Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Clarify

It sounds like you know a lot about this agreement. From what I've read it stops RESIDENTIAL growth in the City NOT commercial growth.

The city has a lot of unbuilt platted houses still in the pipeline. How many more homes does the City acutally need to build in a 10 year time frame? This agreement can be over in 10 years or renewed for additional years depending on how the parties feel it's working.

I think I've heard that 175 homes per year is in the city budget which I would think means they are building 1750 homes over a 10 year time frame to meet their budgetary needs. How many more homes are necessary?

That alone is 2+ schools of kids - how much more can we really handle? Forget the infrastructure impact to the roads & all the extra traffic that brings.

I'm not sure why it's a bad thing to focus on commercial development. Everyone on any side has said we have a poor commercial tax base & it would be good if the City & Township weren't fighting - it scares off business - what's the attraction to come into this mess? Doesn't it benefit everyone to have them work together?

Before you say that housing will get pushed to the township - if you look at the townships track record regarding building permits it's very consistant. Regardless of what's occured in the City.



By Wondering

Read the handwritin on the wall

Wondering

Where in the world are you getting your figures? How does a city ''budget'' for 175 homes per year? Where did you get that figure? I gather you claim that there are 1750 approved lots in the City yet to be built on over the next ten years. Where are you getting that figure?

Then you say that these 1750 new homes will fill two plus schools. How many schools have we built in the last ten years? Can we count them (Tussing??, Diley, Harman, North HS, Lakeview Middle and refurbded Heritage). If the growth is going to be in the city then why is the school board building two of the three news schools in the Eastern part of Violet Township? Why are there more homes in the township than in the City? Wasn't Pickerington way ahead in the 1970s?

The track record in the township has been just as bad as the city. They have done bone head re-zonings after bone head rezonings. At the same time the township has provided next to nothing in infrastructure. Where is the Township water and sewer plants? Why did the county expand both sewer plants in the last five years especially the one on Tussing Road? Why did the citizens of Violet Township take control over the zoning a few years ago (Late 90s) when they finally saw the distruction of the school district? Remember prior to 1997 most of the building was going on in the township.

Jeff ''wondering'' Fix here is a quote from your posting:

''I'm not sure why it's a bad thing to focus on commercial development. Everyone on any side has said we have a poor commercial tax base & it would be good if the City & Township weren't fighting - it scares off business - what's the attraction to come into this mess? Doesn't it benefit everyone to have them work together?''

My kids now say I must use DA for ''Dumb ass'' for stupid comments.

First the city has a commercial tax base percentage of 35% if I read the county auditor's web site right. The fact is that you can not just arbitrarily convert property to commercial zoning without some study or without the owners concurrence. The second point is that there is nothing but residential property zoning in the township. The most important point is that infrastructure must be in place or a strong commitment from the local government. The local government is Violet Township.

The reason that Canal Pointe is able to develop commercially is that they had the infrastructure in place. Unless the township is willing to open up their check book and commit the funds and the infrastructure then nothing will happen and that land down along US 33 in the PLSD will be developed with homes. JEDD property stays in the Township.

Wondering; I have read the land use and development plan of the township and it is planning to build single family homes on every vacant farm in the township. Over the life of this agreement and when the slump in housing is over you will see the results of their poor planning.

The reason we are in the mess we are in now is because the trustees for years were controlled by the local large land owners and they looked out for themselves. If you think we are going to significantly improve the 13% commercial tax base in the school district your are mistaken.



By Bean Counter

How soon they forget

Just three years after the newsletter from Fix the very same person being quoted as the expert was working with the city to secure a Moody's bond rating. Which by the way turned out very good.

Additional Experts provide comments related to municipal debt.

Figures from Mr. Conley, Senior Principal of Seasongood and Mayer, a bonding firm used in much of Fairfield County, in providing many local governments financial analysis, indicate the following data:

Pickerington?’s Cash Balances at year-end:
Year End Balance Percentage of Revenues


1997 $930,000 28%

1998 $750,000 22%

1999 $620,000 16%

In a Graphic representation this would appear as above: - NOTE - SEE THE ''OUR PAGES'' SECTION FOR THIS CITY FINANCILA STATUS GRAPH. It does not transpose into the Newletter section!


So the question bears asking ?– With our predominance of residential zoning and growth, are we following a predictable path of Costs for Community Services (COCS) outstripping our balance to finance this form of growth?

Mr. Conley states, ?“looking at the graph the financial conditions are on a down stroke and that if the 2000 year end cash balances are less than in 1999, it suggests the financial conditions of the city are weakening.?” Mr. Conley also stated that ?“Operating expenses are beating out revenues.?”


♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦


Bob Harding Jeffrey Fix
Contact Person Newsletter Editor




CITY OF PICKERINGTON
FINANCE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 2004
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M.


C. Review and discussion regarding obtaining Moody?’s Rating. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided Mrs. Riggs with a copy of a report that Seasongood and Mayer had prepared to present to a bond rating company, and that is similar to what they would be doing for us. Mrs. Fersch stated the cost of preparing this report for us would be approximately $7,500, and evidently Moody?’s is coming to the Columbus area in September and if they stop by and we take them around and show them everything, it would be cost effective as it would mean we would not have the cost of going to Chicago. Ms Gilleland stated she felt it was much more advantageous to have them come to our City because they will get a better feel for where we are, what we do, etc. Mrs. Fersch stated further it would be more advantageous for us to take the water plant note that is due in October and have it mature in the spring and roll it in with two other water issues either into a bond issue or take part of it in notes and part of it in a bond issue. Mrs. Fersch stated at that time we would have a rating and we should get a pretty good rate on it. She continued she has spoken to Fairfield National Bank, who holds the issue right now, and they would be happy to extend it to May 15th, and approximately two weeks before it is due in October they would give us a rate. Mrs. Fersch stated she has programmed to pay $195,000 principal payment on this, and that will drop it below $3 million. Ms Gilleland stated Mr. Hackworth had inquired about other rating companies, and after speaking with other entities, Moody?’s is still considered the foremost in the municipal rating market. Mrs. Riggs clarified that if Moody?’s does come to Pickerington, Seasongood and Mayer will prepare the presentation, guide us through the process, etc. Mrs. Riggs ascertained by utilizing Seasongood and Mayer it would be to our advantage in receiving a rating. She further clarified the cost of obtaining the rating would be approximately $15,000.

Good Catch

Wondering,

It is interesting how you catch effects on schools in your posting. I would like to point out that I think your numbers are way off base. I think you might be confusing completed builds instead of number of potential buildable lots left already platted.

Be sure you are talking the right numbers first.

Back to the schools, how come you (I assume this is Fix posting, right?)have not included in your numerous private meetings with oppositionists to your farce in the community anyone from the schools? Don't you want to be able to continue to polish your sales pitch by getting people from the board that are as uninformed as you are on board to publicly state their support of the destruction of the city?

You should get that Reade woman on board with your plan. She is as pathetic as you are. You'd make a good couple. But then you made a good couple with others in the past. Where are they now?