The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About29-01 (AMENDED) Resolution RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Dayton legal Blank Co" Form No, 30045 ~-_._---~"-~._-- .--------------.-----.- -......_- " Ii , 29-01 (Amended) ! I' Passed :.:......::..:.:.:....:.=:--., .-. .--,_: ---:..:.:.:.~;;:..:..- ----~-..:..~~=.:.:.:.:.-~~=====--= ===-===-=-_.=!- Resolution No. -- -- -------- ----- II II i i! A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CITY OF DUBLIN'S i Ii I !i CONCERN OVER SENATE BILL 5 (SBS) AND DIRECTING I: THE CITY MANAGER TO FORWARD THESE CONCERNS I I :i TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TOWNSHIPS I ij I 'I COMMITTEE AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE OHIO HOUSE I OF REPRESENTATIVES ii " I: 'I i I, WHEREAS, the Ohio Senate has passed Senate Bill 5 (SB5) which significantly i' I revises annexation procedures and requirements; and i WHEREAS, the Ohio House of Representatives has referred SB5 to its Local Government and Townships Committee; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has serious concerns over the proposed provisions of Senate Bill 5 (SB5); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, Ohio, 7- members concurring: i I Section 1. That the City of Dublin promptly and formally expresses its concern and I I i opposition to Senate Bill 5 as currently drafted, noting specific concerns in the i following areas: I 1 1 (a) that the 10% contiguity requirement could be too restrictive for certain i I I properties, especially where economic development projects are involved; I i i i (b) that the provision allowing County Commissioners discretion to force" 1 00% I annexation petitions" into the full review process is too cumbersome considering the 1 , 1 fact that all property owners involved desire the annexation; I I I (c) that the Reimbursement Schedules are unrealistically high and too lengthy, I I and that such reimbursement provisions do not provide any meaningful relationship ! i to any services to be provided; I I (d) that the Reimbursement Schedules which have been referred to as "Equitable I I Reparations" in the Local Government and Township Committee Hearings, appear to I be mislabeled "Impact Fees," which would be more appropriately addressed through I separate legislation to enable "Regional Impact Fees" for new development and I I should also apply to Cities when Township development occurs and causes impacts i i on Cities (i.e. traffic); 1 I I i I (e) that the provisions that allow standing for residents of unincorporated areas I i within a Yz mile radius is biased against the city residents within the Yz mile radius; I i and 1 I I I (f) that the Yz mile radius of the unincorporated area, the 350 acre maximum I i annexation area, and the 100% annexation petition full review provisions are severe I impositions on property owners' choice, which has been the root of many case law I i reports based on the current annexation laws of Ohio. I I i i Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby directs the City Manager to forward this Resolution and to formally and informally express its concerns to the Local Government and Townships Committee of the Ohio House of Representatives, to also testify at any and all hearings on this subject to reflect its , concerns over SB5, and to forward copies of this Resolution to all members of the i Ohio House of Representatives and any other State officials he deems appropriate; I and I RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Dayton legal Blank Co" Farm No, 30045 -- --_._.,-,.~._.._--~--_._------' ____~_~_._..._~__.__ ._____..._____________n_____.__ ___"_ n___.._.,,______.' _____.____________________ - ~ -------------------- I: II Resolution No. 29-01 (Amended) Passed. Page 2 I I, nn..n . .__u....19._.m I =c==~==--=--=~ ':=:c:.=_:,,-=-c=.c.=:==.c.'--=,=---.---,---~--~-----,.-'---"--:=1---= I' I " I II :1 " I :) I i Section 3. That this Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage in I , il i II accordance with Section 4.04(a) of the Revised Charter of the City of Dublin. , :1 q Ii ii Passed this .J... J r^-day of ~' :; !i ,2001. i , i il /" " ,/ " /~ 7' ! . I' ' ' I ,I / ;e/v / ~4"'4- 'i I ' , ' - <<- .i ~_Mayor - Presi mg Officer I " Ii Attest: " 'I I :1 ~ C2~ ii Clerk of Council :1 ; Ii ! :i 'I i I 11 " :1 " tl II , II II I ,hereby c:'rtif~ that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in tlll' :i " Ii " CIty of Quolm In (lccordance wit~ Settion 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. l! I II 'I il i !I II :: I: 'i I 'I i\ ;1 ,I il Ii ! II " !i ,I " il j, il I: I[ Ii II II !I ,I il II :1 i\ II I \1 II I K '-,- :J./( 0 I r' Department of Development i"S, 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614-761-6506 Memo CITY OF DUBLIN TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tim Hansley, City Manager I ~/ DATE: April 10,2001 : RE: SENATE BILL 5 (SB5 - ANNEXATION REFORM) INITIATED BY: Frank