Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Pickerington Times-Sun

Committee studying joint parks district

By NICHOLAS A. LA TORRE

Published: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:06 PM

Meager attendance for Violet Township's Joint Parks District meeting made the selection process for a new parks district committee very easy. Everyone who attended was offered a spot.

Six community members, including a member of the city of Pickerington's Parks and Recreation Board, will comprise the Joint Parks District Committee.

The committee will be responsible for researching three options for the township's effort to preserve green space.

The committee will do the leg work to help township officials decide whether to enter into a Joint Parks District agreement.

Once officials decide if it is a viable option, they must decide whether to include only the city of Pickerington or if the Pickerington Local School District would be interested as well.

Violet Township Board of Trustees Chairman Terry Dunlap asked the new committee if the township should even consider an agreement.

''I wouldn't have spent so much time on the last one (committee) if I didn't think this was something worth thinking about,'' said Ira Weiss, former parks committee member.

Others said the township should be responsible for some of the costs of the parks.

''I live in the township and we have so many people that use the city parks that city residents pay for,'' said Peggy Portier, chairwoman of Violet Township's Bicentennial Commission. ''It's not fair, we need to start contributing.''

Pickerington Parks and Recreation Board Member Eric Pawlowski said the committee needs to figure out what it would take to sell a joint district to the city or school district.

He said residents may want to see a new recreation center plan before they vote for such an agreement.

Norm Hopkins, a township resident, asked what the township had to offer for a parks district considering it can't collect impact fees and has very little park land compared to the city.

Terry forgot taxpayers


Dunlap said the township can provide tax base and voters. If a joint parks district is created, it would be a tax authority under the Ohio Revised Code.

Other methods of preserving green space were discussed, but took a back seat to the idea of a Joint Parks District.

The township could engage in Farmland Preservation. The township would purchase the development rights for farmland in the community. The land will still be owned and farmed by the current owner, but the land could not be developed into anything other than farmland.

Dunlap said the main criticism for Farmland Preservation is, if the township is paying that much money why not just buy the property and farm it?

Another option would be an Open Space Levy. The levy would allow for park land purchase and would be controlled under the Ohio Revised Code.

Dunlap said many residents surveyed were in favor of this option until they heard it would create new taxes. Even though the levies are estimated cost only about $67 a year for a $200,000 house, hearing that shifts the residents' approval rating from 77 percent to 48 percent.

The Joint Parks District seemed to be the favored option for the committee at the meeting April 23, but all options will be thoroughly researched and presentation to the city, township and schools.

Hopkins said the committee would have something together by May 23, but Dunlap told him not to be set on a date because the research should require a lot of time.

Other residents serving on the committee are Terry Bauer and Darin Carothers.

''I wouldn't have spent so much time on the last one (committee) if I didn't think this was something worth thinking about.''

--Ira Weiss

Where's the survey?

I would like to see this citizen survey that Dunlap keeps quoting from. He claims 48% of the township is willing to pay higher taxes for a joint parks board.

I guess we should ask who wrote the questions?

Who decided with what demographic where these questions sent to?

Who analyzed the data received back?

Why would people in the township be willing to pay more for something they can use for free now?

Isn't choice high on the township residents list of items enjoyed in the township and they are currently free to freeload on any park system in the area?

What is farm preservation got to do with anything?

What is the township going to offer the City taxpayers other than voters and a tax base?

By Doubting Thomas