Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Charter proposals raise questions in Pickerington

One councilman says he?’s skeptical about proponents?’ motives

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Kirk D . Richards

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Pickerington City Councilman Mitch O?’Brien said he didn?’t anticipate heated debate when he asked his colleagues to approve placing three charter amendments on the November ballot.

Pickerington, which reviews its charter every 10 years, isn?’t due to consider amending it until 2011. But O?’Brien said he didn?’t want to delay proposing charter changes that he says would make it easier for the public to contest the council?’s decisions.

''There?’s nothing political in here,'' said O?’Brien, who wants to:

?• Forbid the council from passing legislation on zoning and annexations as an emergency.

?• Require members appointed to the council to submit to an election if the unexpired term has more than 2?½ years remaining.

?• Require the city law director to review referendum and recall petitions, if asked to do so, before circulators seek signatures.

Though O?’Brien has a majority of council members behind him, Councilman Michael Sabatino said he is ''a bit skeptical'' of his colleagues?’ motives.

''Are they looking to enhance the citizens?’ position or the administration?’s?'' asked Sabatino, who criticizes council members O?’Brien, Ted Hackworth, Brian Wisniewski and Council President Heidi Riggs for supporting Mayor David Shaver.

Sabatino joined William Wright in voting against the first reading of the ordinance on Tuesday in a 4-2 vote.

But for the third and final reading, five votes will be needed because state law requires two-thirds of the council to approve placing charter amendments on the ballot.

Unless Sabatino or Wright votes differently on June 21, the deciding vote goes to Councilman Doug Parker, who was absent Tuesday. Parker could not be reached for comment yesterday.

O?’Brien said he wants to restrict emergency votes on zoning issues and annexations to give residents time to circulate referendum petitions if they wish to undo the council action. Legislation usually takes effect in 30 days, but emergency legislation is enacted immediately.

Sabatino said emergencies should remain an option: ''I don?’t think you should ever put yourself in a position that could cause potential harm to the city.''

On the issue of vacancies, O?’Brien said the citizens shouldn?’t be saddled with a member that the council appointed with more than 2?½ years remaining on the term.

''It?’s almost as though someone is planning on someone?’s departure,'' Sabatino said.

The two, however, partly agree on the value of having the law director review referendum petitions before they are circulated. In several cases, residents circulated petitions and got enough valid signatures only to be rejected by the city because of a legal technicality, such as using an old form or improper punctuation.

Sabatino wants to prohibit the city from rejecting a petition if the law director?’s advice is followed.

''Otherwise, it might just be an attempt by the city to see what the people are up to,'' Sabatino said.

Before O?’Brien and Hackworth were council members, the city rejected their referendum petitions on various issues.

''Our attempt is to make the charter more friendly,'' Hackworth said. ''We?’re actually giving power back to citizens.''

krichards@dispatch.com






By Council Observer

More from Sabatino

Council disagrees on charter revisions

Thursday, May 19, 2005

By MACKENZIE FRY

ThisWeek Staff Writer

An ordinance to put a revised city charter before voters, and four separate ordinances dealing with the acquisition of rights of way led to disagreement on Pickerington City Council Tuesday night.

Councilman Bill Wright objected to changes to the city charter that would include the addition of a section prohibiting the passage by emergency of any resolution or ordinance that pertains to zoning actions or annexations.

''What happens if the municipality needs to take care of something with zoning?'' Wright asked, giving as an example the possibility of a sexually oriented business wishing to come into the city.

City manager Judy Gilleland said that cities can't change the zoning of a property to prohibited a sexually oriented business from moving in on that property.

Wright agreed, but said that through zoning decisions, a city can say where such businesses could be located.

He said he was concerned ''we could be painting ourselves into a corner'' if the city had no ability to pass such ordinances by emergency.
Law director Phil Hartmann said if the revision took place, the city still could pass all three readings of an ordinance or resolution in one night; it simply wouldn't go into effect for 30 days, whereas those passed by emergency go into effect immediately.

The 30-day waiting period provides time for the public to initiate a referendum on an ordinance or resolution, he said.
Many cities, Hartmann said, have an ''unwritten policy'' to never pass zoning ordinances by emergency for this reason.

Gilleland said the revision would ensure citizens' rights. President Heidi Riggs agreed.
''Someone may want to come in and, not protest it, but question it, and we want to be able to allow for the people to speak,'' she said following the meeting.

The first reading of an ordinance that would submit the charter revisions to the Fairfield County Board of Elections for a public vote during the next general election passed by a 4-2 vote.

Wright and Michael Sabatino voted against it, while Riggs, Brian Wisniewski, Mitch O'Brien and Ted Hackworth voted in favor.
Doug Parker was absent.

