|
|
Today in the Columbus Dispatch is an article about the problems our friends in Pataskala, Ohio are having trying to get an income tax passed by the city voters. Clearly they over reacted in the 90s when they decided top merge with Lima township and didn?’t fully consider how they would fund the newly created city. In talking with friends and residents of the area over the last decade or so it seems the driving motivation at the time was to block Reynoldsburg from annexing into Lima Township. The thought at the time was that hey would drive up the school costs and thus further drive upward their property taxes.
There seems to be a disconnect between the old (original part of the town) and the 30 some odd square miles of annexed lands. Many running for office in Pataskala ignore these suburbs and thus a negative voting block has grown because of the disconnect. Others blame the lack of education of the voters for the need of an enhanced revenue system.
In recent months I have read of drug busts and other illegal activities going on within the borders of Pataskala. I fear if our Pickerington City council refuses to make peace with each other we are headed in the same direction. At the very least they must give the voters the opportunity to decide what we want not what some grandstanding Politian that wants to protect his political agenda.
With all due respect to the Pickerington School board they have had to make this decision regularly and to place issues on ballot and I know many of them were extremely CONSERVATIVE.
So that everyone understands the City?’s budget challenges we should take a couple of paragraphs to indicate where the problems are. The city has three major funds. The water, the sewer and the general fund. In 2005, I served as a council representative on the Utilities Review Commission and we voted to raise the water and sewer rates by 19% per year. The water and sewer rates had NOT been raised for over 15 years. Our operating and capital funds were going bankrupt. We also raised the tap fees to charge new builds part of the expenses of the sewer and water system.
I want to note here that Brian Sauer served on that commission and he voted in favor of the rate hike.
The third fund is the general fund. It receives its funding from property taxes, income taxes, and other grants and allowances from federal and state governments. As we have heard from Councilman Brian Wisniewski on his web site that this income tax has not been raised since 1976. In 1976 the city was a village and it received help from the state to maintain its roads and the demands on a village police department could be supplemented by the county Sheriff. Around 1993 the city reached the population for over 5,000 and it was then required to pay for it own police force.
The general fund supports the Pickerington Police Department and the Pickerington Street department. It also provides funds for the parks and recreation department. Please note that many of the services provided by the parks and recreation department are supplemented by user fees of programs.
By Ted Hackworth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head in sand won't solve it
Clearly with a growing city we must be able to fund the road projects that improve our commutes to work daily. Improved roads do tend to cut down on police time in allowing traffic to flow better. Almost all of these road projects require a local funds component and we find now that the city is shutting down projects that were on the books (Refugee and route 256 intersection improvements) because they didn?’t have the local funds available to partner with the state and federal government to pay for the projects. The city has dropped a budgeted $300,000 for street paving and that budget will only grow and require more funding once the funding crisis of over. The city is restricted by law from taking money from the water and sewer funds because those funds were collected for the purpose stated.
The largest component of the general fund is the Pickerington police department. The PPD receives around $1.2 Million from a PPD property tax issue (voted milage 5.5 mils current effective milage 3.7 mils). The PPD budget is over $3 Million per year. From the general fund the city transfers over $2 million from its property tax and income tax collections to support the PPD. The PPD receives about half of the income tax collection.
What we are faced with now is huge debt service payment coming due next year. In 2004 the council imposed impact fees on new builds and those funds has been paying most of the debt service for the police department building ($330,000 per year). In addition to that debt service we have the debt service for the city?’s local fund component for the Diley road widening which is around $600,000 per year. These impact fees were based on the builders coming in to build 175 homes per year. I understand the numbers are down around 50 homes for this year.
It is projected that the Pickerington income tax for 2008 will generate around $4.3 Million in revenues. Council is convinced that the city can increase those income tax revenues by $1.7 million by increasing the income rate to 2% with a 75% credit. I differ somewhat on the exact amount this formula will raise but I will go with the $1.7 Million increased revenues. The $1.7 Million increase would allow the city to make its debt service for things like the police department building and the Diley Road widening project. It will also provide enough funds to re-institute the sub-division paving program again.
Earlier in the year the council divided itself up into two committees to investigate both sides of the ledger form on the city?’s budget. There was the expense side of the ledger and that committee was chaired by Councilman Fix and others on the committee were Councilman Sauer and Councilman Sabatino.
