Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Well we all expected it. The economic agreement has passed its second reading. I cannot for the life of me understand how any city elected official can vote to let ALL resdetial development from this point foward move here and not pay the same income tax we are paying. The only new ones who will pay what we are paying are what's in the city limits now. I apologize to the previous administration. They were right.

By Anon

The Unqualified

Anon

How can you complain. Clearly you are not qualified to make critical decisions like where someone may live in the future and how much one pays in taxes. You must be either be a successful lawyer or run the operations of a not so big fast food business. If you have an occupation of say being retired or maybe being a salesman or even a computer programmer you are not qualified to make judgment calls like this. So sit down and shut up.

I would also ask that the web master remove these kinds of postings so that they will not be available during the next couple of elections for the unqualified to read and get fired up about.

Merry Christmas to the Peasants of Pickerington.

A.P.

Two down, one to go

Shhhh....

Do you hear that? It sounds like the fat lady is singing for the city of Pickerington.

Times Sun of Pickerignton

City-township economic pact goes back to council

By DAVID S. OWEN

In the Pickerington City Council Service Committee meeting Thursday, with all city councilmen present except President Brian Wisniewski, the economic development plan between Pickerington and Violet Township became the evening's highpoint of discussion again.

As the committee's agenda reached the topic of the agreement, Service Committee Chairman Ted Hackworth asked if there were any additional amendments to be considered.

Councilwomen Cristie Hammond and Heidi Riggs both sit on the committee with Hackworth.

The mood of the meeting turned quickly into another heated debate, specifically between council members Michael Sabatino, Jeff Fix and Hackworth.

Near the beginning of the hourlong discussion, Hackworth, said he noticed the agreement that passed a first reading at the last city council meeting Dec. 5, was different than the one drawn up for consideration by staff members, City Manager Judy Gilleland and Economic Director Tim Hansley.

''The staff version was considered, but it wasn't voted on,'' Hackworth said.

''I think we could get more votes from council on it if we would adopt the staff version,'' Hackworth said.

Hackworth's said some amendments need to be considered for the agreement, mainly the city's future ability to annex land, conform its boundaries, and commitment in years it requires with the township.

The current plan puts the city into a 30-year commitment with the township, based on 10-year intervals, and the revised version, which is not currently being considered, commits the city to only three 5-year commitments.

After Hackworth voiced his concerns and proposed amendments to the agreement, discussion became more intense.

''We've got a current proposal on this before council, and service committee tonight, so I'm wondering why do we want to go back to a previous version of this?'' Fix said.

''We're not, we're just getting clarification on what's in it and what's not, Mr. Fix,'' Sabatino said.

''There is still some question of what was passed at council on this ... and I thought you committed on your part and were still open to amendments to this,'' Hackworth said to Fix.

Fix held his ground on the fact that everyone in council has already discussed the agreement in work sessions through out the last few months, and that it should be left alone and run its current course.

Sabatino kept the debate alive challenging Fix on the fact that the whole purpose of having deliberation on the issue is to discuss it at every opportunity.

''I'm trying not to relive the discussion of two months ago,'' Fix said.

''So you're saying there's no way were going back to the staff version or even adopting any of its points?'' Hackworth asked.

Fix was then asked several more questions by Hackworth and Sabatino, mainly on the subject of future tax burdens the current agreement will force on the residents of Pickerington, and how the township will not be burdened.

Fix defended his position by reaffirming that agreement is best for everyone.

A motion was then made by Riggs to vote on the agreement which, if approved, would take it out of service committee and leave it on council's agenda where it is expected to pass through it's third reading.

''So there's no chance we can substitute the staff version?'' Hackworth asked.

''I don't believe so,'' Riggs said.

The vote was 2 -- 1. Hammond and Riggs vote ''yes,'' and Hackworth voted ''no.''




By ''It is best for every one''