Ciarochi, Asst. City Mgr./Dir. of Dev. a O--c- As a follow-up to previous Council interest in the Annexation Reform legislation, the following update is provided: Senate Bill 5 (SB5) has been passed in the Ohio Senate and has been referred by the House of Representatives to the Local Government and Townships Committee. The Committee has conducted several hearings on the proposed legislation to hear both proponent and opponent testimony. Frank attended the April 5, 2001, hearing for opponent testimony (see attached hearing summary provided by MORPC) but did not testify as the hearing accommodated only two hours of testimony. The Committee will schedule another hearing in a few weeks, and he intends to testify then. As a part of the testimony, it would be beneficial to have formal Council action authorizing the testimony to be provided and direction from Council on the specific concerns to be addressed. As noted in previous communications from the Ohio Municipal League (see attached OML summary of SB5), several specific areas of concern should be addressed: . CONTIGUITY: Current SB51anguage would require a minimum of 10% contiguity, compared to the total periphery of the area to be annexed. This can become a barrier to larger tracts of land involved in annexation and could be too restrictive for larger-scale economic development projects; . MAXIMUM SIZE: Current SB5 language establishes a maximum annexation size of 350 acres. Since most of Dublin's borders are rural/farm oriented, this proposed maximum would be too restrictive, especially in combination with the 10% contiguity requirement. Large landowners would be required to file several petitions to accomplish the annexation of their land, which is cumbersome and cost prohibitive (legal advertising and legal fees to process). . . 100% ANNEXATION PETITIONS: While SB5 accommodates an abbreviated process for . annexation petitions where 100% property owner participation is involved, there is also a provision of administrative discretion for County Commissioners to force a full review process. This is too cumbersome and restrictive considering the fact that all property owners involved desire the annexation of their land. . "THE GOOD OF THE AREA": Current annexation legislation accommodates consideration of annexation petitions based upon the "General Good of the Area to be Served." SB5 proposes to extend this consideration to a 1/2-mile radius for the unincorporated area of the Township. This proposed change will give standing to Township residents and property owners within 1/2 mile of an annexation petition, but not to City residents or property owners. This proposed change also diminishes the "choice of the property owner" who is seeking the annexation which is clearly a primary consideration under current annexation prOVISIons. . REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULES: SB5 proposes a lengthy schedule for City reimbursements to the Townships involved in annexations and boundary extensions (see Pg. 4 of the OML Summary). During the testimony at the April 5 Committee Hearing, the Reimbursement Schedule was referred to as "Equitable Reparations" by Committee members in their questions and comments--implying that Cities annex land, withdraw it from Townships, then development causes impacts on Townships. The intent of the Reimbursement Schedule appears to be designed to provide "impact fees" for Townships. It would be more appropriate to address this issue by enabling "regional impact fees" for new development. It is interesting to note that there are no provisions for City's to receive reimbursements, "equitable reparations" or impact fees from Township developments, i.e. the cost of the traffic signal configuration at Glick and Muirfield based on Tartan Fields development! The Reimbursement Schedule proposed involves payments to Townships when territory is excluded from the Township over a period of 15 years. Both the costs (expressed in terms of percentage of real estate taxes on the developed land) and the length of time involved in the Reimbursement Schedule are excessive. . An?ther major concern is the LACK of any relationship to services being provided by the TO,wnship for the "Reimbursements" that will be required. If there needs to be a Schedule of Reimbursements for Annexations that are excluded from the Township, then there should be a .'meani~gful relationship of those costs to services provided by the Township receiving such funding. While there are a host of other concerns with SB5, the staff has focused on the major areas addressed in this report. It is our intention to present Council with a formal Resolution expressing these concerns and to testify at the next Local Government and Townships Committee Hearing. I trust this information is useful. Should you have any questions or need additional information, do not hesitate to contact my office. If any Council Member would like to testify at the next Committee Hearing, it would be greatly appreciated.