Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Jeff; my beef with you and the tone I use is a direct reflection or reaction to your comments. Clearly calling everyone else on council a politician is not a favorable tone in my opinion. Maybe if you spoke to people in public and in private in a more respectable tone you would receive the same respectful treatment back.

My second beef with you is your inability to adjust to new information and to understand the realities within our changing community. You continue to beat the same old drum beat with little or no information or real facts to support your case. For a couple of years now you have touted this commercial development plan and you continue to push for it. However you neglect to show or say where the needed infrastructure will come from to enable this commercial development. In your prepared statement you kind of hint at the subject but never commit to it.

Let?’s correct the record here. It wasn?’t Jeff Fix that killed the 2003 sewer plant project. I lead the way for that project to be shelved. My reason for doing that was based on the fact that we didn?’t have enough sewer plant/fund revenues to make the debt service payments. Clearly those in charge at the time were basing their decision on the fact that they planned to grow the city with at least 325 new homes every year to pay for the plant with sewer tap fees.

We were able to expand the approved EPA rating of our sewer plant by 400,000 gallons per day and that bought the city time to plan and find better ways to pay for the project. The city formed a citizen group that looked into the water and sewer finances and it was determined to raise the water and sewer rates over a five year period to cover the cost of future development in our city. In addition to the sewer rates the city negotiated with the county a new 208 plan which established sewer districts within Violet Township. This is a binding agreement that reserves the city?’s right to service certain areas within the township and thus ends these sewer wars we have had for so many years. It also protects the city and the county?’s investments into new sewer plants.

The fact is that in 2004 the citizens of Pickerington elected a group and I am included in that group of leaders that wanted to slow the growth down. I think by 2002 we all saw that the community had run away growth and that there was an imbalance between commercial and residential and we were losing control of providing infrastructure in the community especially the new school buildings.

Now we find ourselves in a situation that growth has slowed and the schools are saying they won?’t come back for new operating money for 4 years. I doubt that we on council in the last four years can take credit for the slowing of growth but we can take credit for putting in place some plans to protect the community once that growth begins to return.



By Ted Hackworth

Growth and user fees

Diley Road was planned before the January 2004 council. In fact, it had been planned for well over 10 years at that time. I supported the Diley Road widening because the road was crumbling and the city needed a second freeway entrance. As we now see it might even lead to additional commercial development. I supported and pushed for the impact fees. In fact the impact fees were keeping up with the debt service payments that were coming due this past April. However with the slowing of growth the revenues from the street impact fees are drying up and that debt service payments will need to be supplemented by general fund revenues. The real safety net here is City Income tax increase.

Based on the above two major city projects I support an increase of the City?’s income tax from a 1% rate to a 2% rate with a 100% credit.

I also believe that the citizens would rather pay a little higher user rates and income taxes versus an out of control residential growth that floods our school district and raises our property taxes. Normally what we think we would pay in higher income taxes is over shadowed by school property taxes.

The great thing with going to a 2% income tax with a 100% credit is that it gives 70% of the city taxpayers a tax cut and thus a bigger incentive to come to the polls and vote in favor of the increase.

I truly believe that the city needs this increase in revenues ($1.7 Million). It would be the least painful to those that live here and work in another city. Since the seniors are not taxed by the city income tax on their social security and other retirement income they would see a minimal affect.

So I think this proposal has the very best chance of passing.

For those public servants that want things like widening Hill Road, a new Recreation center, or more police officers then the City or they should run an initiative to place it on the ballot as a bond issue. In fact this is the only way the city can fund more capital projects is through a bond issue on the ballot and that bond would be secured by our homes. Trying to piggy back onto the income tax will only muddy the waters and confuse the voters. When they are confused they will normally vote against the issue. I would be very opposed to seeing the city council have a campaign based on arbitrary needs of the city and see it fail because they wanted to solve all of the financial problems in one move.

I think what the majority of council is risking now is that they are going for broke and if this tax increase fails they may or may not have time to run it again. In any event they will then find themselves cutting police officers and impacting our future commercial development of the city. I believe the $1.7 Million increase is just enough with a little to spare. Anything more will fail.




By Ted Hackworth

Not sure about tax increase

I live in Violet Township but have an office in the downtown pickerington area. If the income tax goes up onother percent I will look at moving my office. I am fine with the 1% tax but another 1% is quite a bit in taxes that I could avoid if I moved my office or put my office in my home. I am sure that I am not the only person that will look to moving. I spoke to an employer today that said he may look to move his office if the tax is approved. Not sure what the right answer is but why would I be compelled to keep my office in Pickerington?

Tax needed

If you were to look around the outer belt you would find that a majority of the cities that have the same responsibilities as Pickerington have imposed a 2% income tax with a 100% credit for income earned in another city. I estimate that 60% of the workers that live in Pickerington drive to Columbus everyday to pay the 2% income tax in Columbus. If the city were to put on the ballot an increase from 1% to 2% income tax with the 100% credit clearly stated on the ballot issue then that the issue would pass with a modest effort on the part of the campaign committee.

Would those folks that would see a tax cut be concerned with a small business moving out of town because of the tax increase? I doubt it. I know I wouldn?’t.

Even in Mr. Fix?’s statement he worries about losing business to Canal Winchester (Canal has a 2% income tax with a 100% credit) because we can?’t afford to pay for needed infrastructure based on the current revenues to the city.

I know there are folks that want instant results with a tax increase. The results will not be instant; they will take time as they should.

I am not sure what you do for a living but if the extra 1% of income tax would impact your business then I would agree that you should consider moving your office to your home. Besides the rent in town for the office you would save some on gas and utilities for your office. I am sure this tax adjustment will affect everyone differently.

If the 2% income tax impact was that great then there would be no jobs in Columbus or many of the surrounding cities.


By Ted Hackworth