Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout28-00 (AMENDED) Resolution RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Dayton legal Blank Co" Farm No, 30045 I' Ii I I ~ Resolution i\'o, 28-00 (Amended) Passed 19u I n~ ----.:..._- I " A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 289 AND HOUSE I' BILL 98 Ii " 'i I' WHEREAS, Ohio has long had a recognized procedure that applies a "general good" test 'I Ii II to the property being considered for annexation that is adjacent to a municipal corporation, II I: and; II /, WHEREAS, the current procedures set forth in Chapter 709 of the Ohio Revised Code II Ii properly protects the interests of property owners in determining the jurisdiction where II development of their land can best take place, and; I WHEREAS, Senate Bill 289 and House Bill 98 would impair the right of property owners I I to decide where development of their land should best occur and add an inequitable and ultimately unworkable "general good of the surrounding area" standard to annexation [i requests, and; I I WHEREAS, Senate Bill 289 and House Bill 98 would unfairly impose revenue sharing and II reimbursement requirements upon municipalities despite their providing services, allowing I, townships to obtain risk-free revenue, and; II I WHEREAS, adoption of Senate Bill 289 and House Bill 98 would deter economic I development, and; I I i WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has adopted a comprehensive plan that encourages managed I I growth, and; WHEREAS, municipalities such as Dublin have comprehensive growth plans and a healthy tax base are most capable of providing vital city services and infrastructure needs to future developments within the city's identified growth corridors, and; WHEREAS, the present "general good" test rightfully involves an approach that favors development based on comprehensive planning, availability of services, and the rights of the property owner petitioners, and; WHEREAS, it is encouraged that when there is 100% landowner approval and the city to which the annexation is proposed has agreed to provide adequate services to the area, the existing general good test of the territory sought to be annexed should continue to be applied, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ~ members concurring that: Section 1. The City of Dublin does hereby urge the Ohio General Assembly and the Governor of the State of Ohio to enact responsible annexation reform legislation that is equitable for all jurisdictions, maintains the rights of property owners, and encourages planned growth where economic development is balanced with the protection of our natural resources. Section 2, The Ohio Municipal League be encouraged to utilize its best efforts to vigorously represent the interests and position of the City of Dublin and all other Municipal League members on this issue in its discussions with the Ohio Township Association and members ofthe Ohio General Assembly, I flp.fltov r ..; th , ' at conies of tl1' c,ty of DufJlinin " !~ OnPnance/l?esol ' J aCfOr!jOlKf! Wit'!} Section 73! utlan Were p(J~ted in ft; A TrEST: ,,25 of tl)a at., ~ . - .___ . 1<: I, 'iiO. eVlsed Code. ~ a.. ~ ~rk 0 (ouncil, Dublin oi. . 110 Clerk of Council CITY OF DUBLIN Memo Office of the City Manager To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Timothy C. Hansley, City Manager /8vi'J;Q ~~r Subject: Resolution 28-00 Date: May 11,2000 Initiated by: Michelle L. Crandall, Management Assistant / ~c; Attached please find Resolution 28-00 in opposition to Senate Bill 289. This piece of proposed legislation would amend Ohio's current annexation laws. The City of Dublin will be testifying before the Ohio Senate's Local Government and Township Committee on Wednesday, May 17, along with several other Ohio municipal representatives, as well as other affected groups, such as building, development and realty associations. An article pertaining to the May 10 testimony before the Committee is included with this memorandum. Also attached is a summary prepared by Richard Brahm, an attorney that has been retained by the Ohio Coalition for Equitable Annexation. Mr. Brahm's memorandum provides an excellent overview of what is being proposed and the ramifications such changes could have on economic development in Dublin and other cities throughout Ohio. The Ohio Coalition for Equitable Annexation, whose membership consists of numerous municipalities opposed to the Senate Bi11289, has developed and proposed compromise language. Another group of cities, being led by City of Columbus Mayor, Michael Coleman, has recently joined forces with the Coalition in opposition to the bill. Please contact Michelle Crandall or me should you have further questions related to the proposed Bill or the efforts to defeat it. Ohio Coalition For Equitable Annexation Page 1 of 4 Issues of Concern to 1\1u nicipalities TO: Coalition Members FROM: Richard C. Brahm, SHULER, PLANK, MORGAN & BRAHM 