien stated he would like to assure
Councilman Sabatino that if significant changes are made to the document as it
goes on, there will be more public hearings.
Mayor O’Brien stated he had invited the County Development Director this
evening as he was not involved in the document from its conception all the way
through. He stated he had taken the
approach that the Route 33 Corridor Alliance was working in the same area, so
he had asked a lot of questions. Mayor
O’Brien stated he had been informed there were other tools besides a JEDD
available that may work better, such as enterprise zones, community
reinvestment area, foreign trade zones, etc.
He stated he had asked Mr. Arnett to help him out in understanding this
and he had provided a package of information.
Mayor O’Brien stated he was giving that package to the Clerk to be
attached to the minutes of this hearing.
(Attachment 1 to these minutes.)
There being no further questions or comments,
Mayor O’Brien closed the public hearing at 9:00 P.M., January 29, 2008.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_______________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk
ATTEST:
________________________________
Mitch O’Brien, Mayor