Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/1989 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS VIiriutes Of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting C~4~1~'~J LEGAL BLANK CO., FORM NO. 10148 Held October 23, 1989 19 ~ Mayor Rozanski called the Special Meeting of Council to order at 7:36 P.M. Mr. Jankowski led the Pledge of Allegiance. Members of Council present were: Mr. Amorose, Mr. Jankowski, Mrs. King, Ms. Maurer, Mayor Rozanski, Mr. Strip, and Mr. Sutphen. err Mayor Rozanski announced that the meeting had been called for the purpose of the third reading of Resolution No. 24-89 - A Resolution in Support of the Washington Township/ City of Dublin Merger. The title of the ORdinance was read by the Clerk of Council. A summary of the remarks by each member of Council follows. Mr. Amorose 1. After many hours of reviewing and discussing a number of professionall prepared reports by consultants in the fields of engineering, law, and accounting, as well as the merger document itself, I feel confide that I have examined all sides of the issue and have arrived at an informed and rational conclusion. 2. I find myself appalled by the false and misleading information disseminated by the group calling themselves Responsible Citizens Against the Merger. 3. The major contributors to the above cited campaign have been major developers. 4. The volunteers going door to door have been hired. ~wr 5. The merger will permit Dublin to consolidate its safety services. 6. The merger will afford the Dublin community the opportunity to develop those unincorporated areas immediately to the south in an orderly and well planned manner, under Dublin development standards eliminating piecemeal annexations. 7. The merger will protect the school districts. 8. Columbus threatens to cancel Dublin's sewer contract. Mr. Dwight Hurd, a highly respected attorney's opinion is that thte existing contract is enforceable through the year 2008. 9. Columbus threatens to cancel the water contract, and the contract does permit Columbus to do this with three years notification to the City of Dublin. 10. According to Dublin's engineering consultants, Dublin could develop its own water supply system at a very reasonable cost to the user. 11. Historically, Dublin has always subsidized the users' cost of water by using money from its General Fund to construct much of the water distribution system wuch as water towers, pump stations and major waterlines. 12. Regardless of the merger outcome, Dublin should seriously consider constructing its own system - local control of water supply is very important as Dublin continues to grow. 13. Columbus, by State law, can only sell Dublin their surplus water. 14. This is an issue of self-government and self-determination. 15. Some members of Council have had their financial well being threatened 16. It is the responsibility of Council and the staff of the City of Dublin to provide the best information available to the voters and that they have done. 17. The merger makes sense; I urge you to vote for it. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~•Ziriute5 Of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting C~4•ION LEGAL BLANtt CO., FORM NO. 10148 Held October 23, 1989 19 Page Two Ms. Maurer ~,,,M 1. The purpose of the merger is as follows: A. to allow Dublin to consolidate its safety services; B. to determine the annexation policy in the unincorporated area of Washington Township; to plan the area and apply its own zoning laws; C. to allow Dublin to keep the commercial tax base needed to suppor the school district and the City. Z. There will be a cost to Dublin if the City and township do not merge. 3. Annexation policy has always been determined by developers. 4. In the past, developers have chosen to take commercial and multi-fami development into Columbus - single family and up-scale office and retail into Dublin. 5. Recently, Dublin has had to bargain for commercial development by giving tax abatements in the Washington Township area. 6. In the Tuttle Road interchange, Dublin got less than one-fourth of the interchange with a tax abatement for ten years, depriving Dublin schools of millions of dollars in taxes. 7. If developers put multi-family in the township area and annex to Columbus, they will not be required to donate the green space that Dublin requires. I 8. Dublin already provides Columbus areas of the school district with the parks and recreation facilities because there are no parks in northwest Columbus. 9. Dublin would have to provide parks and recreation for the area of the township that is annexed to Columbus without any supporting income or real property taxes. 10. Washington Township Fire Department would have to provide mutual aid without receiving any tax support from that area. 11. Regarding the anti-merger campaign. The committee has hired an expensive public relations firm which is using propoganda techniques developed by Germany in World War II. 12. Regarding the sewer contract - the opinion of the attorney hired by Dublin and given no direction is that the principles of law and public health will require Columbus to serve Dublin indefinitely. 13. If Dublin has to get into the water business, the City can do it economically and probably realize a profit by serving people in the nearby townships. 14. The Dublin City Manager is a professional and the City Council is alert and well educated. 15. Three years ago the City Council established five standing committees of Council and developed a process of strategic issue management. 16. All of the City Manager's actions have been previously discussed by ~r.r the Manager and Council as to their purpose, financial cost and legality. 17. The campaign by the anti-merger group is well financed by people who will gain financiall from the failure of the merger. 18. Slick advertising and payment to hundreds of students from outside of the community to visit homes and persuade homeowners to vote against the merger. 19. Urge citizens to read the merger document and all information and vote favorably for the merger. 20. Also vote for the COTA levy, which, if it fails, may limit the develo - ment of Dublin business because service people will not be able to afford to come and work in Dublin. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS VIinut~s Of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DA=10N LEGAL BLANK CLO., FORM NO. 10148 Held October 23, 1989 19 Page Three Mr. Strip 1. Council will not decide the merger issue tonight - the final analysis will be by the voters of the two communities who will decide whether or not there will be a merger. 2. Although it is evident that the Dublin City Council does not agree on the issue, it is also evident that Councilmembers will continue to show respect for philosophical differences and will not be pitted one against the other. 