145 East Rich Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 614/228-4546 DATE: April 10, 2000 RE: Proposed Anti-Annexation Bill, Sununary of Current Law-Highlights of changes- LSC:,yersion 5 I have been asked to sununarize the major changes that are proposed in the new annexation law amendments, The proposed major changes and the status of the current law will be set out briefly below, CURRENT ANNEXATION LAW Currently, the law in Ohio favors annexations to adjoining municipalities when a majority of property owners sign an annexation petition seeking to join that municipality. The desires of the property owners are of paramount concern. After the filing of the annexation petition, which must meet certain statutory criteria. The city passes a service ordinance identifying the services that will be available to the annexation. Hearings are then held before the county conunissioners, At the hearing, live testimony and affidavits are introduced to establish the city and property owners and indeed the township's point of view, County conunissioners must approve annexations to Ohio's municipalities when the criteria of the statute are met. The criteria include various technical requirements for the filing and notices that are necessary as well as some subjective findings. The subjective finding most in dispute is the question of whether or not the "general good of the area sought to be annexed will be served", The focus in the "general good" criteria is on the area sought to be annexed, The current "general good" criteria does not look at the area left behind nor does it look at the benefits to be derived by the municipalities. Property owners' concerns are the paramount importance, If the annexation is supported by 100% of the property owners and the city can provide adequate service, the annexation must be approved on the general good criteria. If a majority of the property owners support the annexation (something less than 100%), general good is a factor of what the property owners desire and a comparison of the city services and the township services available to the area, The county conunissioners determination is then able to be reviewed in the Conunon Pleas Court. Territory can be removed from a township after annexation by a separate process, Some cites remove territory from a township and some do not. If an annexation from township territory affects 15% of the township's real, personal and utility taxes over anyone, two or three year period of time, the township is reimbursed for its tax loss, Where cities annex property and do not exclude it from the township, the township will continue to get its inside milage and arguably the outstanding levies for fire and police service . THE NEW LAW The new proposal essentially changes each element of the current annexation law, Most importantly, the new law does not provide a "tie breaker" which would allow county conunissioners and/or a court in review to determine what elements Ohio believes is important in its economic future, In other words, there is no statement in http://wwwAohiocities.comlissues_concem.htrn 5/1l/00 Ohio Coalition For Equitable Annexation Page 2 of 4 the new law that the State of Ohio favors development over leaving property rural. Under the new legislation, the ability to annex and develop a new industrial plant site is of equal importance to those property owners surrounding the area to be annexed who want to maintain a rural life style in an urban or rural township. Thus, a crucial element of the current law is removed. The current law favors annexation to municipalities when a majority seek that annexation, The new law removes this consideration and makes the issue a question of whether or not the township approves, The new proposed law establishes four (4) separate procedures for proceeding with an annexation. In almost every case, territory cannot be removed from the township unless the township agrees. The first (1st) new procedure involves 100% owner annexation where the township and the city agree to the terms of the annexation and do so in a certified agreement or Joint Economic District. Other than signing, the property owners have nothing to say about what the terms of the agreement are, If this process is used, there is no appeal. The idea of providing for no appeal is really mythical at best. Obviously, even in the current law, if everyone agrees to the terms of the annexation, there is no appeal because no one has standing to appeal. This is an example of the new laws provisions. Many of the new proposed laws proposed "pluses" for cites are mythical upon examination. The second (2nd) process proposed by the new law is 100% owner annexation where a township and the municipality can agree or disagree by ordinance. If either the city or township disagree with the annexation, a hearing is held and the county commissioners then determine whether the petition meets the filing requirements (contiguity, signatures, dates, etc.); whether 