Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

intelligent discussion 2.

The 90?’s saw Pickerington grow in size to become a City (population over 5,000) and with it ?“Home Rule?” status and much more power under the Ohio Constitution. A City can make zoning decisions (through due process) and collect Income Tax, as well as Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, etc. to support itself. In the 90?’s Columbus continues to have eye?’s for expansion and a level of cooperation (instigated by Township residents) supporting City of Pickerington annexations up Rt. 256 to I 70 to block Columbus annexing into Fairfield County, however the Tussing Road area isn?’t included. A 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the City of Pickerington is developed with input from many residents (incorporated & un-incorporated) setting aside lands along Rt. 256 ?– Refugee Road ?– Diley Road and Long Roads for commercial development. (all were within the Pickerington Local School District) and the City of Pickerington was going to be able to utilize it?’s power for the benefit of all regional residents. In the 90?’s there is still a threat to Columbus annexation to the south and the zoning of the ?“Village of Sycamore Creek?” subdivision is looked upon as another vehicle by Township Officials as a Columbus block in that area. A viewpoint of a little higher density for this subdivision than usual was looked as a small trade-off to make over Columbus type zoning and intrusion.

Then the late 90?’s come along and the ?“true?” picture of Pickerington unfolds. (ME decade II, meaning ME as whatever Pickerington wants Pickerington gets.) The commercial land uses of Rt. 256, Refugee, Diley Roads goes ?“poof?” in the name of making a ?“quick buck?” and is blessed by City Officials. The ?“Village of Sycamore Creek?” subdivision is gobbled up in annexation by Pickerington and Township officials begin to see (too late) that they have trade the evils of one municipality for another. Pickerington officials do not have the sewer capacity for these and other expansion moves. So becomes the regional agreement of shared resources with the Pickerington / Canal Sewer & Water Agreement for areas in the south. Pickerington duplicates water & sewer services along Rt. 256, placing condos and ?“little strips of commercial?” and threatens Fairfield County to take even more sewer & water customers in the area, even though lines and facilities are already in place to handle the growth needs. Township Officials develop a plan to ?“box in?” the City of Pickerington in some directions with denser than ?“normal?” subdivisions to maintain a more ?“rural?” zoning further from the core.

intelligent discussion 3.

?“Millennium fever?” fully exposes the Pickerington plot (ME decade III). By 2000, Pickerington is in full swing with ?“pre-annexation?” deals perfected and plots to suck up the Diley Farm (Dominion Homes), Kohler ?– Painter Farms (Homewood), Steiger ?– Wirthman Farms (Solove, Figge, & Olds) all at higher densities than Township zoning.

2000 sees the first of several Growth Summit Meetings with common zoning, potential CEDA (Cooperative Economic Development Agreement), etc. brought to the agenda table by Township Officials. The City comes to the first meeting with NO agenda items and by the second meeting only wants to merge and control all Township lands. Pickerington pays attorney Richard Brahm $125,000.00 to thwart annexation reform in the Ohio House of Representatives (House Bill 89). That sum is almost $9,000.00 MORE than the commercial income tax figures for the City of Pickerington that same year.

Knowing the municipalities have more power than Townships by the Ohio Constitution and the ORC (Ohio Revised Code) Violet Township strikes up the CEDA with Canal Winchester in the southern part of the Township (and completely within the Canal Winchester School District). This move additionally blocks any Columbus eastward expansion. Pickerington was invited to join (hopefully with lands inside the Pickerington Local School District), but refuses. Pickerington has been eyeing much of this same land for ?“getting around?” to finally broadening it?’s tax base, all the while telling it?’s residents that it?’s in the Pickerington Local School District. It?’s right there in the maps of the New & Improved ?– Staff generated ?– Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the City of Pickerington.

In 2001 Pickerington has rammed through water facilities expansions to service a sea of homes, but it turns out their aquifer is not unlimited and too much pumping will impact Pickerington Ponds. No concrete resolution is ever brought forth to implement a limiting of waters drawn. . The City busts up the ?“box ?–in?” plan by promising ?“incentives?” to the Spring Creeks subdivision (Dominion) and Wellington Park (Virginia Homes). Who pays to subsidize residential development? City residents and users if the utility system, that?’s who. The costs are estimated in the millions. Along with these annexation ?“deals?” language is inclusion to consider density changes, if requested by the developer and additional parcels (outside the box) with PR?–6 and numerous PR-10 zonings. The water plant expansion is added to already existing debt ?– millions more, yet all of the annexed lands were serviceable through utility systems other than Pickerington. Inside the City limits more high-density zonings are masked through lands donated for Police Station. Then the City of Pickerington ?“generously?” donates resident?’s tax dollars to fight annexation reform again (Senate Bill 5) to the tune of $149,500.00 this sum of over $13,000.00 MORE than the business Income Tax collected for that same year in the City. The year closes with Pickerington declaring the Pickerington / Canal Sewer & Water Agreement null and void.

