PATA History Pages

Questions Posed to the Violet Township Trustees & Staff on CEDA

The following are questions from the PATA Township Focus Team

Members of the Township Focus Team have gathered input on the proposed CEDA betwen Canal Winchester and Violet Township from comments from members and input from the discussion area of our web site. We have submitted these to the Violet Township Trustees and staff. Township Director of Operations, Bill Yaple has responded to the questions.


1. Does the Violet Township Fire Department currently provide Fire and EMS service to the CEDA area, and if so, would continued service to this area not incur additional expense to the township? Would increased revenues upon the development of this land benefit the fire department?

Answer to #1. The Violet Township Fire Dept. currently provides fire and EMS service to the proposed CEDA area and also to any residential area that is in Fairfield County within the Village of Canal Winchester. This service will not change because of the CEDA, however, increased valuation of the land and personal property taxes will provide increased revenues to the Fire Dept.



2. What increased revenues does the Township expect from the increased valuations of this land upon development and the income tax sharing plan set up within the CEDA? Is Canal Pointe income tax revenue immediately subject to this income tax sharing provision upon successful initiation of this CEDA?

Answer to #2. At this point Lisa, I cannot answer the first part of your question. We have not completed the proposed Land Use Guide for the area. The Canal Pointe income tax will be immediately subject to the tax sharing provision upon the final signing of the CEDA documents.

3. What will the projected costs be in providing the services to this area that the township has agreed to provide in the CEDA agreement. Road maintenance and repair, snow-plowing and salting, Fire and EMS service need increases, infrastructure improvements and maintenance of such.

(Any chart or projected figures you have utilized in negotiating this agreement would be helpful. A Cost versus revenue comparison is desired, if one exists, or will you please create one for public information.)

Answer to #3. The only services the township has agreed to provide in the CEDA area for public right-of-ways would be snow plowing, ice control, traffic control devices, i.e. signs and traffic lights if necessary and mowing of said right-of-ways if necessary. Water and sewer infrastructure will be provided by either Canal Winchester or Fairfield County Utilities who will install and maintain. Violet Township's portion of the income tax will be able to be used for fire and EMS if necessary and maintenance of right-of-ways. We do not have the final figures for this income, however, the township currently maintains the 95 miles of township road on a l.5 mill road and bridge inside millage. This l.5 mills on all new evaluation plus 20% of the income tax monies will be received on all properties in the proposed CEDA.




4. Normally,when Canal Winchester annexes Violet Township land, is it removed form the township? What happens when Columbus annexes?

Answer to #4. When Canal Winchester annexes the land still stays in the township. When Columbus annexes land they normally remove the land from the township.



5. The mayor of Pickerington has stated publicly in the press on several occasions that revenue from this CEDA will benefit Franklin County. It appears that the CEDA is located entirely in Fairfield County, won’t tax revenues from development on this project be paid to Fairfield County, thus benefiting the tax base of Fairfield County residents?

Answer to #5. Thank you Lisa. The land will stay in Fairfield County and the taxes will go to Fairfield County just as they would if (the development would happen in the City of Pickerington). The only monies that will go to Franklin County will be the city’s portion of the property tax and their portion of the income tax. As you know, the largest portion of our real estate and personal property taxes will go to the school system.



6 In Pickerington’s attempt to annex the Weiser property,( see pre-annexation agreement copy on the our pages section) they promise the landowner in the pre-annexation agreement, that they will offer Tax Abatements to the landowner and a Tax Increment Financing District (TIF)to them to finance infrastructure improvements on the property. In the CEDA as written,no mention of Tax Abatements or TIF’s are in writing from CANAL or Violet Township. Does the Township and Canal Winchester intend to fund infrastructure improvements by diverting school taxes in a TIF as Pickerington appears to, and do you plan to offer tax abatements to industry in this CEDA? If so on either count, it there any provision to reimburse the Canal School District for lost revenue either from government sources or from the developers and industry? At this point in time there does not appear to be a plan by Pickerington to reimburse for this lost revenue.

Answer to #6. Canal Winchester now offers tax abatement on the improvement to the land (Building). The new evaluation of the property or land plus personal property taxes will not be abated and at this time we are discussing with the Village and there will be no TIFS. The Village of Canal Winchester currently has a provision for educational grant reimbursement to the school system.

7. In the pre annexation agreement with the Pifer’s with Canal Winchester, is there any guarantee of Multi-Family zoning contemporaneously assigned upon annexation of the land?(As is Pickerington’s practice to promise zoning for certain types of development during the annexation process) Or will the land be rezoned for a use in a public open process before a zoning classification for multi-family housing is given? Would Violet and Canal consider other uses for the multi-family portion of the Pifer property if adjacent interest and development potential was better served by a different use of the land?

Answer to #7. Canal Winchester will not contemporaneously re-zone any land upon acceptance of annexation into the Village. The property will go through two pubic hearings in the village similar to re-zonings in the township. The Village has a planning and zoning hearing and then another hearing before Village Council prior to any zoning changes. The multi-family portion of the Pifer property is a similar use as recommended by our Land Use Planning Document adopted in l998 by the Township Trustees. At this time the information out there is a conceptual plan. The proposal will permit comments at public hearings during proposed re-zonings.

8. In Pickerington’s plan to annex the Pifer, Weiser and other properties in the CEDA, do they plan to duplicate water and sewer services that can be provided by another entity such as Fairfield County’s water and sewer lines, East of Hill Road and South of Busey Road to the best of your knowledge?

Answer to #8. We do not think the County will permit duplication of services, however, Canal Winchester may serve east of Hill Road to what would be a natural watershed break.

9. Has there been any talk of a CEDA with the City of Pickerington to benefit the PLSD and integrating planning with the Violet/ Canal CEDA?

Answer to #9. As a result of the announcement of the CEDA between Canal Winchester and Violet Township, and because of Pickerington's proposed annexation of Pifer, they are talking to us now. The township will try to protect the Pickerington Schools just as they have Canal Winchester school district with no TIFS, the use of education grant programs and only allowing tax abatement of the buildings on newly developed property.



10. In Pickerington's pre-annexation agreement with the Weiser's they offer sewer and water tap fee waivers to the tune of $100,000. In the CANAL/ Violet CEDA are there any plans to offer sewer or water tap fee waivers or will the developers and industry pay for the cost of this infrastructure?

Answer to #10. The Village and the Township agree there will no give away to developers.

The $100,000 is not the only thing the City promised, they also promised right-of-way improvements at no cost to the developer.

We think the cost savings to the developer could be more than $500,000.


11. Under the provisions of section 9, (G) on pp.8 of the CEDA agreement, and the statement: To oppose and provide testimony in favor of any legislation which may now, or in the future, be pending before the Ohio General Assembly which would be detrimental to the enforcement of this Agreement or would frustrate the purposes of this Agreement;

Would this provision prevent Violet Township's support in any manner of any annexation reform bill, which is important to many township residents, either now or in the future?

Answer to #11 The Township legal counsel is Mr. Schrader who is also a Township Trustee in the Akron area. Mr. Schrader has been before the House and Senate for testimony in favor of annexation many times. Mr Schrader has always been in favor of Township Government, therefore I feel confident that The Township will be able to continue the support of annexation reform as they have in the past.

Contact Violet Township Officials to Express Your Views

Contact Violet Township Officials