100% of the owners have signed; whether there is no street or highway left behind; and whether or not the township is able to provide services. (Currently, in every case where there is a contested annexation, the township argues it can provide for the services to the area sought to annexed.) Under the new law, even with a 100% of the property owners signed indicating the owners' desire for the services the city can provide, the annexation still has a good chance of being denied if the commissioners find the township can provide for the annexation (i,e, maintenance of a rural lifestyle vs, urban or industrial, another reason a "tie breaker" needs to be set out.) In this circumstance, the property, if annexed, cannot be removed from the township. Cities like Union, Ohio would therefore be precluded from annexation since Union, Ohio does not have an income tax, Union, Ohio uses the revenues from the real estate taxes to run the city government. If the property is left in a township, those taxes would not be available for the City of Union and therefore, would effectively shut off the city's ability to annex at all under this process, The third (3rd) procedure is a 100% owner annexation which is deemed important for "significant economic development", The requirements are that the property being considered for annexation involve $10 million of new improvements plus $1 million in additional payroll. A close reading of the definitions, however, indicate that this is for commercial industrial only and does not involve retail. Translated, no shopping centers could be annexed using this process. Again, even though 100% of the property owners are in favor if the township contests, the determination has to be made whether the territory is umeasonably large, the general good is met and a number of other criteria. It is doubtful these criteria could be met in any great number of cases and this provision is basically window dressing, Fourth (4th), the procedure will apply in a vast majority of cases. In addition to a number of technical hurdles, the hearing before the county commissioners is substantially different than the current annexation hearing, Notices are required to be provided to all of the property owners in an annexation, This may be feasible where there are ten property owners but hardly feasible if there are 200 property owners. The city must pass an ordinance of services and this ordinance must include the dates that the services are available, Affidavits cannot be used in the hearings unless they have previously been filed with the county 15 days before the date of the hearing. Subpoenas may be issued by any party before the board for records people and "relevant material", These subpoenas for both attendance and documents can be punished by contempt in the Common Pleas Court, This then turns the county commissioners hearing into a trial. This is generally unnecessary in most http://www.4ohiocities,comlissues_concem,htm 5/11/00 Ohio Coalition For Equitable Annexation Page 3 of 4 counties, Most county commissioners would not devote the kind of time necessary to undertake a "trial" on this kind of issue. Cities will be reluctant to enter into annexations where city personnel might sit in the hallway for several days under subpoenas for possible testimony, Annexations containing 100 or more property owners would be hall filling with the possible witnesses, It is wholly unnecessary since under Chapter 2506 appeals, (which are proposed in this bill), any procedural irregularity that is noted at the county commission level can be cured at the Common Pleas Court level. See R.C. ~2506, Perhaps the biggest problem with this particular process is the statement of "general good". In LSC version 5, the petitioner's agent must show "The general good of the territory proposed to be annexed and of the territory within the unincorporated area of any township located within one half mile or less from any of the territory proposed to be annexed will be served if the annexation petition is granted." Proposed Section 709,033(a)(5) This standard then places on the petitioner's agent the affirmative duty to prove two things: (1) that the general good of the area sought to be annexed will be served; and (2) the area within one half mile of the area sought to be annexed that remains in any township will be served. In other words, you have to show benefit to the area to be annexed and benefit to the area within one half mile of the perimeter of the annexation, The legislation also says "any township" so you would have to show the general good to townships that are not even in the annexation, Thus, there is no balancing test here, but an absolute standard, You are required to prove both propositions. Proving the area in any township within one half mile of the annexation will benefit from the annexation is, for all practical purposes, impossible, The standard proposed in the current draft is impossible to