The Union County Commissioners have filed suit against Jerome Township over the board’s recent zoning amendment, another blow to an already strained relationship.
At the regular meeting Wednesday, the county commissioners approved a resolution that authorized Roetzel and Andress, a law firm with offices throughout Ohio, to file a civil action against “Jerome Township, the Jerome Township Trustees and the Jerome Township Zoning Inspector” to challenge the amendment’s validity.
The action came after the trustees voted 2-1 in July to amend their zoning text affecting how non-residential developments participate in Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Community Reinvestment Areas (CRA) and Joint Economic Development Districts (JEDD). The move effectively requires the developments to participate in certain tax incentives and receive written permission from the board, thereby bypassing any discussions with the county.
The commissioners emphasized that the vote was not unanimous and the Logan-Union-Champaign Regional Planning Commission recommended denial of the amendment.
“Before us today is a situation where Union County and its residents find themselves harmed by the passage and adoption of Jerome Township Zoning Amendment #ZT23-001,” Commissioner Dave Burke said as part of a prepared statement. “This zoning amendment exceeds the limited powers granted to townships by the Ohio Revised Code.”
Burke said the amendment “wrongfully interferes” with the county’s authority to adopt TIF agreements for new projects in the township.
The action comes after months of the two entities being at odds over infrastructure funding from new development. While both boards have stated publicly that “development should pay for itself,” how that’s done and how the money is controlled has been a topic of debate.
Burke went on to say the county’s decision to file a civil action was a way to “remedy significant harm” caused by the zoning amendment.
“When the township places illegitimate, contract zoning upon a resident, it wrongfully removes the ability to freely engage in discussions around economic development agreements,” he said. “To be clear, it would be just as illegal for Union County to do the same. Accordingly, the county has no choice but to file this suit and enjoin this zoning amendment from being enforced.”
He said, from the county’s perspective, the township has recently “disengaged from meaningful dialogue” around economic development.
He added the township is effectively holding a property right “hostage” by forcing property owners to agree with the board first, which “is wrong,” he said.
Jerome Trustee Megan Sloat and Township Administrator Brandon Standley were at the commissioners meeting and although no public comments were made during the session, the officials spoke after the meeting stating the township felt “blindsided” by the filing.
Sloat provided a statement, which said, contrary to comments made during the meeting, the township has been in communication with the county. She noted representatives from each group met as recently as this week and prior to that, the township sent over a new revenue sharing proposal.
“You have asked us to come back to the table and the township has continued to work towards building communication,” said Sloat, noting the Monday meeting between the groups. “Instead of receiving any communication following Monday’s meeting or any response regarding our revenue sharing offer, I learned online via your agenda that there would be legal action taken today against our township. This is not how collaborative relationships are built.”
The resolution, approved by the trustees in a special meeting on Aug. 18, stated a “majority share of the revenue from the township TIF will be allocated to Union County and the Union County Engineer.”
It goes on to set 51% of TIF revenue for Union County and 49% to Jerome Township and for it to be “utilized for key roadway improvements.”
No official decision was made in response to the proposal but both entities indicated that communication remains open, though Burke said that too is strained.
“Our door remains open, but these are becoming difficult because every time we reach what seems to be a consensus on an issue…individual constructs become a baseline for the next level of discussion,” said Burke. He explained that, to him, the township has only come to the table with what the township wants accomplished.
“Deals don’t work like that. Compromise is an overall concept, not an individual item concept,” he said. “With agreements like this, I certainly hope the township kind of rethinks maybe some of its positions. I know that we’re willing to rethink some of ours.”