Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

January 2001 Newsletter

Feb 14, 2001

What is a CEDA
Over the past several weeks you have undoubtedly read in the local newspapers about a Cooperative Economic Development Agreement (CEDA) that has been proposed between Violet Township and the Village of Canal Winchester. While the politicians on all sides do their political dance, the folks here at the Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance (PATA) wanted to provide you, the average taxpayer, with some insight into what this means to you.

First of all, a CEDA is simply an agreement between two governmental agencies to work together to provide government improvements, facilities, and services, in an effort to promote employment opportunities and economic development in a defined geographic area. In other words, they work together to grow a Commercial/Industrial tax base, which can be used to provide you with cheaper, better governmental services.

The geographic area for this CEDA is a part of Violet Township that is unincorporated (meaning it does not fall within either Canal or Pickerington city boundaries), but is and always has been a part of the Canal Winchester School District. By participating in this agreement, Violet Township will incrementally increase its tax income, as will the Village of Canal Winchester, and the Canal School District.

What does the Violet/Canal CEDA mean to you
Canal residents:
If you live in Canal Winchester, this agreement means that as the area is developed, your Village and your School District will see significant incremental tax dollars that do not have to come out of your pocket.

Violet residents: (both incorporated & unincorporated)
All of us live in Violet Township so all of us will also benefit as the Township coffers fill more quickly,
without the incremental tax dollars coming out of our pockets.


Why is the City of Pickerington making such a stink about this?
For some time now Mayor Hughes and City Council have been promising constituents a ?“Business Park?” that will help offset taxes. They have used this ?“Business Park of the future?” as justification for the over development of residential areas within City Boundaries. The unfortunate fact is that instead of working with Violet Township on a CEDA to accomplish this, Mayor Hughes chose to step away from the table, and pursued his typical course of action, which is to try to annex the property to the City. Last year, while time could have been spent working on a COOPERATIVE agreement between the City and the Township, Mayor Hughes pushed a merger idea that was discarded handily by Area residents. Basically while Mayor Hughes was trying to take the whole pie, instead of sharing it with others, Violet Township went and cut up the pie with Canal, leaving Mayor Hughes with none. Anyone who had the opportunity to attend one of last year?’s growth summit meetings between the Township and the City witnessed this first hand (for loan of a video copy, contact PATA at 755-2464).

Violet Township Trustees made several concerted, public efforts to bring City Officials, including Mayor Hughes, to the table to work on an agreement just like the one we are talking about. Obviously for a benefit to be realized for the Pickerington Local School District the CEDA would need to be located within a different boundary than the currently proposed Canal ?– Violet south of Busey Road CEDA. The City now chooses to pursue the hostile annexation path on some of this same property, rather than a cooperative path. While the annexation option would provide ?“the whole Pie?” for the City of Pickerington by cutting out shared opportunities with Violet Township and the Pickerington Local School District, the likelihood of this happening is slim at best. It?’s like the guy who has $10 left from his paycheck: does he invest the check, knowing that it will grow for him, or does he play the lottery, hoping to win big?

The City of Pickerington, in an ?“Emergency Meeting?” held Monday, January 29th, voted unanimously to annex 365 acres of land that is a major portion of the land in the CEDA between Canal and the Township. ?“I?’m mad, so I?’m going to take YOUR ball and go home.?” On January 5th of this year, portions of the land that the City is now trying to annex was signed into an annexation agreement with the Village of Canal Winchester. What this means is that a landowner (who owns a major portion of the land, 297 acres, within this CEDA agreement) wants to be a part of Canal Winchester, and the Village wants her. However, Mayor Hughes and the City are stomping their feet in frustration, and are now at the point of taking hostile action against this property owner?’s right to decide how her land should be used.

HERE?’S THE FUNNY PART
As mentioned earlier, the land in this agreement is and always has been a part of the Canal Winchester School District. The Pickerington School District could not see any economic benefit from this agreement, regardless of the players. In essence, the City Government is mad because of the missed opportunity to line its coffers, not because the grasping Pickerington School system would have found an oasis of tax dollars.

WHAT THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON COULD DO

In light these facts ?–
1. The Diley Road - Route 33 interchange will begin construction April 2002 and conclude December 2003.
2. Our City has a very clear need to develop commercial and industrial land within city boundaries AND within school district boundaries, just .7 of a mile from this interchange.
3. We all desire to maintain the greater Pickerington Area?’s status as a great place to live in Central Ohio.

There are two things that elected City officials might consider.

