|
|
Good morning Pickerington Area residents. The Webmaster has informed me that they have just been able to post the 2001 Income Tax figures for the City of Pickerington in the ?“Our Pages?” of this web site. What interesting reading. Look were the lions share of the money comes from. Is anyone surprised? Residential Income Tax to the tune of $950,000.00. Business Income Tax is only about 14% of the Income Tax revenue base.
Curious minds will probably begin to work on where the funds are / were spent.
Have a good day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apples & Oranges
Bob, I believe you are quoting correct figures. I just don't understand the math.....I have been to several meetings where the council quotes $3.00 of commercial development to every $1.00 of residential development.....How can that translate to 86% of the tax base coming from residential homeowners ??? Where are the tax $'s reflected from apartment & condo residents ?? Commercial or Residential ?? I know when the council talks about it they count as commercial.
|
|
|
Bananas & Kumquats
Lisa ?–
You?’ve cut to the chase of the ?“shell game?” relative to what is said at meetings and reported. The 3-1 dribble is related to PROPERTY TAXES not INCOME TAXES, which is what has been documented with accurate figures on the chart in the ?“Our Pages?” section.
There has been a Council member who keeps spouting off the 1000% growth of our Commercial Base. He was just barley elected. The point of the issue is where is the money? The Income Tax figures surely don?’t show much growth in the Commercial Income Tax revenue.
We all know that the Property Tax?’s from much of the alleged Commercial growth is TIF?’d to the hilt --- so the Schools, Fire Dept. and others don?’t get the property tax revenue, as they would otherwise. The status of Apartments, etc. as Commercial is an accounting function at the State and County levels and if there are 4 units or more (attached) it?’s figured as Commercial Property Taxes. It?’s that clearly defined in relation to Commercial Property Taxes. You?’ll note if you look closely at the Income tax chart that Income Tax from Apartments has been one of the fastest growing percentages listed.
No matter which fruit you pick, the figures don?’t add up. It doesn?’t take much gray matter power to look around and see the endless subdivisions cropping up and put together the ?“drive?” for Council to now consider PR-10 zoning as a ?“wonderful thing?”. The INCOME TAX chart proves that from these revenue streams, it?’s highly skewed toward homeowner?’s income tax with ?“growth?” in Apartment Income Tax.
|
|
|
Another Fruit Question
With what I have read in this string so far, I have developed a migraine. On a similar subject, though, how many dollars are generated for parks per house/home/residence/commercial property, whatever our esteemed leaders call it? I heard somewhere that there is a $300 per house impact fee that goes directly to the parks. I think that is abominable! Why, any developer could pay $1,000 per house and still make a killing off the reputation of our schools. If there are 4,000 building lots approved and whatever large number currently or recently under development, where is that money? Just some simple math shows me that the 4,000 approved lots will generate $1,200,000 for the parks. Holy cow, we should be seeing some improvements that will knock our socks off!
The only improvements I have seen is the baseball field at Victory. What about the rusted and splintering playground devices in other areas? What about undersized and/or poor condition and too few tennis courts? What about more parks? What happened to the new Water Tower Park?
Is there a source that can tell me the amount of income generated that would have had to have been earmarked for the parks and then show me the places and projects that the money went for? I am sorry, I just cannot see improvements in the park system, but I just might be overlooking something obvious. Shouldn?’t new park development keep pace with the influx of residents?
|
