Commentary on the 2014 Village Town Meeting
The past twelve months has seen an extraordinary flurry of significant issues come before the Mariemont Village Council. Many of these have long range implications for the financial health of the Village and the cultural richness of living in the Village of Mariemont.
Few of these salient issues were touched upon on Sunday, March 23 in the ‘State of the Village’ address presented by Mayor Policastro. Indeed, only two important public concerns surfaced in the brief Question and Answer period at the end of the Meeting. We all were pleased when the Mayor agreed to conduct a village-wide survey concerning back or side door pickup of recyclables.
Issues that merited discussion and explanation included:
- The rationale behind the refusal to build a roundabout or convert the 6-way intersection at Murray Avenue into a 4 way stop sign intersection.
- The stonewalling of a JEDZ (Joint Economic Development Zone) with Columbia Township even as council pursues JEDZs with far-removed communities.
- The tax implications of the lay-offs at Kellogg’s and the very real threat that the Kellogg Plant will close its doors altogether at the end of 2015.
- The elimination of the two elected officials, Village Clerk and Treasurer, with consolidation into an appointed ‘fiscal officer’.
- A discussion of the Safe Routes to School progress
- South 80 development
- Eastern Corridor discussions about the extension of Route 32
- The financial impact of purchasing a $750,000 fire engine and the Mayor’s unilateral hiring of a 10th police officer, even as the Village is experiencing a significant decrease in revenues from the State
- Discussions on greater collaboration for essential services with adjoining communities to capture economies of scale and scope.
More openness and candid discussion could have made the meeting one of the most important in many years. What could have been a real opportunity to discuss the true state of the Village and its future, the pros and cons of the decisions and their results ended up instead being a speech about grant pursuits, volunteer recognition and mustering the troops against real and perceived threats to the Village. The address seemed anemic compared to what really happened in the community over the past year.
Is there any mechanism in place for Community of Mariemont Residents to “Petition” for an action of the Board? 1) Request an open public discussion, on matters of Community concern, BEFORE Board action? 2) Limit or eliminate closed door board actions and discussions?
Seems like I recall some kind of “Tea Party” someplace when actions were taken “without representation.” Appears to me like most major concerns in Mariemont revolve around lack of clarification, impact of possible outcomes and allowance for community input in open forum more than once a year.
How many times in our lives, of social and business interactions, have we heard “Lack of Communications” as the # 1 concern for problems and issues?
Can I merely say exactly what a relief to find someone that really unddnstares what theyre speaking about on the internet. You definitely know how to bring the concern to be able to light and make it essential. A many more individuals have to have to read this and comprehend this side of the story. I find it difficult to believe youre not more popular because you certainly have the gift.
On two topics,
I thought the mayor did a thorough job explaining the status of changes at Kellogg’s; and
Just one opinion, on principle, I am glad we are not participating in a ‘JEDZ’ that seems to be nothing more than a back-door means for a township to impose income taxes, with a pliant city or village willing to work for the vigorish.. all of which has nothing to do with joint economic development between the communities. We don’t need that.
Matthew,
The reason I approached Mariemont to partner in a JEDZ with Columbia Township was a result of Mariemont council approving funds to survey the Mariemont Promenade for an annexation attempt of Columbia Township property.
One of the main reasons JEDZ were created was so townships and municipalities could share tax revenues without hostile annexation. This was an attempt at a great compromise between the 2 communities. Mariemont’s reason for wanting to annex township properties was so they could increase their revenues at the expense of Columbia Township taxpayers. The JEDZ was an olive branch to have 2 neighboring communities working together.
What would have been awkward about Mariemont annexing from Columbia Township is that the township residents share the same school district, and work together on school boards and support projects that are good for Mariemont. It would have been a mess putting these 2 communities against each other. The JEDZ was a perfect fit for this situation.
The Columbia Township Trustees felt that the JEDZ was the best solution to best help the township financially in the long term. The new money generated by the JEDZ will give us the wherewithal to make strategic investments in infrastructure and other areas that will help the businesses and residents in our whole community. It will give us the ability to invest in projects that we feel our great for our community and ultimately reduce the need to rely on property tax increases. There was really no opposition to our doing the JEDZ.
Also keep in mind that we our somewhat joined in economic development. The businesses on the Wooster Pike corridor pay taxes to Mariemont schools. So anything we can do to help them succeed together benefits both communities. Our Townships ability to be better equipped to invest and help our businesses does essentially help keep taxes lower in both communities. The same goes for Mariemont had they done the JEDZ with us. The thinking is, that they would now have extra money to invest in the community and their businesses and both communities in theory, jointly benefit from these investments.
I didn’t know what “vigorish” meant, so I had to look it up. I now understand it to mean sort of a “bookies cut” or “juice”. I didn’t look at this as “vigorish”, I looked at it as a financial partnership and a compromise to a hostile annexation attempt by our neighboring community. We essentially offered to reimburse Mariemont any costs they would have in counting the money and then to keep a percentage to do whatever they wanted with it. The township would not have any say in the new revenues to Mariemont.
I also had to look up the word “pliant”. I now understand it to mean “easily manipulated”. We essentially offered to reimburse Mariemont any costs they would have in counting the money and then to keep a percentage to do whatever they wanted with it. The township would not have any say in the new revenues to Mariemont. So I don’t think the word “pliant”, as I understand it, is quite the correct word.
The good news is that we partnered with Fairfax on the JEDZ and with the new revenues in our communities, we can do more things to make our communities better. Ultimately , the investments both Fairfax and Columbia Township makes to help their businesses will still ultimately help Mariemont as well.
If you would like to call me to sit down and discuss the JEDZ in more detail, you can call the Columbia Township office and ask for my cel phone number.
Either way, thanks for taking the time to get engaged in your community.
Mr. Kubicki, thank you for your perspective.
As you probably are aware, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and many other organizations support House Bill 289, passed in late February. No more JEDZs.
A JEDZ is simply too easy to form, with voters of one municipality approving taxation of another, again, for the ‘cut’ or vigorish.
The Bill’s sponsor has stressed that it is time to prohibit townships from “cherry picking” businesses and employers for income taxation while providing little or no new economic development.
While a more rigorous process, the JEDD would remain intact for economic development initiatives.
I hope that this topic gets the attention it deserves, and that Ohioans will encourage their State Senators to see this legislation through.
Thank you again, and best regards, -Matt