Sabatino also voted against the first readings of four ordinances dealing with the acquisition of rights of way for the project to realign the northern terminus of Diley Road.

Two of the ordinances authorized Gilleland to accept the donations of property by two separate companies.

Another ordinance would authorize the city to purchase property from owners who had reached an agreement with the city after eminent domain proceedings had begun.

The first readings of these three ordinances passed by a 5-1 vote, with Sabatino the only council member voting against them.
The first reading of another ordinance, which would allow the city to continue eminent domain proceedings on a property, passed by a 4-2 vote, with Wright joining Sabatino in casting ''nay'' votes.

By contrast, council suspended the rules to pass unanimously all three readings of another ordinance that would allow the city to purchase a portion of property located east of Diley Road. Hartmann said the owners reached an agreement with the city before eminent domain proceedings had begun.

Asked why he had voted in favor of this ordinance but not the others, Sabatino said simply: ''It was not acquired through the process of eminent domain.''




By C.O.

Clarification please

Dear Mikey,

Help me out here. First you go ballistic over citizen's rights on Diley Road. Now you have O'Brien taking power away from council and giving it back to the citizens so they indeed will have more rights and you still bi+ch??

Make up your friggin' mind. Either you want citizens to have rights or you don't.

Zoning and annexation by emergency. Hmmm. Let's think about that one. I'll jog your memory with the Diley Farm and the Painter-Kohler properties. Need I say more. Have you forgotten what happened just a few years ago Mike? Have you forgotten how much the city has been permanently injured by these ''emergencies''?

Stipulations on council appointments. Hmmm. Let's think about that one. Can you spell M-A-X-E-Y??? He got the lowest votes in an election and lo and behold, he was reappointed months later. Citizen outrage? You bet. Now the citizens will have more rights. If they vote you off once and you are reappointed, they get the chance to vote you off again. Sounds like giving more rights to the citizens. Keep in mind that under this new proposal, you would have had to stand for election. Too bad, though. If it had been this way then, you wouldn' be here now, would you?

Make up your mind Mikey, or at least shut your trap until someone gives you an opinion that makes sense. You're either for more citizen rights or against them. You can't be selective.

O'Brien scores again! Keep up the good work and we'll give you 4 more to keep going.

Allowing the voters to decide

I think Mr. sabatino is some what a hypocrite. First him and Bill Wright champion the Diley Road referendum and now they want to deny the other citizens of their right to vote on a charter amendment that has plenty of history in this community as a much needed change to the basic way our citizens and its government do business in the area of Zoning and Annexations.

Clearly if one was to list the Emergency legislation that Mr. Wright claims to be so important we will find the infamous night of December 7,1999. That evening with the ordinance not on the agenda the Pickerington City Council made an agenda change just prior to the regular council meeting. They then suspended the rules for three readings that evening and passed the Diley Farm annexation by emergency. It then took over a year and a half for that annexation and rezoning to reach the County Commissioners for a hearing. Then in June of 2001 they finally completed the annexation. What was so disingenuous with this process is that they went thought the zoning meetings with the Public meeting and hearing and the ENTIRE council ignored the public comments despite packed council chambers against the annexation and rezoning. Then the council thumbed their collective noses at the citizens of Pickerington and passed this annexation and rezoning as emergency and thus denying the citizens their input to this very important community issue.

So if Mr. Sabatino is so concerned about the Pickerington Citizens like he claims to be for those folks along Diley the question then is would the current City Council have needed to widening Diley Road to FIVE lanes if the Fox Glen (540 homes) and the Reserve at Pickerington Ponds (340 homes) were not being built? How about the rezoning and the other actions that brought us Georges Creek and Sheffield?

The fact is that if this currently proposed amendment my Councilman O'Brien had been in the Pickerington City Charter in 1999 then Pickerington would look a lot different than is does today.

Would Lisa Ross' referendum on the rezoning of the C-3 property behind the Kroger Store have failed in 1999?

Would the Diley Farm been annexed?

Would the Painter Kolher Farm been annexed?

Would there now be an issue with the County Utilities eating the costs of the tap give-a-ways by Joyce Bushman and Council in 2001?

Would the 362 acre annexation north have ever come about?

Would the 8185 Farm annexation and rezoning ever occurred in October of 2001?

Would the City be dealing with the pre-annexation agreements and their legal implications?

Then to Mr. Wright during this same time frame which one of these annexations and or rezonings were that important that they had to be passed as Emergency? If they had not been passed as Emergency what harm would that have caused?

My answer is:



ZERO



By C.O.