Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

April - June 2002 PATA Newsletter

Jul 19, 2002

City in Big Debt ?– Part II

In June of 2001 PATA published a newsletter with the headline: ?“City in Big Debt??” The answer was a firestorm of criticism from Mayor Hughes, City Council, and City Manager Joyce Bushman. While the city was successful in diverting attention from their financial situation for a short period of time, the facts remain the facts. One year later the City is now in WORSE shape financially.

The unfortunate fact is that the financial hangover headache from the annexation party that has been thrown in City Hall for the past few years won?’t be felt in full by the citizens for a few more years and by then the damage will be done.

Like one who is addicted to a substance, Pickerington?’s City Council has developed a habit of frantically annexing the developable lands that border it?’s fringes, in order to provide the revenue fix it so sorely needs.

Unfortunately, these annexations continue to be largely for residential construction within the boundaries of the Pickerington School District and at a higher density than other governmental groups will allow. To compound the problem the City is more than willing to subsidize the residential developers via reduced sewer tap fees, reduced water tap fees, purchase of road and utility easements, waiver of city park and recreation fees, waiver of storm water fees, waiver of building permit and review fees, and the construction of roadways into residential subdivisions. In addition, the city will provide higher density in zoning than other governmental entities in the area. All of this comes as the payoff to a developer so that he will agree to annex his land into the city.


This mindset at City Hall has created a financial burden to our area?’s existing residents. Just like when a pyramid scheme goes array, who do you think will be holding the ?“bag?” to pay for these financial commitments when the bills come due? That?’s right! Since we have so little commercial development in the area, the tax burden will fall directly to you and I.

Just to restate some facts:

1. We continue to forgo land use for commercial / industrial development within the Pickerington Local School District.
2. Pickerington continues to refuse to partner in or augment the Commercial Economic Development Area (CEDA) region.
3. Pickerington drives forward with doubling its Sewer Plant so that it can prove utility services that other authorized management agencies (Fairfield County & Canal Winchester) can already handle.

Current tax income largely goes to pay Pickerington?’s current interest not principal. Is the solution higher tax on our homes and businesses?


You be the judge because the facts are clear. Funding for new school buildings and operation expenses in our community don?’t get paid by anyone else. Fire & Police levies and bonds fall upon your shoulders. Just as an example, Pickerington Schools are supported by a higher percentage of money from residential taxes than almost any other school district in the state of Ohio.

Tax 1999 2000 2001 Growth % Of all

Resident 951,567 922,139 949,751 -0.19% 75.12%
Non-
Resident 40,830 33,394 52,004 27.37% 4.11%
Apartment22,435 97,795 126,166 462.36% 9.98%
Business 98,485 116,116 136,443 38.54% 10.79%


Remember the overused annexation excuse that the City of Pickerington uses; saying it ?“needs?” to keep annexing lands and approving developments in order to grow the tax base? Well here is a snap shot of the Income Tax revenue for the last (3) years for the City of Pickerington. (This chart above is not intended to show all sources of income, but rather to point out some key areas.)

Notice that income tax growth from residential homes is actually NEGATIVE ?– even with all of the new homes being built within the city. Does it make sense that the more houses being built the lower the tax base? Does annexing more and more land to build more and more homes make for financially sound decision making? Doesn?’t subsidizing this growth by providing gifts to the developers make even less sense? Isn?’t that appallingly low Income Tax figure from Businesses a real ?“statement?” as to our lack of a diversified tax base?

A local comparison:

A few weeks back one of the weekly newspapers had published figures of Income Tax for one of our neighboring community?’s. Here are the Village of Groveport?’s reported figures for the years listed below:


1997 $3.6 million
1998 $4.0 million
1999 $4.2 million
2000 $4.9 million
2001 $5.5 million

What a difference some commercial / industrial tax base makes.

Another Community?’s approach:

Solon, Ohio is yet another Ohio community however earlier community leaders looked forward and planned for the City?’s future. The City of 22,000 residents located about half an hour from Cleveland is home to over 800 businesses. Solon?’s working population nearly doubles each day when another 20,000 come to the city for employment. In the 1950?’s Edwin Carter, a Mayor for nearly 25 years, persuaded residents to set aside 2,200 acres of land for commercial / industrial development. The community benefits from annual expenditures for infrastructure of roads, sidewalks and sewer of $4.5 million dollars, a recreation department budget of $2 million dollars and a myriad of other services. Solon?’s residential growth over the past decade was only 17% or about 1-1/2% per year.


Just wait, it gets worse!

The City of Pickerington has, as of early June 2002 now incurred debts approaching $19 million dollars. These debt figures are up from just over $13.5 million dollar figure of last year. They do not include the annexation obligations to builders in excess of $3 million dollars, the Water Plant expansion in excess of $4 million dollars and the untold millions of dollars that the city will have to pay to nearly double the capacity of the Waste Water (Sewer) Plant. (see additional details within this Newsletter) Where is all of this money going to come from!?!?!?!

(See 2001 and 2002 debt schedules included on the center pages in this newsletter). -- ** for web viewers see the "Our Pages" posting of the City's actual debt schedule figures!

Our City Hall appears to be building an unbearable debt load, financed with the expected revenues of future annexations bringing denser residential subdivisions and additional children to the school district. In addition the City continues to push for commercial / industrial development outside our school district?’s borders.

Does any of this make sense?!?!?!?

During this entire annexation flurry has there once been completed a study that compared the estimated tax revenues to known and projected expenditures?
NO!
Like the addict who just can?’t see that following the same path time after time will lead to his demise, Pickerington?’s City government continues to dig a deeper and deeper hole without seeing that they are burying all of us in debt.

But don?’t take our word for it, hear it from an expert.

In our last Newsletter we brought up points about some of the annexation that are still pending. As a follow up to the annexations of 316 acres South of the current City limits (toward Jefferson Farms and Jefferson Woods) and the 362 acres North of the current City limits (toward Chevington Village, Huntington Hills, Countrywood, and NEVTCA) there are some very interesting points from the April 30th & June 14th public hearings that community members should be aware. Below are excerpts from a report given by John Garner, P.E., B.S. & M.S. from Case Institute and over 40 years of experience noted on his resume that adjoins his public affidavit regarding issues of importance. This report is public record from the hearings.

?“The Pre-Annexation Agreements between the City and various property owners within the total 684 acre annexation areas being considered set forth various service and financial deals, for example, tap-in-fee reductions, that will place financial burdens on existing and future sanitary sewer and water supply customers.?”

?“It would be a waste of limited taxpayer?’s monies for the City to duplicate the existing County water pollution control and water supply facilities in the proposed annexation areas. County records indicate that this duplication would cost the County $12,300,000 in tap in fees an $1,340,000 in annual revenue.?”

?“Since State monies are not involved, the Ohio EPA cannot be relied on to act in a reasonable and responsible manner in assuring that there is not a duplication of facilities.?”

Mr. Garner?’s report then lists the specific pre-annexation agreements by property and developer owners and states ?–

?“The considerable financial relief related to the sanitary sewer and water supply fees summarized will necessarily be at the expense of other property owners - or current and/or future water pollution control and water supply customers. Someone will have to assume the burden caused by the multitude of financial fee reductions.?”

Mr. Garner?’s report is an ?“eye opener?” in a number of other areas including the recorded dates (80 days) and amounts that the City of Pickerington has exceed the capacity flow of their current waste treatment (sewer) plant. A similar action for which the City of Columbus has settled a potential legal action to the tune of $500,000,000 for the same violations of permitting partially or untreated sewage (termed Sanitary Sewer Overflows or SSO?’s) to flow into this states waterways in violation of the Clean Water Act. Additionally, the Garner report hypothesis?’s future needs for both sewer treatment and water supplies far in excess of the available aquifer (which is linked to Pickerington Ponds) and the stream capacities of Sycamore Creek. He notes a potential water needs requirement of 5 million gallons per day (far in excess of the 2.2 million gallons a day draw limit to avoid a negative impact on Pickerington Ponds. Relative to sewer flow Pickerington?’s continued annexing and zoning practices could require a sewage plant discharge of up to 6.9 million gallons of treated sewage a day.

So ?– unlike the misleading article in one of our local newspapers that had a caption of Ohio EPA approval for Pickerington?’s proposal to expand the current Sewer Treatment Plan ?– no approval has yet been released. The Ohio EPA must conduct a public hearing on this issue. As yet, no hearing date has been announced, however we will keep you posted of the date, time and location through our website at http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/pata

Do you voice your concerns or live with the outcomes?

So where does the Ohio EPA stand on this potential duplication of Sewer Treatment Plants?

The OEPA has currently submitted a revised plan for Water Quality in Central Ohio.

Within the plan the Ohio EPA is suggesting that the duplication of water and sewer services to a given community is not necessarily a bad thing. We all know that the construction of water and sewer facilities and pipelines does not happen for free. So duplicating these efforts by more than one governmental entity means that you and I pay more than once for the same service. While we have all grown a bit jaded to governmental waste, this is ridiculous.

The web site listed below shows how the Ohio EPA is trying to change the criteria by which the approval for sewer plants is granted in central Ohio.

Via mail only, The Ohio EPA will accept public comment on the plan through Friday, July 19, 2002.

