January 4, 2007

By Diane Chiddister

Villagers have until Friday, Jan. 12, to give feedback to Village Council on the Fogg farm annexation study prepared by the engineering firm Edwards and Kelcey. A draft for public comment of the study was presented at Council’s Jan. 2 meeting, when Council set the Jan. 12 date as the deadline for public feedback, which Council will use to shape the final draft of the study, according to Village Planner Phil Hawkey. The study will be discussed at a special Council meeting on the Fogg farm annexation on Monday, Jan. 29.

The study, which was funded by the Village, can be accessed online at www.yso.com/FoggAnnexationrequest.html. Responses may be made to Hawkey at phil@yso.com or 767-3702.

While the study has been presented as an independent analysis by Edwards and Kelcey, it was to some extent a collaborative effort between that firm and Village staff members, who were given the opportunity to edit and revise where needed, according to Paul Culter of Edwards and Kelcey, who wrote the bulk of the study. Especially, he said, Village staff provided information about potential costs to the Village posed by the Fogg farm annexation, while Culter provided information on potential revenues.

For example, the study’s section on the Fogg farm annexation’s effect on the Village electrical system was written by Village staff, Culter said. The study states that,“The Village electric system is already in need of increased capacity during the high demand experienced in the cooling season. The anticipated growth from this annexation would increase the demand on the system and provide a wider base to absorb the cost of the needed improvement. Off-site extension of the electrical system is currently needed to serve this area.”

At a Council meeting this fall Village Manager Eric Swansen stated that the Village needs a new $3.5 million electric substation. However, some villagers at the same meeting urged Council to pursue conservation measures rather than take on that large and expensive a project. Council has not yet approved the new substation.

Edwards and Kelcey, which Culter described as a mid-size national firm, had only two months to work on the study, due to the expedited annexation request from the Fogg farm owners. Had the firm had more time, he said, he would have been more involved in such questions as identifying the capacities of Village utilities to handle increased demand. As it was, he said, he relied on the Village to provide that information.

“A true cost-benefit analysis needs four to six months,” he said. “I would have liked a longer period of time.”

The Fogg farm is a 39-acre property located on the western edge of Yellow Springs near the high school and across Dayton-Yellow Springs Road from the new Center for Business and Education. The Fogg farm owners, Doug Miller and the Fogg family trust, requested an expedited annexation process at the end of September. The Village has until 120 days after Jan. 2, when it officially received the annexation request, to either accept or reject annexation.

The study describes the Fogg farm annexation as providing the Village with substantial financial benefits at relatively little cost. That conclusion is unusual, Culter said.

“It should be noted that the cost of providing services to residential development in most communities exceeds the associated income,” according to the study. “This does not seem to be the case in Yellow Springs due to economies of scale and the recent passage of the property tax combined with the income tax.”

The study concludes with a recommendation that, if the Village considers annexation, it choose one of three residential development scenarios presented in the study.

The study identifies each of the scenarios as providing financial benefit to the Village, with the more dense housing scenarios providing the greater revenues. It identifies scenario 1, which could yield up to 12 new homes, as providing an annual income to the Village, through income and property taxes, of $25,391; scenario 2, with a potential of 100 new homes, as providing $180,300; and scenario 3, with a possible 200 new homes, as yielding $304,800 annually through new taxes.

According to Culter, he used statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Ohio Department of Development and listings of recent local real estate transactions to determine how much revenue the Village would gain from increased income and property taxes.

The study identifies scenario 1 as costing $8,800, scenario 2 as costing $9,500, and scenario 3 as costing $9,820.

Costs are held down because some services the Village would provide to the new homes are either funded by special levies, such as emergency services, or are born by home owners as user fees, according to Culter, who said that Village staff determined that even the highest density of new homes would not require the police department to add additional personnel.

New roads in the development would be paid for initially by the developer, according to the study, and the Village would not incur maintenance costs for 10 years. After that time, road maintenance is expected to cost about $7,500 annually. The Village would incur snow removal costs at about $1,000 annually, according to the report.

The study states that, “Annexing property may be perceived as promoting sprawl. However, given the status of developable land within the village limits, and if designed and constructed correctly, new residential uses could adequately complement the existing village character and charm.”

Asked to explain that statement further, Culter said that if the Village rezones the area as a PUD, it could have some control over the design of homes along with the amount of open space in the development.

Contact: dchiddister@ysnews.com