3. While I will vote no, I ask the voters of the community not to necessarily follow my vote. 4. You as the voters should vote for or against the proposition on good, solid information - be aware of misinformation, beware of special interest groups - vote only on what is in the best interest of Dublin. 5. I find, personally, that the disadvantages and potential pitfalls outweight the advantages and I must reluctantly withhold my endorse- ment of the merger. Mrs. King 1. I thank those citizens who called and expressed their opinions and ask them to continue to express their opinions and participate in the process of government. 2. It is unfortunate that the parties were unable or unwilling to compromise on the issue. `srr 3. There is a middle road crafted by members of Dublin Council and representatives of Columbus. 4. The compromise offers to allow Dublin to grow into a majority of Washington Township to develop significantly from the mix of residential, industrial, commercial and office developments that can be expected there, and the revenues they will generate for the City and the schools. 5. It would expand Dublin's service area into Union County along a logica boundary which would provide growth opportunities and a balance of residential and commercial uses without making Dublin a huge city. 6• Water and sewer contracts will have been extended for a long period of time, guaranteeing Dublin residents adequate supplies of water and adequate sewer services at rates equal to those of other suburban communities. 7. The O'Shaughnessy Dam Bridge would be widened to two lanes and put bac into service as soon as possible. 8. The two cities would cooperate on joint road expansion projects. 9. The West Branch Sewer would be completed jointly, allowing both areas to grow. 10. The sensible middle ground has been lost; we have only a choice of extremes. 11. It is not necessary to merge to achieve consolidation of fire services. 12. A paper township could be created, such as Upper Arlington has done, creating Dublin's own township, drawing revenue from the entire City tax base. 13. Regarding the issue that the merger would allow children attending Dublin schools to continue to attend them - the issue only affects people living in the unincorporated portions of Washington Township. There are actually very few children in the affected area; the portion of the township within the Dublin School District which is yet un- developed and could be used to support the schools. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~Z1nUteS of Dublin City Council Meeting Meeting DA~ION LEGAL BLANK CO.. FORM NO. 10148 October 23, 1989 Held 19 - Page Four A 14. Probably the best reason for voting for the merger would be that Dublin would be able to control and benefit from the development of the undeveloped portions of the township. 15. A compromise with Columbus would have allowed Dublin to develop a large portion of the area without becoming too large. 16. The Dublin public is concerned about the size the City is likely to become if it merges with 11 square miles of the township. 17. At the rate Dublin is currently developing, the merger would add at least 16,000 residents to the City. 18. The suggestion that Dublin build its own water and sewer plants has a certain appeal if Dublin could be assured that the ground water will yield sufficient supplies of water. 19. Building Dublin's own sewer plant would have a certain appeal if Dublin did not have to pay an uncertain amount in legal fees to force the EPA to allow Dublin to discharge into Columbus's drinking water supply. ~ 20. When a City owns and operates a utility such as a sewer plant,there is a tendency to keep expanding and to grow in order to spread the cost out over more and more customers. 21. How big do we want Dublin to become? My vision of Dublin is a relatively small city, less than 50,000, very well planned, with ~w., excellent services and amenities such as parks and bikeways. 22. While I do not support the merger, I will not actively campaign to defeat it. 23. The people of Washington Township clearly would benefit the most from the merger and have worked the hardest to achieve it. They have been polite, acceptable, diplomatic and honest. 24. I have reviewed all of the material available to me and I must conclude that the merger is not in the best interest of the citizens of Dublin. Mr. Jankowski 1. The voters have urged me to act responsibly. 2. Merger is authorized by the Ohio Revised Code - a township and a city can merge; a democratic right that exists under Ohio law. 3. I urge all the voters to get as much information as they can and make a choice. 4. From a practical standpoint, the merger makes sense. 5. We do not want to break our ties with Columbus, but at present that may not be a viable alternative. 6. A number of studies have been commissioned by the City; the City spending a great deal of money for those studies. 7. I do not think Columbus can shut off our sewer. fir.. 8. If they shut off Dublin's water, Dublin can supply it ourselves. 9. There are always uncertainties, but I think Dublin is in a good position to combat any of the adverse practical consequences. 10. Since compromise at this time is not a choice, I will vote yes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1~Iinutes of Dublin city council Meeting Meeting O1'=ION LEGAL BfANk CO.. FORM NO. 10148 Held October 23, 1989 19 Page Five ~ Mr. Sutphen 1. I believe in the democratic process. ~r 2. Since I moved to Dublin 11 years ago, I have seen growth, and it is important that the town grows in an orderly fashion. 3. I am for growth that is developed to the high standards of Dublin and that is why I will say yes to the merger. Mayor Rozanski 1. I want to thank Council; I am proud that they wanted all the informa- tion available before they each cast their vote. Council had a difficult decision and each member is to be commended for his/her stand and in the way that they have conducted themselves. 2. Life will go on after November 7th. Dublin will continue to talk and to work with Columbus. 3. It is not the intent of Dublin to get into the sewer business; that is not the goal of the merger. 4. The merger was the idea of citizens. 5. The merger document is a document of the people. 6. Do not let big business make your decision. 7. I am a strong supporter of the merger. aiw Vote - Mr. Sutphen, yes; Ms. Maurer, yes; Mr. Jankowski, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Strip, no; Mrs. King, no; Mayor Rozanski, yes. Mr. McDaniel announced that the merger documents would be mailed to all citizens by Monday, October 30, 1989, at the Latest. Mayor Rozanski adjourned the meeting. Ma - Presidin fficer ~l.?% - C1'erk of Counci