Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Chief Fuller,

(cc: Mayor Hughes, Mrs. Bushman and Ms. Watiker)

As the initiator of the questions, please allow me to rebut your letter and make comments. Let me start by saying that I truly appreciate you taking the time to respond to my questions given your personal health reasons. I hoped to get a response from either the City Manager or Public Information Director, as I felt it was their duty, under the circumstances, to not bother you with these issues.

There was certainly no veiled attempt to attack the intent and purpose of your new facility and am frankly quite surprised you reacted that way. That is a reaction I have come to expect from the Mayor, the City Manager and the Public Information Director as they typically feign outrage when confronted with questions they don?’t want to answer. I am an ardent supporter of the Police Department and voted for the levy without reservation. I disagree that my questions were slanderous. I therefore won?’t continue this rebuttal in a defensive manner but will instead address the issues.

If there are unintentional implications of conspiracy, they should be directed at the other addressees of this letter, for they have proven time and again that they obey their master well. Funneling of monies to him, which are your words, not mine, might be an exaggeration. Certainly, though, extending abnormal other benefits to him would be hard for other City officials to refute. Since this does not involve the Department, I will save the subject for another time. As far as the comments about fault finding versus fact finding, consider that the general population of our City is forced to take things at face value for we are never given too much information by the City. That is why the Public Information Director was hired. We elected to fund and construct a new station. We assume, as we would when building our homes, that the driveway is included. We therefore also assume that your driveway is included and naturally question an additional $150,000 to construct it. If this expensive driveway was to be used as yours exclusively, we still would question why it cost so much, but since it is a roadway extending far into a property that the City does not own, of course I?’ll ask the question. Call it uninformed and one-sided if you will, but why are we providing Mr. Berry a road? Is this remuneration for his donation? This is the crux of the original question.

Additionally, in the many construction projects I have been involved in during my career, I have acted as a liaison between the A&E firms, contractors, subcontractors and the customer. I apparently wrongly assumed that there was a qualified and experienced individual in the City acting as a liaison for you which may have caused a misinterpretation of the tone of my questions.

I have replied to your answers in the attachments and hope you will take the time to read on. I also hope that someone will take the time to answer them here and save the PATA people the trouble of reposting them elsewhere.



By Maverick

Response, cont.

Since I couldn?’t find the map, I used the one from my PATA newsletter, how far from Refugee Road is the police station?

[Your Response ?– The site for the new police department is adjacent to and abuts Refugee Road. The building itself will be constructed approximately 200 ?– 300 feet off and facing Refugee Road.]

This begs the same question to be asked: Does a 200-300 foot driveway cost $150,000? Even if you throw in lighting, sidewalks and storm drains, should your driveway cost $150,000?

2. Wouldn?’t the roadway and parking lot be included in the overall package?

[Your Response ?– No. The building and construction is not bid as an overall project. Each phase of the contract is bid separately but in accordance with State law. Through many reasons may exist for this choice, the foremost centers around cost saving measures. Our current efforts have resulted in well over a $100,000 savings already.]

If you mean that building construction and site development are not bid together, I understand that. Does the $150,000 driveway cost cover all hardscape site development, i.e., the driveway, the parking lot, sidewalks, etc.? We appreciate your cost savings efforts. The supporters of your department and the levy never had any doubt you would make these efforts.

3. If the answer to number 2 is yes, where the heck is the $150k roadway going to and whom does it serve? I hope the answer is not that it is the prime street for Mr. Berry?’s development.

[Your Response ?– Though not answered Yes in the previous question, I will respond for clarification. The building will not have direct access to Refugee Road. Access to the facility will be through the roadway connecting to Refugee Road. The costs ($150K) for the roadway will be paid for by the City for that portion of roadway needed for access to the building. Future development costs will be borne by those developers of property owner?’s needing service or extension of the roadway.

Will the roadway extend beyond your actual driveway? If so, will the cost of extension be borne by the developer, Mr. Berry, or is the City supplying the roadway through his entire proposed development?]

4. Does the City, or do they not provide water and sewer to Big Bear Plaza, McDonald?’s, etc., adjacent to the police station?

[Your Response ?– Yes. The police department will however not be adjacent to these facilities.]

My misunderstanding. At the time I asked these questions, I believed that the Police Department would, of course, be located as close as possible to the City core. I didn?’t know that it would be located at the extreme edge of the City limits approximately 1 mile from Hill Road.


By Maverick

Response, cont.

5. If the answer to 4 is yes, can?’t they tap into services there instead of running new service across Mr. Berry?’s property? I mean, come on, how much water use and sewage use can the police generate? Aren?’t they out on the road most of the time?

