Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

More random thoughts

Thanks to both of you for your wishes on the baby. She?’s my second so there haven?’t been too many surprises ?– yet.

As a legal research analyst, which is my chosen career and not something I ended up with, I often have to read reams of information to draw conclusions and make recommendations. So perusing council?’s and committee?’s minutes is pretty easy once you get in a rhythm. While the minutes are adequate, in that they capture the summary of what occurred, you can detect some nuances each councilmen and the mayor have with regards to their feelings on issues. The clerk is rather crafty in how he/she reports the discussions.

I don?’t see the attachment between Fix and Sanders we were all told would be devastating. The issues I see her primarily agreeing with him on and voting with him on also have the support of others like Wisniewski so a conclusion that she is in his pocket can?’t be drawn. By reading her comments I think she is bright and articulate. I just don?’t think she has developed enough self confidence. That stems partly, I believe, because she realized early on that people like Smith, Fix, Sabatino and Sauer think that a women?’s place is in the kitchen and not in council. Oh sure, Fix supported her but I think that his original intention was just to have an in pocket vote but it hasn?’t turned out that way. I actually think Sander leans more towards listening to the mayor than Fix by some of her statements in the minutes. That is a good thing because I think the mayor?’s lights are on.

At the risk of sounding like female bonding, I?’ll stick with Sanders as being a potential future leader on council when she gains the self confidence.

Yes I have heard that Sabatino can afford to purchase a seat on council. Well fine, let him buy it and focus on replacing Fix and Smith and Hammond(?). Reading some of Smith?’s orations, especially at the committee level makes me believe that he will run again. His words betray an ego as big as anyone else out there. He is no real value added but he loves the sound of his own voice. I think that if he hasn?’t filed the paperwork to run after the deadline passes, we might expect him to instigate something that he will consider his legacy and we might not like it.

Fix is certainly beatable. His record belies this. If an opponent focuses on his failures, both of his issues and his candidates, while Fix lies about his successes, voters will see the truth. He is a prot?©g?© of that Shaver guy. We have been pretty good at getting those people gone and now is Fix?’s turn. Support of the county republicans??? My God, that is like having TWO anchors around your neck swimming in shark infested waters! I think that the ?“power?” of that group has been stripped totally over the course of the last few election cycles. Some of the people I deal with professionally are in county jobs and from what I hear, unless the group of YAYHOOS currently running that party don?’t ride off into the sunset, they couldn?’t get a dog warden elected. Again, egos play a factor there so Fix is a good fit with them. The county republican party is the Titanic and Jeff is the bandleader. We all remember what happened to the bandleader.

Lastly to Mrs. Hammond. What the heck??? She got 1600 votes when she won her seat. What has she done since? She served a year as president pro tem of council (not that titles mean a crap) but come on, what would her campaign literature consist of? Even in this supposedly enlightened age we now live in, women rising to a position of prominence and then doing nothing with it reflects badly on all of us of the feminine persuasion. Bitter disappointment here. I did vote for her but would not again unless she pulls off something significant between now and November.

(more to come)

By Kathy K

More random thoughts 2

Police Levy?…?…Income Tax? Now that?’s a real poser. I tried to do some research on the county auditor?’s site to learn about these without much success. I haven?’t heard about which way council is leaning on this but I have heard that more than one councilman has used the term ?“police levy?” when talking about future revenues. Is this a slip of the tongue or their generic term for an income source that benefits the police? I don?’t know. As we have become taxed to death by the schools with more to come as property values possibly drop thus dropping the collected revenues thus requiring more, more, more, I have doubts that a police levy stands much more of a chance than another income tax issue does.

An income tax issue faces a rough road simply because council can?’t ask for less than they did last time; they would lose credibility if they did. I mean they said we needed at least what they asked for so if they now said they could settle for less than voters would ask why they didn?’t settle for less last time. A police levy, if what I learned about those things, is just a band-aid. It collects a higher amount when first implemented then declines afterward. That would be bass-ackward as we would need more money as years go on and costs increase, right? I mean salaries would go up, cost of cruisers, bullets, fuel, etc. go up but the collected money goes down?? That doesn?’t work. That?’s sort of like saying I am going to have another kid each year while voluntarily taking a pay cut?!?! I love here and work here so my income tax would go from 1% to 2%. I can live with that. I consume more city services than my neighbor does who lives here and works in Columbus. I voted for it last time.

I have more to say on the merger issue but I hate how this site tends to drift off in all these threads and strings that are so similar in theme. You don?’t know which to post in or follow. Back to motherhood and I?’ll work up some random thoughts on merger and post them when I get a chance.

