Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

what is the need?

Thank you anonymous for your lecture.

Don?’t confuse my passion for the welfare of the city with me being bitter about the election. If I were bitter then why would I be supporting Brian Sauer?’s position on this issue? He beat me by 62 votes. I am glad to see at least one person using his brain to look over the facts of the issue.

There seems to be a real fear out there that I may run a campaign against this tax increase. I am not against the tax increase I am against the amount of the credit. Council can still correct that.

I remember a time when our city council would vote 7-0 on every issue before it. There was no debate and no information coming out to the public. At least now we have a little debate and I happen to be coming down on the side of the minority. On this issue I support Mr. Sauer and Mr. Sabatino?’s position.

Trying to embarrass me by saying I am bitter or I should retire only shows me that there is little or no substance to the majority?’s position and their argument for only giving a 75% credit to our tax payers. By the city?’s own estimates we are short around $1.2 Million in general fund monies per year. The vast majority of that funding goes to the police department. They take about half of the income tax money and if the issue fails then most of the cuts will be with the police department.

My goal is and always has been to look out for the Pickerington Taxpayers. Giving a 100% credit would give a majority of the households in Pickerington a tax break. That majority also lives in homes with taxpayers that will see their taxes doubled. It took Canal Winchester FOUR times to get their income taxes increased to 2% and the only way they did it was to offer a 100% credit.

The fact is that income tax and taxation in general is very complicated to most voters. Many in the first vote will confuse this city income tax with the school income tax. We all know how that vote goes.

I am hearing rumors from some acquaintances in the PYAA/PYSA and I am hope we don?’t follow the path like we did with the police station and try to finance a sports complex with income tax money. If the community wants to fund and build a complex then it should be built with a property tax bond issue and they should build it incrementally and it should be self sustaining and pay for its own operations. If the Pickerington Police Station would have been a property tax bond then that would account for over half ($320,000) of the general shortfall we have today.

I think in general we need to look at all projects in that light. What is the best bargain or the best bang for the taxpayer?’s buck.

Now for berating the council and trying to bully the council and the voters. Clearly I am concerned that this majority that supports the 75% credit that have said nothing to support the need for that extra million or so dollars per year. Clearly if they want to convince the voters to support this issue they must step forward and lay out the facts not some vague wish list that they currently are talking about in the paper. What is the real need here folks?

By Ted Hackworth

Out of convenience

Ted, it's easy to tell you use anonymous when it's convenient for you and you sign our name when you feel like it. Your bitterness towards Jeff is evident in your anonymous postings as it is in your signed ones. You beat the same dead horse anonymously or signed.

And because Brian Sauer agrees with you on this issue makes it easy for you to support him. If he would have offered up something other than what Ted Hackworth wants then he would have been the bad guy that the rest of council is in this case.

I voted for you in every election you were in even when you were a write-in candidate. But I would never again. In this case you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You've warned everyone on PATA that you can kiss the police department goodbye in one instance and we need this or that and now because council doesn't agree with you you're pouting and taking your ball home.

You're ''my way or the highway approach'' is not what this city needs and just because you're not on council doesn't mean that council is going to go around wasting money on pet projects.

Since you can tell the future and know everything let me ask you this. Did the sewer rate increase you enacted include the $900,000 in re-engineering along with the host of other sewer-related engineering services you failed to control as service committee chairman? Did the rate increases include the $1,000,000 contingency that is built into the sewer plant project?

If you would have built the originally designed sewer plant back when you got onto council and enacted a rate increase then how much $ would the city have saved? You chose to kill the project therefore causing hundreds of thousands of dollars to be completely wasted in the original design.

City's best interest in mind? I don't see it that way.

By a2

Focus

You folks seem to be running on empty. All you can argue is whether I signed a posting or not. No where close to answering the question of why council is asking for $15 Million when they only have a $6 Million deficit to fill? Why would the council deny the opportunity in a bad economy to allow around 70% of the taxpayers a half percent tax cut? You act like this tax increase is a done deal. Don?’t count the money just yet.

I know I have been outspoken about Jeff Fix. However don?’t believe for second that I am alone in my mistrust of him. I guess it is his tactics and his lack of results that frustrate me the most. In the last year and a half the council has got very little done and it is showing as we approach a critical time in the city?’s history. Since you and he believe no one reads this web site then my words are NOT very wide spread. Maybe I should start a newsletter.

On the sewer plant, if the city had gone through with the 2004 sewer plant version we would have defaulted on the loan in two years ago. The rate increases would have had to been over 100% to cover our costs and debt service. The sewer fund only had a little over $1 million in it at the time and the operational expenses were more than we were taking in from user fees. We were able to delay the plant construction and delay taking on more debt for four and half years. That gave us time to gradually increase the rates to both pay the new debt and to provide for the operational expenses. The estimate to build the old plant design came in at around $14 Million. I understand that the current contract for the redesigned plant came in at $9.8 Million. The reason it came in higher than the $8.8 Million estimate was because the EPA didn?’t like the sand filters. You should know that the 2003 design had a sand filter it its design also. Staff took care of negotiating the contracts and the bids. I was out of the loop at the end of 2006. Now if the council needs to adjust the rates then that will be their choice once the current rate increases have stopped in a couple of years.


The challenge to council is to convince me and others to vote for this income tax increase. Just saying there will be no change isn?’t going to get it and I will vote against it with the current and limited information I have received. The fact that you guys or guy wants to shut me up shows you have a very weak argument. I would also expect that if we are going to use taxpayer dollars then the campaign information should be truthful. I fear it won?’t be.

By Ted Hackworth

Pro and con

Pro. Ted, I'm with you on the tax proposal. The city should only ask for what they need. The city said they needed 1.4, or was it 1.7? There proposal would give them that. Then a miscue and now it will bring in what, 2.8? There should have been an adjustment. PERIOD.

Con. We raise income tax on our residents and the township can now get more in the proposed JEDDS with us and they don't do a thing? Tsk. Tsk.

Con. Regarding the old sewer plant,you NOT comparing apples with apples my friend. There was more than just a sewer plant in the 14 million. By the time you add the costs of re-engineering, cost of building, EPA's 2 cents worth, you'll be millions behind by the time its done. I am willing to make you a bet. I will call you to make the wager.

By Tsk tsk