[Your Response ?– In order to ?‘tap into?’ the services you are suggesting the City would need to cross many property owner?’s lands. This is not practical or fiscally appropriate. Water and sewer services lines will be provided to the facility at the property owner?’s expense. The city?’s cost for the lines will be to connect to those lines provided to our new property line. This I understand is a normal and customary expense.

The amount of water and sewage usage by the police, whether on the road or not, is not a relevant nor legitimate question.]

The amount of water and sewage is indeed a legitimate question. It has a direct bearing on the cost of supplying the necessary piping for these services. It would be much less cost to supply lines of adequate size to support the Police station versus the size line needed to support the station plus the high density condominium/apartment development planned adjacent to your station. If the developer is as magnanimous as it appears with his land donation, couldn?’t/shouldn?’t he bear the entire cost of water and sewer service to his development, pay all the appropriate tap fees and then all the City would have to do is provide their own taps to the existing service lines? Isn?’t the current proposal often referred to as ?“the tail is wagging the dog?”?

6. In the preamble where it says ?“in order to keep the construction schedule moving forward and to put the necessary financing in place to provide for the new police facility to preserve peace and enhance the welfare of the city?’s citizens, this measure shall be passed as an emergency.?”, Is it fair to ask what the ramifications of three readings would be on the construction schedule? We passed the levy over a year ago. Is it now asking too much to have 3 readings for public comment?

[Your Response ?– The Ordinance you describe appears to be the one necessary for acquiring the funding for the construction of the facility. Interest rates and terms change daily. Quotes for interest rates are limited in time. Bids are received and must be acted upon quickly. Certainly favorable weather conditions play a major role in timing and cost savings for construction of our facility. It remains our intent to maximize tax dollars savings during this project. From the start, I have strived to bring this project to conclusion with the public?’s interest at heart and to conclude this project under-budget. Should emergency language be necessary to achieve this objective without compromising the public?’s interest, than the city should proceed accordingly.]

Thank you for this answer. It is exactly what the citizens of Pickerington deserve. Since the writing of these original questions, and in light of the gaining momentum of the citizen?’s referendum initiatives, the City Manager has been a little more forthcoming in her explanations of the reasons for passing ordinances as emergencies.



By Maverick

Response, cont.

7. Did it take them this long to set a construction schedule and so much delay was caused that now the citizens don?’t have a right to hear the whole story in three readings? Is there something going on that we don?’t know about that would ?“enhance the welfare of the city?’s citizens?” less? Would three readings cause the police department to no be able to protect and serve?

[Your response]
[No one wanted this project to start and be completed faster than I. This has been no secret, I have openly stated that it was our intent to move as quickly as we could and to complete the facility as soon as practical. Engineering, construction plans, site review, and costs projections are time consuming events and have been on-going over the last year. The ?‘whole story?’ terminology infers that only part of the story is being discussed. This project compared with other community police department construction projects, is moving at a very reasonable pace. You or any member of your organization are welcome to attend any of the construction meetings I am involved with and perhaps help us move even quicker yet.]

Thank you again for your explanation. The inference of the ?“whole story?” terminology is discussed above. We only know and hear what the City Manager and Public Information Director want us to hear. Thank you for your invitation to attend your construction meetings. I have attended many in the past through my occupation. Can you provide the time and location of these meetings? As far as ?“any member of your organization?”, I have to assume you were talking to Mr. Harding here. As the writer of the original questions, I can assure you I have no ties to any organization, only to my property and income tax figures.

[Your response]
[The monies generated from this levy are used exclusively for police operations and services as described in the tax levy. Interest monies are always deposited into the city?’s general fund account. Mr. Berry does not receive and of these monies allocated to the department through this levy. I resent your implication.]

As mentioned above, Mr. Berry is a beneficiary of the City in many ways, shapes and forms. I imply only what another citizen has pointed out in local newspapers; it appears we are paying Mr. Berry $150,000 for his ?“donation?” of land to the City. The perception of residents could be that for every dollar we save or gain in interest, and equal or greater amount could be applied to help offset Mr. Berry?’s costs in the overall development of the area adjacent to the Police station in appreciation of his ?“donation?”.

Chief Fuller, I truly appreciate all you are doing and have done for the City and her residents. You have performed admirably under less than desirable circumstances for quite some time now. You and your staff deserve nothing but the best for your accommodations. However, the other City officials need to make sure they don?’t allow anyone else not employed by the City, to ride your coattails. Those officials need to make every consideration that there is no perception of any behind the scenes deals being made that can be attributed to your project. They often don?’t make that consideration when concocting ?‘deals?’ elsewhere in the City.



By Maverick