Regards,
KK



By Kathy K

We need a faceless council

Kathy

You say that the council would lose face if they would ask for less. What will they lose if they must lay off half of the police department?

If you look at the County Auditor's site you will notice that the assessed value of Pickerington properties is a little over $400,000,000. That means for every 1 mil of property taxes the city will raise around $400,000. The city claimed they needed around $2.7 Million to $3 Million depending on what you read or who you talked with.Just to get to the lower number they would need to run a 6.75 mil levy with NEW property taxes. That would affect EVERY PROPERTY OWNER. They lost 65% of the voters this last time when they said 85% would NOT be affected. I think 85% of the voters will be affected by this property tax increase. Besides once this property tax levy is set it stays flat until it is reset or replaced. I think the current police levy is around 3.5 mils effective milage down from 5.5 mils.

At least an income tax issue will increase each year as salaries increase and growth occurs. The trick here is to keep the growth controlled so it doesn't overwhelm the income tax collections. Clearly growth over the last ten years has done just that and buried the one percent income tax.

Income taxes collections are good for seniors because they don't pay income on their social security income or most retirement incomes. They also don't pay income tax on dividend and interest income. They do pay income taxes on schedule ''C'' and ''D''incomes. That would probably affect only a minimum of those seniors.

If the council can bring itself to face the voters for a 2% income tax request and allow for a greater credit so that current taxpayers living in Pickerington and working/paying income tax to another city would get a 100% credit for that income earned there thus giving a large percentage of the voters a tax cut, then I think they would have a better chance of passage.

They must stick to their guns and cut the services they said they were going to cut. Clearly the Fourth of July will hit home once the citizens realize it isn't going to happen this year or next. Sauer trying to revive the fourth is counter productive and only adds to the skeptics that think there is no need to raise revenues. I also think they need to quite talking about these cuts and debating things like red light cameras, RITA and Health department cuts publicly. They need to tell the staff to make the cuts and present them to council for approval. Then look at next year and with out more revenues what must be cut then? In the mean time they have an obligation to request more revenues. I know we all hate to see the school board come back election after election with tax requests but I also think we all know that is their responsibilty to keep the district funded. I think it is the number one priority of council to make cuts and if possible to keep things like the police department funded regardless of whether they lose face or not. They must continue to ask the voters for more money and prove they need that money and assure the voters it will be spent wisely. This public discourse by our council is only killing their chances of additional money for the city.

They will be responsibile in the end.

My response (part 1)

Anonymous,
Given my previous comments on council ego, I think they would rather save face than save police. I read the minutes of the meeting where the entire PD came in to face council down when their proposed budget cuts were looming. All I can say is if some of these councilmen make a 911 call I sure hope they don?’t expect anyone to be in a big rush to respond. That?’s not a slur against the professionalism of our men in blue, just a critical look at human nature.
I think most councilmen would be willing to lay off cops and then pass the buck back to the PD when the complaints of lower service levels roll in. Council says to the Chief ?“It?’s our job to determine how much you need to do your jobs not yours; it?’s yours to figure out how to do it with less cops, less cars, less fuel, less training, less so on and so on because we?’re important elected officials and we know better.?”
I agree with all your sentiments about income tax versus property tax. I think it is just plain sense to establish an income stream that will grow with the cost of the services it will pay for. Reading the local papers and more recently with all the problems at the high school, I think we are seeing the trend in crime to become more, how shall I say this ?– urban in nature. I heard from a friend who lives near the shooting that happened behind Dairy Queen that is was certainly gang related. I heard these same offenders often will block traffic in the street trying to drum up a little situation if they can. I heard the yet unsolved murder in Simsbury Estates was drug related, and not just your street weed dealer. My aunt is an employee in the school district and she says they are seeing more gang related and race related issues and crime arising daily. They are in no way, shape or form prepared to deal with it (obviously from the events of late February and early March). We need to rely more and more on the police department to deal with many of these issues. The schools refuse to report most issues that arise to not draw attention to the problems that exist. Heaven forbid if the average voter should find out anything that wasn?’t controlled by the public information department! It?’s not like parents aren?’t getting minute by minute updates from their kids via text messages anyway. Plausible deniability I think President Nixon called it.
Police departments like ours send their officers to training learn how to deal with the more contemporary crime trends we are seeing. Council takes none of this into consideration when looking at their budget. (Plus Sauer is trying to cut training budgets across the board to shoot off fireworks, but I?’ll get to that later) Or at least that is how it appears to me. So it left to us to step up and not let our community become something we don?’t want it to. However, we reject the tax issue soundly because why? We can?’t afford it? We don?’t trust our elected officials? What other reasons?

more.......

By Kathy K