Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

sewer and TIF

sewer and TIF

3-26-2006
It is not required for the city to serve this with sewer, the county has service and in some parts of the city the county does service city land, and according to the 208 plan, this is the county service area, so that is an expense and use of capacity that the city would not have to provide.

The county can do a TIF, but they will probably not...Township can not do a TIF,

The city has studies that say that retail development costs the city more than it takes in....so....in an era of city leadership that does cost benefit analysis...I think the city would pass on this project and say no... If this was the prior adminstration, they would have passed the TIF and annexation by emegency yesterday...not even knowing the cost to the city in the future...maybe except for that little problem of Mrs. Bushman hating the Ricketts.

except for one thing...in the cost benefit sense...

If the city could annex the High School property and reap the income tax from that, then the city may be ahead, but the police costs may exceed all of that...think about it.

Township TIFs

Below is a cut and paste of the TIF finacing here in Ohio. I believe that Townships actually can do a TIF. Sorry Lisa

Tax Increment Financing

Incentive Districts. The sunset date of June 30, 2007 for TIF Incentive Districts is eliminated. Effective January 1, 2006, and unless one of several transition rules apply, cities, counties and townships establishing Incentive Districts after January 1, 2006 must comply with new notice and approval requirements (by counties if implemented by a city or township, or by townships if implemented by a county) if the TIF exemption exceeds 75 percent or 10 years. The exemption may be up to 100 percent and for up to 30 years without county or township approval if certain compensation payments are made to that county or township. In addition, the legislation establishing an Incentive District must identify a development project that will place additional demand on the identified public infrastructure improvements. For cities, counties or townships with a population that exceeds 25,000, the aggregate value subject to TIF exemption in all Incentive Districts cannot exceed 25 percent of the taxable value in that city, county or township.

For Incentive District TIFs approved on or after January 1, 2006, certain tax levies approved after the date the local TIF legislation is passed cannot be exempted by that TIF and are to be collected with respect to parcels in the Incentive District. These include, among others, levies for mental retardation and developmental disabilities, children's services and libraries.

Finally, unless one of many transition rules applies, the State school foundation formula payments made to school districts could be reduced if compensation is made to a school district under an agreement with a governmental entity. No adverse impact under the school formula occurs with respect to certain parcels in the Incentive District if (i) the TIF Ordinance is adopted prior to January 1, 2006, (ii) it identifies a private project on those parcels and (iii) an agreement is entered into with a developer for those parcels. There are other ''targeted'' transition rules applicable to specific circumstances.

Other Tax Increment Financing Matters. The definition of Public Infrastructure Improvement in Revised Code Section 5709.40 has been amended to exclude police or fire equipment. Cities, counties and townships may determine which year a TIF exemption begins under Revised Code Sections 5709.40, 5709.73 and 5709.77 (and for Section 5709.41 if it can meet the requirements of the transition rule in 2005), and the incremental demand test in those programs has been removed.





By SECTION ORC 5709-78

You're Forgetting

Dan and Pam,

You're both forgetting that the city and township have tried merging before, and township residents were adamantly opposed to it. This is the same old argument recycled.

There are too many tensions between the city and the township, and too much lack of trust from township folks. I'm not saying these hurdles couldn't be overcome, but it would take a lot to convince township residents to merge with the city.

I'm guessing you both are Pickerington city residents, possibly even city government folk.

Something else to be considered - some township people have Canal Winchester addresses, some people live in Licking County, not Fairfield County, and what about the Columbus residents who live in the school district? Some Columbus folks have Pickerington addresses, and some have Reynoldsburg addresses. What to do with the Columbus kids? Send the Columbus kids back to Columbus, and change their mailing address to Columbus?

I throw these things out there, but I really believe nothing will come of it. These posts - by all of us - are more just armchair quarterbacking than anything else.



By Seen It Before

Misconception

You can't send the ''Columbus kids'' back to Columbus because they were never in Columbus Public Schools to start with.

Even if they never were you can only ''trade'' land/students with contiguous school districts. Columbus is not contiguous with Pickerington - that's why PLSD is not a part of win-win - one of the stipulations of participating was that the school districts had to touch.

I think you would have to attempt to give ''them'' (Tussing) to Groveport or to Canal Winchester if you're talking about The Meadows at Winchester, which is south off Bowen & Lehman.