fill. This is particularly true where no tie breaker is involved. How will one show that the addition of a factory by way of an annexation or additional subdivision overrules the surrounding area's desire to remain rural? With no tie breaker, this equation will be solved in any way the county commissioners determine. It will not be subject to any effective court review, The current proposal eliminates the city from the "general good" consideration, If indeed the "general good" is to be expanded, the equation ought to involve the municipalities benefits, the benefits that the owners believe will benefit the territory to be annexed and the consideration of the detriments, if any, to the entire township. In this way, the positives received by the city (further employment, income tax, etc,) can be offset against problems foreseen by the township. If detriments and benefits are equal, the property owners desire should prevail and the annexation should be approved to the city, PAY BACKS Another fault with the proposed law is a question of "pay backs" to townships, The new law proposes an amendment to Section 709,19 which calls for rebates back to townships of real, personal and utility taxes over a period of 15 years, starting with a 100% tax payment reducing down to a 50% rebate in year 15. Close attention should be paid to the "economic development" ~709.19(C)(2), Under this provision, if a city provides tax abatement to a company in order to get it to locate in the area, the company receiving the "abatement" must pay to the township the taxes the company would have paid the township if no abatement had occurred, The company can then offset the money it pays to the township against any payment the company has against the city. This is a thinly veiled maneuver for getting city income tax diverted to townships. If real and personal property taxes are abated, the only tax the company will pay to the municipality is income tax, Since Ohio school boards are also asking for a portion of the rebated taxes, it is possible that a city would be asked to rebated taxes to get to the development, and then pay taxes to the township and also pay taxes to the school district. In other words, the city may have to pay taxes to two different entities, townships and school districts, and the city would not even get the taxes in the first place RECOMMENDATIONS ~---_..--- -----. http://wwwAohiocities.comlissues concem.htm 5/11/00 Ohio Coalition For Equitable Annexation Page 4 of 4 The Coalition is not against reform, but believes any reform must be equitable and fair. The Coalition makes the following recommendations: 1, The coalition has recommended that a policy statement be added to the new draft: It is the policy of the State of Ohio to promote responsible development in the state and to favor property being located in the governmental jurisdiction, municipal corporation or township that can provide for its current development. 2, The fIrst process (100% owners sign and the city and township execute agreement) and the third process of economic development provisions have been left alone, 3, The coalition has proposed that the second process, 100% owner annexation, be shortened so that it is truly a special annexation process, If 100% owners support the annexation and the city can provide for the services the owners desires, and the technical requirements of the petition are met, the annexation, after a hearing to establish ownership and technicalities only, is approved and there is no appeal. 4, The third process, "economic" development, has been left alone, but the Coalition believes it will be little used and is overly complicated. 5, The fourth process, the annexation of a majority of property owners. The proposed law has been left alone in the most part, however, the courtroom nature of the proceedings before the County Commissioners including subpoenas and other things have been deleted from the coalition's recommendations and the "general good" standard in a majority owner petition has been defined as the benefits derived by the city and the property owners of the area sought to be annexed versus the detriments to the township as a whole. 6, In a 100% owner annexation, withdrawal from the township is at the option of the city as the law currently exists, 7. If taxes are abated, they are abated without "payback" AboutOCEA..1 QC-;EARcports lA.lltlexationBenefits I Annexation RefonnI Press Coverage Contact Y our Legisl'!to~ I Ohio Municipal League Relationshig I Other Organizations I ContactlJs I HOlTIe I ~ Copyright Ohio Coalition For Equitable Annexation Designed and Maintained by II11aging2QOOWebI)esigtl http://www.4ohiocities.comlissues_concem.htm 5/11/00 From: "Kimberly Gibson" <kgibson@mail2,morpc,org> To: <kgibson@maiI2,morpc,org> Date: 5/11/00 1:19PM Subject: Annexation Story May 10,2000 Gongwer News Service, Inc, CITIES, HOMEBUILDERS SHOW UP IN FORCE TO CRITICIZE ANNEXATION BILL Despite supporters* claims