Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

As a former member of the Pickerington City Council, I have worked on a number of issues for the city. Clearly one remaining issue (task undone) was the level of revenues for the city. As we watch the current city council members struggle with the city?’s current expenses and wait to see what options to resolve these revenue short falls will be presented to the public I wanted to put forward my own recommendations. My numbers come from the staff and the financial advisor.

Currently a majority of the city residents live in Pickerington and work in another city that charges them income taxes on that income. Depending on the source of the data those workers and taxpayers in that category range from 65% to 85% of the Pickerington residents live here work there. In addition at least another 10% of the taxpayers that live in Pickerington and live on a fixed income. Most fixed income (social security, retirement plans, 401K distributions and IRA distributions) are not taxed by the city income tax system.

Since most, if not all options available to the city council, must be voted on by the City voters then to it to pass in bad economic times they must put sugar on it to pass it.

All options that I have heard so far require a tax increase or at least a higher burden on the city taxpayers. The second question is that why is it reasonable for cities like Columbus and Canal Winchester to charge a 2% income tax with a 100% credit to its residents working elsewhere and Pickerington opts not to do so? They seem to want to stick it too the city residents. It also double taxes our residents with local taxation.

I want to advocate today that the city put on the November ballot a 2% income tax with a 100% credit for all earned income from cities like Columbus and Canal Winchester.

Here are the advantages to the City.

1. It raise enough money to ($1.7 Million annually) to pay current debt service payments and met the operating expense demands.

2. It will maintain the current general fund reserves and may increase them some what.

3. It will ensure a strong police force and an adequately staffed force.

4. It will give over 65% of the Pickerington taxpayers a tax break with not having to pay two city income taxes.

5, It will have a minimal affect on the seniors because retirement incomes and social security incomes will not see the city income tax increases. The city dose not tax these sources of income (state law).

6. Clearly future increases in revenues will be based on a 2% income tax base rather than a 1% or even a proposed 1.5% income tax.

7. It will allow the city leaders to address some of the current issues that are proposed to being cut like Police manpower (womanpower), street improvements like Refugee and 256, Street paving and many other projects that are in lower priority categories.

8. It will allow the city to pay some the current debt instruments off in 9 or 10 years instead of the 20 or 30 years being proposed.

9. It will allow the city to build a larger general fund reserves account and to allow for a much higher Moody?’s bond rating thus saving the city additional money in interest costs for the future.


By Ted Hackworth

Train wreak coming

Don?’t expect anyone from council or the Fix theorist to come forward offering any kind of responsible solution outside of their stated goals of giving away the city to the township. If Fix is so smart and this commercial development is so great, like Fix and Sauer would have us all believe, then why is Canal Winchester schools laying off teachers and making deep cuts at the school district? Even if the Village of Canal Winchester is doing great their taxpayers are still finding it hard to support the Canal schools.

The question will be, does Fix and his coalition have the guts to face the responsibilities of the Pickerington budget short falls and put forward a ballot issue to voters? I say no. They are content to see the city damaged and dominated by the township. In that case we all lose.

what are they up to?

Fix and Sauer are still looking into turning over the police department or part of it to the Fairfield County Sheriff's department. They will probably start with the dispatchers. This adds to the Sheriff's budget and helps the township. This all about cooperation folks. I hear they are trying to keep this quiet until they spring it on everyone in a lame duck session..

Time to get off the pot FIX

Councilman Fix seems to be one of those people that the Native Americans called speaking with forked tongue. Similar to a snake.

It is apparent that the city has some budgetary problems and Fix hasn?’t the courage or the intelligence to address it.

His first step was to suggest a JEDD which the city would receive 13% of any income taxes produced from this JEDD. His selling point was that it would not raise the taxes of the City residents. However his co-conspirator Weltlich indicated that this JEDD would take 20 to 30 years before it began to rock and roll or what ever that meant.

When Mr. Hackworth suggested that the city propose a 2% increase in the income tax to the voters, Fix called it ridiculous and called him an isolationist. He further accused Mr. Hackworth of wanting to build a wall around the city. Then Mr. Hackworth predicted that if the council failed to increase the revenues by raising its taxes then we could kiss the Pickerington Police Department good-by. Fix claimed that they hadn?’t talked about that. However the first department he calls before his expense sub-committee is the Police Chief. Even his colleague Brian Sauer sees that if a tax issue fails in November they must make the cuts for the 2009 budget.

Fix then begins to make rules for everyone to follow on this web site and on the board is a proposal and the person signed his name. Clearly this proposal is an important one and the voters will decide the issue (more taxes and or no Police Department). For any tax issue to have a chance it must be aired publicly and debated publicly. Fix refuses to address the issue because it will show his lack of insight into the issue and his lack of understanding of how the city treasury really works. Despite claiming he is a big shot business man who runs a $75 Million company he seems to know very little about public finance.

By Taxpaying Observer