Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

The following information concerning housing growth is directly from the City of Pickerington. Each year is broken down into the four type of permits.

1994

Residential: 117
Commercial: 62
Condos: 0
Apartments:0

1995

Residential: 80
Comm.: 45
Condos: 0
Apartments:0


1996:

Residential: 87
Comm. 42
Condos: 0
Apartments:0


1997


Residential: 66
Commercial: 67
Condos: 14
Apartments: 0


1998

Residential: 90
Commercial: 66
Condos: 6
Apartments:0


1999

Residential: 176
Commercial: 39
Condos: 4
Apartments: 0


2000

Residential: 161
Commercial: 42
Condos: 8
Apartments:0


2001

Residential: 254
Commercial: 97
Condos: 14
Apartments: 0


2002

Residential: 357
Commercial: 22
Condos: 33
Apartments: 32

New Residential Units Per year Total
(includes homes, condos and apartments)

1994: 117
1995: 80
1996: 87
1997: 80
1998: 96
1999: 180
2000: 168
2001: 268
2002: 422

In short, the rate of increase was less than a hundred houses per year until 1999. In 1999 and 2000, this rate approximately doubled, only to more than double again by 2002. At the current rate, we are adding approximately 337.6 students to the school system per year utilizing the school district's projections of .8 students per residential unit. This is for the city alone. It does not include the township numbers or the numbers from Columbus.

Diley and Harmon Middle Schools, which were built only a few years ago, are already at capacity. The school district requested money to build two new elementary schools during the last levy. If one estimates that an elementary school serves between 600-700 students, this means that growth in the city alone is adding the equivalent a new elementary school approximately every two years. Once again, there is also growth in the township.In short, there is no doubt that the numbers reflect what is readily apparent to everyone from personal experience: the rate of growth in this community is increasing at an alarming rate. This growth rate is now threatening to overcome the resources of our school system.

This became obvious on Monday night when the school board announced the Draconian measures that will be necessary if the school does not receive additional funding from the taxpayers. The jewel of this community is the school system. Do any of us wish our children to attend the type of school described by the school board on Monday? Even if you do not have children, imagine the effect on the value of your property if these cuts are enacted and people begin moving en masse from this community to other school districts that can offer better services. Can the elderly citizens on fixed income afford to pay the additional property taxes necessary to add a new school building every few years?

At this point I believe it is inappropriate for any political entity to refuse to immediately take steps to control growth. In the case of the city, this means a moratorium in addition to the implementation of a community authority so that impact fees can be levied. Impact fees alone, however, are not the answer. These funds, while important, are insufficient to offset the cost of the rapid influx of new students to our already overtaxed schools. We must simultaneously control growth and this means a moratoium on new plat approval and strict limitations on the number of new homes built a year.

Moratorium Continued


In the case of the township, it must also act to control growth. If the present form of township government cannot achieve this goal, then it is incumbent upon the township to consider a form of government, such as a charter township, that will allow more control. What cannot be allowed to happen is for these two entities to refuse to act to control growth until the other acts. One lemming rushing towards the cliff is not rationale for another lemming to do the same, particularly when it is our children who will pay the price for inaction.


I urge all of you to write to your elected officials respectfully requesting that they take immediate action to control growth in this community.

On February 20, 2002 there will be a meeting of the Service Committee of council. I have had a moratorium statute pending in that committee for several months now. I will be asking that this statute be sent from the committee to council for action on that date. I urge all of you who are interested to attend this meeting.

Permit to install

One effective way to control residential growth is to limit the number of sewer taps allowed each year. Since Sycamore Creek and now the Fox Glen sub-divisions are serviced by the Canal Winchester sewer system and we have the Fairfield County Utilites at our city's borders why is the Pickerington Service committee even considering doubling the current sewer plant. It certainly is not for commerical development.

So in addition to the housing moritorium we should all be telling our service committee that they must put on hold for a years the expantion of the sewer plant. We just can't afford the $9 Million dollars for this project.


Our schools can't afford the 4500 new homes this expansion will service. This is in addition to the 1400 new homes within the city limits that will be serviced by the Canal Winchester Plant.

I also understand that this sewer agreement with Canal requires Pickerington to connect at least 100 new homes up to their sewer service every year until these two projects are built out.

We all must see the error in the ways of the current city government. Mayor Postage being three years late and millions of dollars short now proposes impact fees. This is nothing more than a ploy to waste your time and give them time to get the above sewer plant installed. Once that is all approved Postage will come out and say sorry folks we can't impose impact fees because they are illegal. ''Please forgive me I did really try to help the schools but we failed.'' Of course even if these impact fees are imposed they won't help with the current operating money problems our schools have because impact fees can only be used for capital projects.

By Dr. Pepper