2002 comes in where 2001 left off. Pickerington attempts to annex land within the CEDA boundaries (Canal Winchester School District) trying to bust up the CEDA and as usual, more incentives offered and another PR-10 zoning even closer to the new Rt. 33 interchange if the landowner will only annex to Pickerington. Next on tap will be the expansion of the Pickerington Waste Water (Sewer) Treatment Plant, although services are already available from alternative utilities. Million more added to the debt.

Brian, I would appreciate an intelligent face to face dialog on the questions you?’ve asked. I have files filled with documents to the points and issues listed above. Why don?’t you call me at PATA?’s phone # for a time and place we can meet?

Whew!

Man, ask a simple question and... ;-)

Just kidding, I know nothing I asked was really that simple. Ted, Lisa and Bob thanks for all of the information and I will print it out Monday when I get to work so I can go over all of it and try to make more sense of it.

I've met once with Doug Parker and I plan on meeting with him and Mayor Hughes next week if possible and will bring up some of these things.

I can assure you it is not easy coming into the game so late and not feeling overwhelmed with all of the information coming from both sides of these issues.

Bob I will contact you and discuss this information in more detail sometime soon but it may not be next week.

Thanks again I will post more questions and responses once I read over what has been stated and the links to follow and read.

Thanks again.

You're not done yet!

Brian,

Now that you have been given a history lesson on our community?’s financial problems, how about some very basic facts that exist today? I want to keep these facts very basic because others will be reading this information.

Our single largest public expense is to fund and support our school system here locally. Between 70 and 80% of our real estate taxes go to support the operating and capital improvement budgets of the schools. When you consider the cost of community services (COCS) you must always start with the schools. Documented on this WEB site is a study on COCS.

Basically for every dollar in tax revenue you receive from residential property it cost the community between $1.15 to $1.57 in services, commercial property cost about $.50 and farm land (undeveloped) cost $.25. If we had an equal balance of commercial and residential properties being developed then for every ?“CURRENT?” dollar of tax revenues would result in enough money to provide current services. I bring this up because the Mayor tells us that the city develops $1 of commercial for every $3 of residential property. Do the math! Currently our Pickerington Local School System is support by real estate taxes that are made of about 13% commercial and 87% residential.

Now our schools receive over half of their operating budget from the state of Ohio. They have set up a safety net for the state?’s public schools. That safety net figure is about $4,800 per year per student. To qualify for that money the community must provide at least an effective 23 mill tax levy on all real estate in the school district for the schools. Currently PLSD spends around $6,800 per student per year. The basic figure you must be concerned with is the property valuation to pupil ratio. Many times our school levy supporters compare PLSD to Upper Arlington schools. They spend over $9,000 per pupil per year. They also receive less money from the state in terms of percentages of their total budget. UA has nearly twice the property valuation per pupil that Pickerington has.

Now if you take just one house with one child as an example. If the market value of that house is say $200,000. The real estate taxes on that home for the school will be approximately $2,700. To qualify for a mortgage on that home the owner must bring in about $70,000 per year in income. That provides another $700.00 in school income tax. So this new home that sales for $200K gives back to the school $3,400 per year. Now if that owner closes on that new home today (April 21, 2002) the schools would not receive the tax revenues on the real estate portion of that home until 2004. Now multiply our losses by 257 new homes last year.

So if all of the tax payers in Pickerington also pay taxes to the Pickerington Schools why would Pickerington be want to develop commercial property in other school districts? Why does Pickerington annex township land and develop 97% of it as residential? Why did Pickerington change the comprehensive land use plan in March of 2001? This change designated 700 acres of formally plan for business property into residential. How do they intend to support our school with NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM ON THE NEW PLAN? Keep in mind last year Pickerington increase it?’s tax levy for POLICE, this year we are being asked to increase the budget for the FIRE DEPARTMENT. These are all community services.