that a proposed annexation reform bill (SB 289) is the product of hard-fought compromise between township and municipal groups, it was apparent at Wednesday*s Senate hearing on the measure that *harmony* is not an applicable description of the proceedings. Indeed, the discord evident among opponents of the bill who testified before the State & Local Government & Veteran*s Affairs Committee was only heightened by the chairman*s unique method of keeping the testimony short, To mark the five minute limits on speeches, Senator Dick Schafrath (R-Loudonville) had an aide turn on a tape player blaring his so-called *hound dog* brand of country music, Witnesses were quick to acknowledge the hint, as noted by Senator Gene Watts (R-Dublin), *That is a genuine incentive to be brief,* he said after hearing the song*s introduction. Among those cut off by the tape was influential developer Robert Schottenstein, who did not appear amused by the interludes. *1 hope everybody is enjoying the music,* he said, While witnesses were, in general, brief in expressing their opposition, the line of detractors was long. A group of 80 municipalities formed expressly to fight the legislation, the Ohio Coalition For Equitable Annexation, held a pre-hearing press conference to air their views. *The bill would effectively stop annexations in the state,* said Pickerington City Manager Joyce Bushman. She said the group is not daunted by rumors that the votes are there to pass the bill, or by a letter sent to municipalities from Senator Richard Finan (R-Evendale) warning that worse legislation could follow if SB 289 isn*t successful. *It*s not over until it*s over,* she declared, Centerville City Manager Greg Horn said the coalition would prefer no changes to existing annexation law, but if legislation is inevitable the group wants it altered, The coalition, like other groups and interest parties that testified Wednesday, has problems with the half-mile radius proposed for the *general good of the territory* test. Also under fire are provisions that would allow for tax rebates to townships and retain stipulations regardless of a 100% annexation request among property owners, *This is not an annexation reform bill, it*s an attempt to shift the powers of annexation so they will be subject to the veto powers of townships,* said Middletown Law Director Les Landon. The lengthy Senate hearing was kicked off by Ohio Homebuilders Association President Gary Thibo, of Dayton. Also testifying on behalf of the industry were developers Don Casto, president of the Don Casto Organization; Mr. Schottenstein, president of MI/Schottenstein Homes; and Doug Borror, CEO of Dominion Homes. Mr. Thibo complained that OHBA had not been party to negotiations between the Ohio Municipal League - which remains in opposition - the Ohio Townships Association and the County Commissioners Association of Ohio. *1 feel strongly that the annexation law we have at present works,* Mr. Thibo said, *1 don*t see any reason why we should change that.* Mr. Schottenstein said the bill, by allowing townships more power to fight annexations, would exacerbate a major problem in Ohio: the severe lack of low- to middle-income housing, He said the percentage of homeowners in Columbus and Cincinnati is well below the national average because the current zoning trends lead to the development of mostly expensive housing, Mr. Borror, agreed, maintaining that jurisdictions* *anti-growth* sentiments are being promoted under the guise of a *smart growth* policy. He added that the bill *will create an explosion of litigation,* noting that existing law had been refined through decades of court cases, Ohio Municipal League Executive Director Susan Cave said that despite the group*s good-faith efforts to forge a compromise, *there are still key issues reflected in SB 289 that render that bill both unworkable and unfair to municipal interests,* She said the *critical provisions* include the half-mile concern radius and *the overly generous schedule of payments to be made as reparations to townships on all annexations drawn from the townships, * Bob Fletcher, vice president of public policy for the Ohio Association of Realtors, said the bill has *significant implications* on affordable housing, the protection of property rights and general economic development. The provision regarding an *expedited* hearing should 100% of property owners petition for annexation isn*t as speedy as OAR would like, he added, *Our position is simply that if 100% of the property owners within the territory proposed to be annexed sign the petition, the annexation should be granted unless the objecting township can prove that a procedural defect has occurred, or that the city cannot provide services,* Kimberly A. Gibson Government Affairs Coordinator Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission phone: 614/233-4128 fax: 614/233-4228 kgibson@morpc,org "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson