Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

July - September 2003 Newsletter

Oct 28, 2003

You get what you elect.?” -- Unknown

For our readers general knowledge --
Let?’s review some important timely topics;

GROWTH

See chart of City of Pickerington & Violet Township building permits already noted on "Our Pages".

Here is our recent history in single family residential building permits. Through September 2003 Violet Township is below last years permit #?’s, while the City of Pickerington is well above.

Not A New Problem

With all of the attention that the issue of growth has gotten in Pickerington lately, you might be inclined to think it?’s a ?“new?” problem. The PATA readers know better! Consider the following historical facts:
?·On December 5, 2000 the Pickerington City Council sought to rezone all newly annexed lands into the City of Pickerington to R4 (higher density residential) When citizens collected nearly 500 signatures in just one day, the council rescinded the zoning change, depriving the citizens of the opportunity to address the issue at the ballot box in November 2001.
?·Since the time of the rescission, the council has used ?“pre-annexation?” agreements promising that same higher density residential zoning for literally thousands of new homes, even though they knew of the opposition expressed in late 2000 and early 2001. To encourage landowners to annex to the city, they gave away millions in free or reduced sewer and water taps to developers to encourage development that the community doesn?’t want.
?· They used ?“emergency?” legislative power to pass those zoning ordinances, thereby preventing the citizens from challenging their decisions by referendum. No valid emergency existed in any of those cases, except the possibility that the citizens might stop the developers from pillaging our community.
?· They lobbied against the three growth control initiatives, even posting their opposition on the taxpayer funded city website. (against a known opinion of the Ohio Attorney General)
?· When it became clear that the initiatives would pass by wide margins, the council approved final plats for thousands of future homes so that their developer friends would not be hindered by the looming density restrictions. Now the builders have thousand of ?“pre-platted?” homes that they can build, despite the community mandate.
?· Even as they talk about their desire to control growth, this council has approved more building permits this year (2003) than any year in our history by a wide margin.

Ask yourself, what will they do next if we don?’t stop them?


YOU KNOW THE BUILDERS ARE WANTING TO CONTINUE THIS UPWARD CLIMB STOCKPILING HUNDREDS OF BUILDING PERMITS as they have applied for more than 600 by August 2003 from the City of Pickerington.

DEBT

Here are the figures;

We reported to you in 2001 that the City of Pickerington had $13.5 million dollars of debt. By June of 2002 the debt was approaching $19 million dollars. (A 140% increase) In August of 2003 these figures climbed to over $25 million. (An additional 131% increase and a 185% overall increase in 2 years) ALL THIS BEFORE THE DEBT OF AN ADDITIONAL SEWER PLANT EXPANSION.

To give you a comparison the City of Columbus (and their elected officials) were recently chastised for letting their debt climb to $50 million dollars. That?’s $50 million dollars for a city with a population of 725,000 citizens. (A debt of approximately $69.00 per person). Pickerington now claims a population of 11,250 citizens ?– with it?’s (as of today) debt of $25 million THAT?’S A DEBT OF $2,222.00 per person.

Do you really want to add an $11 million dollar increase to that debt load for a sewer plant expansion?

COMMERCIAL

Of the top 10 Principal property taxpayers listing figures noted within the records of the County Auditor five are high density apartments or condominiums, the balance are strip mall retail centers. Remember apartment or condominiums of four or more units are placed on the tax rolls as ?“commercial property.?”

**See the listing already in "Our Pages" and cry over the lack of true commercial revenue for our schools.

Words from the past -- YOU BE THE JUDGE.



City Manager Joyce Bushman - ?“Fifty seven percent of the commercial in the school district is within the city limits.?” ?“The city has been very pro-active in balancing residential and commercial growth for the corporate boundaries?” December 7, 1999 Council minutes.

- then to now -
City Councilman Doug Parker ?– If you don?’t have commercial development, you start losing money in the school systems.?” ?“Adding that Pickerington school district tax revenue currently is about 32 percent commercial and 68 percent residential.?” October 6, 2003 SE Messenger article

- or how about from more quotable sources -

Pickerington School District Treasurer?’s figures confirmed by the Fairfield County Auditor.

**See Url linking to PLSD information noted below
Doug could have been confused?? But the records are clear ?– The result of the PLSD?’s low commercial tax base is a low valuation (RESIDENTIAL property valuation in relationship to dollars available to educate) per pupil impacting everyone.
http://www.pickerington.k12.oh.us/HTML%20Presentation%20folder/sld008.htm

- Or did Doug mean just the dollars contributed from within the City of Pickerington?


If so, WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE 25% DROP FROM 1999 Doug?


Could it be the MASSIVE # of building permits that the Pro-Growth advocates have unleashed on this community and school district?

And speaking of the School District where have most of those candidates been? What voices or actions have they raised to protect this vital resource against the onslaught of these developers? We are a community that MUST have interaction ?– NOT CAPITULATION of government entities. Yes, sometimes that interaction means to stand up for what?’s right and will be in crossed directions. However, when the direction of decisions made affect this community?’s members well being to the benefit of an outside developer there is NO EXCUSE but to speak.

DO THEY IMPACT THIS ENTIRE COMMUNITY ?– well the 2003-2004 PLSD enrollment figures just jumped up by 530 additional enrollees? A second straight record year and almost 100 students over last years staggering 438 student increases.



PLSD enrollment now 8887

This intense move in railroaded residential subdivision building CAN?’T be masked by the ?“Quasi?” commercial development of what Doug now calls important ?“tracts along Refugee Road and State Route 256?” that we can all see are more high density units. Do you really want to add an $11 million dollar sewer plant expansion for these kinds of results?

ELECTIONS IN OUR AREA (resent)

Many of you have read the recent articles whereby former Mayor Lee Gray circulated petitions for candidates to run for Pickerington City Mayor. The candidates were Lou Postage, Bob Thomas and Tim Swanson. Mr. Gray also participated in the circulation of petitions for Pickerington City Council of Chris Smith, Julie Ann Smith, and Jack Bowman. So what you say ?– it?’s a free country ?– or is it?


--- A blast from the past ---
(December 7, 1999 Council minutes)
Remember what then Mayor Gray said, ?“.. the residents of this community have elected people to gather information and do their bidding. He continued that is why there are elected officials. Mayor Gray stated if he does not agree with something someone does he will elect someone else.?”

An interesting choice of words by Mr. Gray
?– not we
- not they
- not the citizens
- not the public
- not the voters


BUT RATHER ?“he?” will elect someone else.

SO WHO DID ?“he?” CARRY PETITIONS FOR NOW?



Answer
- Postage, Thomas, Swanson ?– Mayoral
and for the (3) Council seats.
- Chris Smith (current member of Pickerington Zoning Commission)
- Julie Ann Smith (current member of the Pickerington Personnel Appeals Board)
- Jack Bowman (current member of the Pickerington Board of Zoning Appeals)

Do YOU believe these candidates will decisively address the issue of residential growth?

ELECTIONS IN OUR AREA (past)

n Fall 1999 Lee Gray decides not to run for reelection following an incident where a potentially intoxicated driver, an acquaintance of Mr. Gray, was not charged once the driver?’s companion called then Mayor Gray from a cell phone and the Mayor arrived on the scene and spoke with the Pickerington Police Officer. Wasn?’t that a wonderful video TV news item when the story broke?
n Fall 1999 Lee Gray commits his election funds to the election of Randy Hughes for Mayor. All opponents drop out of the race.
n Fall 2001 Lee Gray donates ?“In-Kind?” contributions to a phone bank for the reelection of Council members Wright, Monebrake, Parker, and Maxey against then unknown Shaver in a five way race for four seats.
n Spring 2002 ?– following Maxey?’s fifth place finish Lee Gray speaks before Council supporting the ?“appointment?” of Maxey to a vacated Council position.

Are these past examples of electing who ?“he?” wants to elect?
Lee Gray has said in local papers that this activity is not ?“election gamesmanship?”, but rather just ?“business as usual?”.

Are you tired of business as usual?


Did two former mayors and most of the current council members suddenly realize on the day before election petitions were due that candidates filling Mayoral & Council had been overlooked until that moment? Was it such a compelling oversight that they came together to sign petitions for these candidates in one day, all with no ulterior motives?


You decide?…and if you think someone was trying to confuse you, send them a clear message!


PUBLIC INFORMATION & COMMENTS THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS CHOSE NOT TO PUBLISH


A. Regarding the latest Referendum efforts
Referendum Petitions
Ordinance # 2003 - 61
Resolution # 2003 -14R

Why citizens can?’t get a referendum to the ballot in Pickerington!

The most recent antics of City of Pickerington officials is yet another demonstration of why a referendum, that is recognized within the State of Ohio?’s Constitution( ?§ 2.01g and Ohio Revised Code ?§ 731.29 ) whereby the ability of the citizens of this community to be able to vote on and potentially overturn ANY decision by this existing City government are denied EVERY effort.

1. The passage of both the Ordinance 2003 ?– 61 and the Resolution 2003 ?– 14R were brought before City Council and sponsored by Finance Committee Chairman Bill Wright. Neither piece of legislation had the required ?“Certificate of Availability of Funds?” signature by the Finance Director prior to the August 5, 2003 passage by Council.

2. Petition committee members were refused a copy of the certified legislative pieces to begin any referendum efforts until after the City Finance Director, on August 18, 2003, signed the ?“Certificate of Availability of Funds?”.

3. Referendum issues MUST be accompanied with a certified copy of the issue being considered to a citizen vote via referendum.

4. State law requires that petitioners ONLY have 30 days from passage of a piece of legislation to complete the process of garnering signatures on the referendum petitions. Actions of this government denied the circulators 13 days, or 43% of the time that is to be available to the citizens to process a referendum.

5. When copies of the issues to be considered for referendum were picked up a request of the City Clerk was made so that (2) complete copies were to be available. The reasoning for requesting (2) complete copies were so that the petitioners could be able to file one set of copies with the City Finance Director (Auditor) and take the additional set to a printer so that sufficient circulation copies could be made, thus not loosing more time. Upon examination of the copies received from the City Clerk it was noted that the additional copy of the Ordinance did not include the 2nd page, which primarily noted the signature of the City Finance Director and the important Certificate of Availability of Funds. Had petitioners gone through using this additional copy ?– IN ANY WAY ?– the efforts to process this referendum would have been voided for the reasons of not filing a COMPLETE COPY and/or filing one copy and returning (with signatures) a different copy.

6. Past history of referendum efforts within the City of Pickerington have shown that it is not above City Officials to take steps and measures to avoid referendum efforts and to make themselves unavailable to petitioners with regard to deadlines and time constraints. Noted earlier above is the availability of obtaining certified copies and this practice was also apparent when the Mayor of Pickerington, in December 2000, closed City Hall in an effort to thwart a referendum effort against ?“automatic?” zoning of all annexed lands to R4 densities. While citizens overcame those earlier obstacles the sitting Council simply repealed the ordinance in line for citizen referendum vote and then passed ordinance after ordinance via ?“emergency?” and with ?“pre-annexation agreement contracts including zoning stipulations?”. These pre-annexation contracts are the usual defense of the City Law Director, Mayor, and the majority of Council members who continue to not follow the will of the public.

7. Public meeting questions from both the ?“Hickory Lakes?” Public hearing and the ?“Sewer Plant Expansion?” Public hearing went unanswered prior to the scheduled ?“effective date?” of the September 4th implementations of both the Ordinance & Resolution in question.

8. The City Finance Director (Auditor) failed to deliver the Referenda Petitions to the Fairfield County Board of Elections in the prescribed timetable noted in the Ohio Revised Code. This has now been a repeated practice on virtually all recent Referenda & Initiative petitions.

9. Review of the petition certifications from the Board of Elections by members of the Petition Committee shows inconsistencies and irregularities of signature verifications that brings into question whether additional considerations are warranted of the Boards decisions.


It has been stated within the local media that obstructionist tactics are the ?“norm?” of the practices of members of the current elected and appointed officials within the City of Pickerington government. The above noted points bare evidence again to such practices.

For the reasons, stated it is time that the citizens of Pickerington who do not get defended by the City of Pickerington Law Director though they ultimately pay through taxes his salary and fees, be granted their rights. In a manner to insure these citizens Ohio Constitutional rights of Referendum we request that the Fairfield Prosecutors Office appoint a Special Prosecutor to defend the rights of the citizens of Pickerington, as it is clear that the Law Director, being appointed by Council, does not work for the citizens protection.



B. Letter to the Editor titled ?“Time to end puppet show?” (regarding the Community Authority Proposal and the BIA?’s contribution of $225,000.00 as promised and not delivered this year)

?…. Just look at how they are holding the schools hostage to the prevention of a housing moratorium in order to provide $225,000 for extra curricular activities. This is a days profit for most of the builders and they are trying to make us believe this is a huge amount of money to them. As an example, MI Schottenstein, builder of many homes in Pickerington had net income of $17 million in the first quarter of 2003. To break that down, they made profits of $5.7 million per month or $190,000 per day. This is one builder contributing part of the $225,000.

C. Letter to the Editor titled ?“Voters need to research candidates?”

?….You see, despite all of their legal wrangling with the citizens, all of the petitions they turned away, all of their money and rhetoric, the bottom line is this?…you can?’t stop the majority in a republic, and an election is when the citizens get their say. Don?’t think they haven?’t surveyed to see how this vote was going to come out?…just like they did prior to the vote on the three growth control initiatives. They know the score, and they don?’t like it. (Again, I?’m not saying that this is the motive of the candidates, but I believe it?’s the motive of those who assisted in getting them on the ballot) If they knew they were going to lose badly, then the only action that could save them is to attempt to dilute the vote for true growth control candidates. Don?’t believe me? Then ask yourself, what other motive? Did nearly all of the council members and former mayors who support residential growth suddenly have a mutual epiphany regarding not one, but two individuals who should be in the mayoral race? That is as ridiculous as their actions are desperate.

They?’ll try the same thing with candidates to fill the open council seats. My understanding, and I?’m not suggesting you just take my word for it, is that these same people were involved in circulating the petitions for council candidates Jack Bowman, Chris Smith, and Julie Smith. I can?’t imagine these folks circulating any petition for anyone who wouldn?’t be inclined to support their positions after the election.

D. Letter to the Editor titled ?“?‘Vocal minority?’ can make a difference?”

? Some of those carrying petitions for these two candidates have in years past, accepted campaign contributions?  from persons who would stand to gain financially from their decisions on City Council, misspent over $100,000 hard-earned tax dollars on a petition drive to aid the building industry and consistently tried to thwart any attempts to slow growth to a manageable level.?  However well intentioned? candidates Swanson and Thomas claim to be, in reading the names of those they? enlisted to help? get them? on the ballot, I can't help? but think that the only water being "muddied"? is that of their reputations.

Did you know that more than 4,400 Ohio citizen-soldiers fought at Gettysburg and nearly 30 percent of them were killed, wounded or captured during the tremendous three-day struggle? Here are President Lincoln?’s remarks at the dedication.

?“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these
honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.?”
? ? ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ?  --Abraham Lincoln

Please take advantage of your rights and vote on November 4th.
PATA provides this Newsletter through your generous contributions. NO builder funds, NO developer advertising, and NO tax paid publication, distribution, or production costs.
Bob Harding
Katelyn Sattler
Contact Person, PATA


This area is at an important crossroad



For several years now, the Pickerington City Council has been controlled by those who advocate rapid residential growth. The result has been that, against the obvious wishes of the majority of this community, this council has consistently supported any annexation or zoning issue that facilitated the rapid rate of residential development. We can all see the damage this policy has caused to our schools and infrastructure

Beyond just supporting developers and builders, this council has actively opposed those who have sought to control growth. Examples of this include their refusal to support several citizen petitions on this subject and their opposition to the growth initiatives so overwhelmingly passed last year.

Politicians know that, to get elected, THEY need to ?“say?” what the majority wants to hear. So, if you just read their campaign material, it looks like all of the current candidates understand the need to control growth --- IS THAT REALLY TRUE?

**An important meeting reminder.
A Public Hearing is scheduled for November 5, 2003 sponsored by the Ohio EPA at Pickerington City Hall, 100 Lockville Road, Pickerington, OH 43147 at 6:30 pm. The hearing will concern the OEPA?’s intent to receive comments concerning the agencies intent to issue a Permit-to-Install for a Sewer Plant enlargement. Written comments must be received by November 12, 2003 mailed to Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Permits Processing Unit, 122 South Front Street,
P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, OH 43216-1049