One of the first department heads to be called before the expense sub-committee was the Police Chief. It was reveal that 87% of his expenses were personnel. To cut his budget means to reduce the number of police officers available to the city of Pickerington. I would recommend that the concerned citizens that live in Pickerington devote some time to reading the minutes to see what was actually talked about.
Clearly they discussed contracting the police services with the Fairfield County Sheriff?’s department. Not only the police officers but the dispatchers. After a posting earlier this year where I accused Brian Sauer of wanting to give our police department over to the sheriffs department he denied that to me later in person.
Continued:
By Ted Hackworth
|
|
|
These cuts will criple the city
Clearly the largest department in the city?’s general fund budget and the only way to reduce that budget is to reduce officers. I am sure by serving on the expenses sub-committee Mr. Sauer he knows better but he has not offered any other plan other than to do away with the PPD. I am sure in the short term we can save some money only to lose control over the PPD and to pad the coffers of the county taxpayers by paying for a full staff of officers only to receive one or two at any given time.
The only problem here is that the debt for the police department building will still be the responsibility of the Pickerington tax payers. The debt for the Diley road widening will still be ours. Finally if this is his plan I would call on him and Councilman Fix to provide the numbers of what the sheriff?’s department will charge Pickerington for this service. What will be the terms of that contract? Don?’t allow this city to sink into a situation where we call for a police emergency and there is no one to answer the call like what was described in Pataskala.
I fully support our council placing an income tax issue on the ballot and I would urge the council to do so before we miss the dead line for the November election.
Clearly crime is directed related to increased commercial development. That is clearly shown on the developments along route 256 over the years and the doubling of crime in the area. An increased income would tax those that use the services. Clearly the 1% currently being charged is not keeping up with the demands on our police and fire services. It is also not keeping up with the increased traffic and the demands for new and improved roads.
What was proposed by council (2% income tax with a 75% credit on other earned income) does not increase the tax burden on a big majority of the city voters. This income would not tax social security and retirement incomes. It would be the easiest to pass.
To Mr. Sauer you seem to be a selective conservative. How can you support a 2% income tax in the township (JEDD agreement) and not on the city employers? If you had so many concerns about this income tax issue why did you vote for it coming out of Finance? I guess the same question should go to Councilwoman Hammond who also reversed herself from her Finance vote. Neither of you are raising the city?’s income taxes. You are simply voting to allow the voters to decide if they are willing to pay more (in some 30% of the cases) and others to pay the same as they do now for improved services and better roads.
Finally Mr. Sabatino. I would ask that you consider voting for this issue because for four years on council you have lobbied for more police officers. I remember last year you called me concerned that an older lady was walking in one of our parks and a car full of teenagers was in the park playing there radios very loud. The lady simply went over to ask that they turn the radio down and the kids pulled a gun on her. You related other gun incidents in the city and you were bemoaning the fact that we can?’t hire ONE police officer this year.
Do any of you on council believe you can solve our budget problems by putting your head in the sand? Smell the COFFEE MAN!
By Ted Hackworth
|
|
|
Dear Ted
Extracting $1.7 million dollars from 30% of the people is not fair. I would, as a responsible citizen, vote for a plan that all participate in some type of increase. It chokes me to say that as a conservative independant voter, though.
Why not get the police levy returned to the 5.5 mils? That money is earmarked for the police department ONLY. That is not an increase in the tax rate, just returning it to what has been collected. This tax works itself down as growth occurs. A straight income tax WILL NEVER GO DOWN. All who live here would participate and it would be fairer. I would think that would be easier to get through a council vote to start.
Then a smaller income tax rate could be served up so the city residents and workers that this plan sticks it to would be more palatable. We know we need to me our debt obligations.
Remember, we've been told by those in office that the public is smart enough to understand these issues. Our city needs the money. An income tax will NEVER GO DOWN, but the millage will.
Now on a personal note. How would you be affected, Ted? Are you in the senior category that will be unaffected? Don't you own rentals? If you do, returning to 5.5. mils would affect you. I hope this isn't being self serving on your behalf. I am not attacking you, but as we see in Mr. Barletta's posting about Hobson, things have two sides. Just wonder where you fall into this mix.
By Make it fair
|