 First, they could tear up their ?“pre-annexation?” agreements with Homewood Corp and Dominion Homes that has 400 acres of land (Diley and Painter/Kohler properties) being developed as residential homes (the dreaded R-4 zoning). This land is directly to the north of the CEDA land, and would be a great commercial/industrial development site. By doing this, the city would be adding significantly to its own tax base, while pumping sorely needed tax dollars into the school system.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:

1. Wasn?’t an earlier Comprehensive Land Use Plan considering the widening of Diley Road to 4 lanes between Rt. 33 and Rt. 256?

2. Wouldn?’t this form of transportation corridor improvement give us the best opportunity to broaden our tax base?

3. Could proper, balanced planning give our residents a choice of an ?“environmentally friendly?” Office Park surrounded and augmented with improved recreational opportunities in the proximity of Pickerington Ponds?

4. Wouldn?’t such development require less water consumption than the proposed additional 1000+ homes within just this 400-acre area?

 A second option is to truly work together with the Township and cooperatively develop a CEDA for land to the east of the land set aside for this current agreement. This additional ?“area for development?” is within PLSD boundaries and shares many traits with the Canal/Violet CEDA land. Again, adding tax dollars to both the City of Pickerington and PLSD School system.

CALL TO ACTION

**** NOTE CHANGE OF TIME AND PLACE FROM EARLIER PUBLISHED INFORMATION ****

March 1st (Thursday)
7:30 pm
Canal Winchester High School Cafetorium
300 Washington Street.

Public Hearing for input on the CEDA between Violet Township and Canal Winchester. The members of PATA would like to encourage all citizens to attend this meeting, learn all the facts available directly from the officials involved, and show support to the Violet Township and Canal Winchester officials who have taken this forward thinking step. Should you be unable to attend the meeting, your written comments are welcome. This can be done at either the Violet Township offices (12970 Rustic Dr. ?– Pickerington, OH 43147) or at the Village of Canal Winchester offices (36 S. High St. - Canal Winchester, OH 43110).

Bob Harding Jeffery Fix
Contact Person Newsletter Editor

PO Box 518 Phone: 755-2464
Pickerington, OH 43147
Email ?– pickeringtontaxpayers@hotmail.com
Web site ?– www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/pata

Recent efforts of area citizens have resulted in the successful validation of a referendum regarding Pickerington City Council Ordinance #2000-137 - the automatic rezoning of all newly annexed land to R4, medium density residential development, up to four houses per acre (per City of Pickerington Planning & Zoning Code). Success in the referendum process allows the issue involved to go before the voters of the incorporated portion of our area (City residents). This opportunity enables voters to become educated on all aspects of the issue before the November general election.

''Why zoning matters to all area residents''.

Many recent statements regarding zoning in our area can lead to more confusion than fact. Zoning decisions cost every area resident in taxes. Zoning decisions are the driving component in our cost of community services escalation.
Using data from 1999 ?“Pickerington For Kids?” levy campaign of that November (in 1999 dollar figures) that were calculated by Pickerington School Board Treasurer, Dennis Menoski, the following basic equation was emphasized;

A $150,000 home (property taxes) with
$ 60,000 income (income taxes) and adding only
(1) child per home

Produce a Net Loss to the PLSD of $1,813.00

(This net loss is a result of the fact that the cost of educating the one child in the home is outweighed by the incremental tax dollars generated by the new home). This figure is just operation costs ?– not including facility costs.

Let?’s apply this to recent zoning comments of City & Township Officials from the 1/04/01 & 1/06/01 Columbus Dispatch and the SE Messenger and just (2) of the annexations currently being considered.

The Diley Farm annexation of 245 acres

-Township Officials indicate a zoning density of 1.75 homes per acre under current Township Zoning Codes .
-City Officials originally formed an ?“Emergency?” pre-annexation contract of PR4 with the developer at 2.2 homes per acre. Now Dominion wants 2.3 homes per acre

2.3 - 1.75 = .55 homes / acre ( no problem right, it?’s only a small increase )

.55 x 245 acres = 135 additional homes ( Oops --- now it?’s adding up )

135 x $1,813 = $ 244,755.00 ANNUAL NET LOSS / if just one student / home
*These figures are just the costs of the increase above earlier zoning and do not including the 429 homes that current zoning would allow.


135 additional pupils would equate to an additional 6 teaching positions (approximately) and the cost of classroom and other facility costs of these additional students.

