Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Point - counter point

Doesn't look like a certain councilman is backing off of his critique here on PATA.

He responded again on his blog Ted.

$800K

From the city website.

http://www.ci.pickerington.oh.us/sections/government/issue14faqs.asp

2) Street Maintenance and Improvements. The City would like to spend, initially, approximately $800,000 for street maintenance and improvements. The City has not done any paving since 2006. A responsible maintenance program dictates paving 10% of a city?’s streets every year, thus Pickerington will be behind schedule on nearly one-third of its streets before this money can be appropriated. Hopefully, once caught up, that level of expenditures could be reduced.

Keep the message simple

Someone has posted the city web site information on issue 14. This is the first time I have seen this information. I did look earlier before I voted and I only found a short blurb on the issue. This is more detailed and with much more information to look at.

Apparently either the council or the staff was manipulating one another on the $800,000 for a ?“responsible?” paving program for the city. This answers the question why so many on council jumped all over the $400,000 that staff was recommending for paving in the October 29th budget meeting. Realizing that they had been found out on padding their requests for money from the taxpayers they didn?’t want to let that go unchallenged in the new budget. I think the voters were way ahead of them on that issue.

Mr. Wisniewski says that the PPD needs these big Ford cruisers with the big V-8 interceptor engines in them. Maybe my eyes are deceiving me but I swear I saw a DARE cruiser driving around town and it looks just like a Honda Civic. I also remember seeing this DARE cruiser go after a SUV that had not yielded to a pedestrian in the crosswalk down near Central High. He turned on his flashers and chased the suspect down hitting speeds of probably 24.25 MPD to 26.57 MPH. I didn?’t notice any smoke coming from the Civic and I assume he was able to continue his patrol once he had written the ticket. I have seen the Sheriff department riding bicycles in Huntington Hills. When the gas prices were high last summer, they were patrolling Pleasantville with Golf Carts.

I notice also that the city claimed it would raise $3 Million from this issue 14. That estimate has varied from a low of $1.2 Million up to this $3 Million. It doesn?’t instill a lot of confidence in a voter when a city government that can?’t tell you within maybe 10% of what they expect to raise let alone 250%.

On the City?’s WEB site they claim that to service the Diley Road debt they must figure on $700,000 per year. Some one should explain to me and others what are they talking about?

Finally here is a cut and paste of point number 4 in the City?’s pitch to convince us to pass issue 14.

?“4) Finally, if you do not live or work in the City of Pickerington, this ballot initiative does not impact you.?”

Who in the hell was this comment directed too? I do not think these people can vote can they? So why waste your ink?

1. Show some cuts in the police department even if it is symbolic.

2. Drop the ?“responsible?” part of the road paving program. Replacing the blacktop on the road in front of my house every ten years is not responsible if it does not need to be replaced.

3. Explain the debt payments a little more coherently.

4. If council says they can balance the budget without police cuts do they really need more money?

5. Is balancing the budget by saving the PPD and gutting the rest city government responsible?

6. How can you say that you need $3 Million one moment then debate on whether you need to request money again in the future from the taxpayers. You just set the whole campaign back to the starting point.

Do you REALLY need the money?

By Unconvinced voter

Trying to explain?

You ask some pretty good questions. I saw all the information on the city website before the election and the information grew periodically, maybe even weekly.

I owned a property maintenance business and had contracted work to a couple of villages in the past so I will try to explain the paving thing. The $400K was a projected amount that has to be in the city?’s capital program plan. They have to adopt the plan as an ordinance so they estimate costs out a ways. 5 years I think. When the plan was developed or last updated, the $400Kfigure was probably what it cost to pave all or part of an average subdivision or main street back then. Since asphalt is a petroleum based product, can?’t you guess that that number has gone way up? Wouldn?’t it also be safe to assume that the equipment needed to repave streets also are petroleum based equipment? So the cost to operate the machinery has gone way up. We are a capitalist based society so I think it is safe to assume that anyone selling or using petroleum based products or equipment are as guilty of price gouging as the gas stations are.

But doubling the cost? You got me there. All I can figure is that the need exists to repave more than what was usual since they haven?’t done it in several years but I?’ll let one of the frequent councilmen posters answer that.

Not sure where you?’re getting grounds for your attack on Wisniewski on the ?“Ford cruisers with the big V-8 interceptor engines in them?” but what the PD purchases is not a function of council that I am aware of. Also, I see these little Chargers cruising around now. Seems to me like the PD is taking the steps to be more efficient. The DARE cars are donated. I asked at the DARE graduation the other night when I was there to see my kid graduate.

I think your information on $1.2M to $3M is not looking at all the same data. Yes those numbers were kicked around but not in the same context. I think the $1.2M was used by Sauer in making a case for something he was promoting but the $3M was the number city staff workers came up with as to what would be generated if the tax proposal passed. Maybe I missed something there.

If you can understand how city debt works, I would appreciate learning from you. I think it has to do with bonds and/or notes. I think the economy and the Revised Code dictates how you borrow for what. Don?’t you remember that the Diley Road project was an 80/20 split with the State? So I expect that the city?’s side of the debt is driving the $700K number you mentioned. But once the project is completed or past a certain measure of progress, can?’t the city refinance to a longer term lower rate deal? That should reduce the annual payment somewhere down the road. But the need now doesn?’t go away.

What would you recommend as a symbolic cut to the PD budget? Since we?’re dealing with public safety, I am trying to come up with a symbolic gesture that wouldn?’t hurt their ability to do their best to assure the safety of all of us.

I think it is better to drop the paving program entirely instead of deciphering the meaning of responsible. We?’ll of course pay dearly for that later but whatever. Live for today!

You?’re right. Explain debt. We all need an understanding as I suppose some on council do. They didn?’t incur the debt but are stuck with it.

As to the rest, I think that the city is looking beyond 2009. Yes they can balance for then but 2010 will require the cuts to the PD that were not made in 09. Passing the issue now would have let them get ahead on paying down debt so the right decisions can be made at refinancing the debt down the road and actually make principal payments.