Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

ONE MORE THING!!

I guess Brian asked a couple of questions just before a couple of you went off the deep end. He asked me where I got my figures for the commercial real estate tax base of the PLSD. Well there are two places. First I have talked with the PLSD treasurer office. I am trying to remember Vince?’s last name but it won?’t come to me. He informed me that in 1997 the commercial tax base for the PLSD was around 18% today it is around 13 or 14% I say 14% because that is also in the Pickerington Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

Now for a little history, Mr. Wisniewski, seems to be hung up on the city?’s argument that the Township and Columbus are just as bad. So why are we complaining about only the city of Pickerington?

COLUMBUS:

Mainly consist of that area in the Northwest area of our school district. Yes in the early 1990s they were building faster than any sector of the PLSD. However that slowed dramatically about 1998. Basically they ran out of land to build on. Yes there were people in that area attending Columbus Council meetings and since they were such a small voting area of Columbus their demands were never met. Even as late as last year we were trying to get people to attend a rezoning of vacant land on Refugee Road just west of the Pickerington City limits. Columbus ignored all of these efforts. The housing starts in the Columbus area have been declining since 1997. There is very little threat from them in the future because they can?’t get around the City Limits of Pickerington and they have run out of land to develop.

VIOLET TOWNSHIP:

Percentage wise Violet Township was growing faster than Pickerington in the 90s. However there has been an effort by people like Lisa Ross, Chris Logsdon and now the election (2000) of Gary Weltlick. They have demanded and got lower density on building lots; they attend township meetings regularly and speak out when they see something wrong. They hold the trustees feet to fire! That has resulted in only about 140 new homes per year in Violet Township since 1999.

PICKERINGTON:

Now when you go and talk to the Mayor and his three dollars of residential property for every one dollar of commercial crap. Those figures are before this honorable Mayor ever took office in 2000. You should ask about the 250 plus homes per year from the City of Pickerington. Now if you have problems with the figuring the rate of growth it is near 10% for the city of Pickerington. The rest of school district is currently down below 4%. So Brian, tell me where the problem is??

Brian's follow-up ...... pg. 1


Brian,

Thank you for taking the time, in meetings and postings, to respond to the issues raised recently. However, there are a great many regular folks that would like a more fact based analysis that the often ?“regurgitated?” rhetoric of those that you have met with so far.

I?’ll respond via what I?’ll term as ?“Facts on File?”, (FOF) for short, to the often quoted rhetorical comments that you have repeated.

1. Why landowners annex ?– Because of services ........ (sewer, water, etc.)
Well, with utilities already in place for David Ruma?’s Wellington Park, Dominion?’s Spring Creek, Gail Roshon?’s (8185 Farms), etc, etc, etc. that doesn?’t cut it! These developers have all been offered incentives of reduced tap fees by the City of Pickerington and the services are already available in plants and pipes from Fairfield County Utilities. 17 million dollar estimated revenue lost to the other utility services was reported in the January Lancaster Eagle Gazette (FOF)

2. Zoning .. closely matching Township zoning .......
Here again, that doesn?’t cut it! Daryl Berry?’s (40) acres of condos / apartments beside the new school?’s sites (PR-10), Gail Roshon?’s (100) condos or zero lot line units just north of Jefferson Woods, Schotienstien?’s (PR 6) twin singles on Milnor, Kevin Strait?’s (PR 10) Condo?’s or (6) to the acre single family units in the latest annexation, etc, etc, etc. Doing your homework will show that perpetual PR 4 zonings of 8,500 square foot lot?’s by the City is not ?“close?” to Township zoning of R1, 20,000 square foot lots or R2, 30,000 square foot lots. (FOF)

3. Relationship with developers ?–
And again, it depends on what your definitions of ?“good & trustworthy?” would be. Mine tends to exclude developers who say one thing to their (clients homebuyers) and then do another (Farm Brook Estates, Haaf Farms, etc.) or another who gets booted out of another community and excluded from residential construction there, but are welcome in Pickerington with open arms. (FOF) and hundreds of angry local residents experiences.


(continued to page 2)

Brian's follow up ..... pg. 2

..........

4. Flooding problems fixed by developers monies ?–
Long Road, Diley Road, Villa Condos, etc. ?– development has all exacerbated flooding problems. Yes, some developers funds have gone into these issues, but and this is a BIG but, more funds annually are put into the 513 Stormwater Fund by the residents $1.50 per month ?“fee?” than this pat answer merits. (FOF)

5. Pickerington Ponds and the ?“conflicting study results?” R. D. Zande?’s report is dated
February 2001. The Burgess & Niple Report is dated March 2001. Public requests for the documents were made on the same day weeks prior to the City Council meeting to vote on the well field expansion. The B& N report, via Metro Parks, was made available one day after the request. The Zande report was made available one day after the Council?’s vote. The conclusions are different between the 2 firms. One firm contractually does business with the City on a regular basis and contributes to candidate?’s elections the other does not. (FOF)

6. Diley farm plated residential vs. commercially for land use. - The best explanation of this was given in the September 2001 Service committee meeting?’s audio tapes when an incumbent Council member stated how and why parcels zoning gets considered and approved. The subsequent popular vote unseated that Council member, and the subsequent actions replaced the individual to Council.(FOF)

7. TIF?’s are panning out ?– not according to the Income Tax figures chart recently listed. If one only focus on Property Taxes then one isn?’t thinking about a broadening of the tax base. (FOF)

Brian, on 4/22 you stated, ?“I don't have enough information to address your other questions. I am just trying to keep a balanced perspective.?” Possibly you could achieve the balance and information you?’ve mentioned if you contacted the people with the Facts on File.

My offer still stands - just give me a call.