The Kohler / Painter annexation of 155 acres

Now let?’s factor the numbers for the Kohler / Painter annexations of 155 acres. This also has an ?“Emergency?” pre-annexation contract with Homewood Corp. of PR4, but the city claims that it will allow development at 2.6 to 2.8 homes per acre. The developer has made public comments of now wanting 3.0 ?– 3.5 homes per acre. Why not, that?’s less than the PR4 designation? Let?’s suppose the Township followed their earlier 2 homes per acre zoning which should be more in the R2 range due to obvious flooding that frequently closes Diley Road in this area.

3.5 - 2 = 1.5 more homes / acre (Oops a little bigger, but they have a contract)

1.5 x 155 acres = 233 additional homes

233 x $1,813 = $ 422,429.00 ANNUAL NET LOSS / if just one student / home
*These figures are just the costs of the increase above earlier zoning and do not including the 310 homes that current zoning would allow.

233 additional pupils would (approximately) equate to an additional 10 teaching positions and the cost of classroom and other facility costs of these additional students.



This $ 667,184.00 total is based on data over a year old, it does not account for all additional staffing and has no facilities costs included. These numbers are derived from only the decimal point differences regarding (2) current annexations. Please consider this region and the overall possibilities of the numerous annexations and subdivision potentials.
Every PLSD resident will bear these expenses, no matter where they reside, or whether or not they have children in the school system. Shouldn?’t zoning decisions involve the whole community?

Worst yet, is that schools are only one factor in the Cost of Community Services as agricultural land becomes developed. Sewer/Water, Police, Fire, Roads ?– the list goes on.

As noted in a previous issue of this newsletter, the answer is smart growth. Smart growth like the growth that will occur in the land that will be developed in the CEDA underway between Violet Township and Canal Winchester. Smart Growth takes government officials who are willing to put forethought, and the long-term best interests of their constituents on the table, and mix them with a cooperative effort between the City, Township, School Board, and County.

   

Pickerington well field pump test data is still not available (at press time) relative to the potential impact of increased pumping from the Diley Well Field Test. The tests conducted January 9th ?– 12th were report to yield results to be released to the public in 10 days.
No public hearings have been scheduled.




**note the CEDA Map is previously posted in the "Our Pages" section of this web site. Graphics do not transpose to the Newslwetter section.**


The above Map shows the proposed CEDA area. With few exceptions, lands south of Busey Road and West of Hill Road (and following an imaginary line ?– if Hill Road didn?’t jog Westward as it intersects Busey), are all within the Canal Winchester School District.

As filing time approaches for taxes, one of our members wants to remind us to make you aware of a potential tax reduction opportunity.

 The Fairfield County Auditors Department has forms for consideration of the 2-1/2% Supplemental Rollback Form. For consideration of this tax break you must own and live in your residence. Qualification & Completion of this potential tax reduction takes effect the following year, according to auditor officials.

Forms are available at - http://www.co.fairfield.oh.us/AUDITOR/index.htm

Or via mail ?– Fairfield County Auditors
210 E. Main Street
Lancaster, OH 43130
(740) 687-7162 * PATA suggest you check your status with your own tax
advisor. We do not perform any tax services.

Thanks to the many people who have already mailed in their $3.00 fee for receipt of future Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance Newsletters. This annual charge helps cover the costs of printing and mailing.

For those who have yet to confirm receipt of this mailing, please mail your fees as soon as possible.
(Address confirmation is necessary).

PATA _______________________________
P.O. Box 518 __________________________________________
Pickerington, OH __________________________________________
43147 __________________________________________
*Newsletters are also available via email request.


Additional PATA resources that are available to area residents include:

 No charge loan of the award winning PBS Documentary ?“Subdivide and Conquer?” ?– a 30 minute video regarding ?“Smart Growth?” and community planning.

 No charge loan of previous area ?“Growth Summit?” meetings.

 Loaner copies of significant studies & reports regarding our region.

Thank you for your interest and support.

Fact of the Month ?– While officials state figures of water rates, a wise consumer might consider the combined costs contained within the components of their utility bill.

Assuming a 250-gallon per day consumption rate ?– the annual data below applies.

Pickerington Utilities Fairfield County Utilities
Water $2.13/1000 gallons = $194.36 $3.15/1000 gallons = $287.44
Sewer $4.29/1000 gallons = $391.46 $2.80/1000 gallons = $255.50
$585.82 * $542.94

*not including $18.00 ($1.50) per month
storm water fee or any potential surcharges if not a City Resident.