"A plan like this is a balancing act," noted Ohio EPA Director Christopher Jones. "Development must be balanced with environmental protection. The interests of cities must be balanced with the interests of counties and townships...?”

The plan designates specific areas of central Ohio to be considered including: the City of Columbus, Canal Winchester, Fairfield County, Jefferson Water and Sewer District, Southwest Licking Sewer District, Pickerington, Union County, and the Ohio-American Water Company...

The plan recognizes and protects the extensive financial investment existing service providers have made in their wastewater treatment plants. To allow other providers to take customers away from these providers could threaten their financial stability and their ability to provide safe, affordable wastewater treatment to area residents. At the same time, the plan recognizes that other communities may not want to rely on these existing providers for expanded sewer service, and outlines specific conditions under which they can "opt-out" of their designated service area.

The plan can be viewed on Ohio EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/mgmtplans/208index.html or by contacting Dan Dudley in Ohio EPA's Division of Surface Water at (614) 644-2001. Comments can be submitted in writing to: Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Attn: Dan Dudley, P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049. Written comments and those made at the public hearing will be considered before the plan is finished.

Some excerpts from the plan (editorial comments in parentheses):

Ohio EPA encourages the elimination of the overlapping service areas in future updates to the Water Quality Management Plan. If two groups compete for the same customers, the duplication of service could be cost prohibitive, could result in plant operation problems, or both. In addition, expansion of existing plant capacities based on customers located in overlapping service areas could result in excess capacity that may never be utilized. (MAKES SENSE!)
For overlapping service territory, Pickerington may also provide service in identified expansion areas on a non-exclusive basis. Such service shall continue unless or until Pickerington desires to connect its system to the City of Columbus sewer system or another centralized sewer system serving a watershed inside the Facilities Planning Area boundary. (WAIT A MINUTE ?– DIDN?’T THEY JUST SAY THAT THIS DIDN?’T MAKE SENSE?)

The Bottom Line
We know you care about your community. We know you are probably too busy to spend a great deal of time chasing your elected officials down to let them know how you feel. If you have two spare hours in the next two weeks take the time to review the web sites listed above, and act according to your conscience.

Again, the address to voice your written concerns for the OEPA?’s plans that allow the duplication of Water & Sewer Plant Utilities is:
Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Attn: Dan Dudley, P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049.

Citizens as decision-makers:

Local residents have had enough of the ?“processes?” to stall, delay, and potentially kill the opportunity for citizens to vote on the (3) Initiative Issues.

1. Limitations on the uses of ?“Emergency Legislation?”.
2. Abolishing the selective reductions of Tap fees to induce annexation.
3. Zoning densities above the City?’s ?“standard?” R4 to (2) units per acre for single family residential construction.
* note ?– R4 lots are 8,500 sq. ft., (2) units per acre are approximately 20,000 sq. ft.

Petitioners have decided to re-circulate the three initiative petitions that were filed with the city on January 8th. The City Council and the Administration has had more than enough time to get these three petitions on to the Board of Elections for placement on the ballot. Instead of a prompt decision by our City Council, as they had promised on April 16th, they have invited the developers into the council meetings just to bash the three initiatives. They have spent a great deal of time on the density ordinance. There have been threats by the former Mayor Lee Gray saying ?“they?” will run referendums on these issues to keeping them off this November?’s ballot. To protect the Ohio Constitutional rights of the Pickerington City Voters the petitioners have begun the drive to get these three initiatives on this November?’s ballot once more.

***** ***** ***** *****
Pickerington is not ?“alone?” in regional annexations that will impact local citizens. Residents of many northern subdivisions ( Haaf Farms, Dayspring, Chevington Woods North, New England Acres & Sturbridge) should be aware that there are developer interests in lands along Palmer Road. These developers have made known their desires for an additional 700 homes in a 300+ acre area.

Some Etna Township Trustees have voiced their opposition to the City of Renoldsburg?’s considerations of this annexation and development plan.

.
PATA contact information

PATA can be reached via the following means:

Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance
P.O. Box 518
Pickerington, OH 43147

Phone # (614) 755-2464
Fax # (614) 755-2464 *51

Email pickeringtontaxpayers@hotmail.com

PATA provides a web site to keep concerned area residents up to date between Newsletters

http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/pata


Newsletters and our other efforts are made possible by citizen?’s donations of their time and resources. This fact filled Newsletter is contains information that is highly relevant to all area residents. We are a citizen-supported organization only, no advertisers and no outside influences. We appreciate your willingness to assist these efforts with your financial contributions. Every little bit helps.

Thank you,

Bob Harding
Contact Person, PATA

famous quote -
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)