|
|
At the next service meeting I intend to ask that the Committee vote on the moratorium statute that has been pending before the committee for several months, During this time, I have not received any specific input from the other members of the committee or, for that matter, from any other members of city council. This was more than enough time for any interested party to request modifications in the statute.
The only comments that I have received from other interested parties have dealt with the issue of what number would be appropriate for the limitation on housing permits and whether it would be more beneficial to restrict water and sewer taps. I have looked at the growth numbers for Pickerington. During the 1990's the number of residential units averaged less than ninety per year. We are now at over 422 units per year and have , for reasons I cannot fathom given the mood of the electorate, hired even more building inspectors to expedite this process. My suggestion is that we utilize the number of one hundred new permits per year. This is slightly more than the numbers during the 1990's,but drastically less than our current rampant growth.
There are also apparently ''negotiations'' with builders over impact fees. I believe impact fees are absolutely necessary, but insufficient to resolve the problems created by rapid growth for our schools and other infrastructure problems, such as roads.
As Mr. Rigelman has aptly pointed out, these fees can only be used for capital improvements. Accordingly, while the money can used to build schools, there would still need to be additional funds to operate the schools. Let us assume for a moment that there is an impact fee of $5000.00 and that the schools actually receive all of this money (leaving no money for infrastructure improvements such as roads). At four hundred houses per year this would give the schools money to build another elementary. This elementary, however, would exist only to serve the increased numbers and would not have been necessary in the first place if not for rapid growth which mandated the construction of a new school to house the rapid influx of students.. Moreover, this would still leave the schools and taxpayers with the task of funding operating expenses. For those of you who have not followed the school issue, this is exactly the problem we are facing now with the new highs school and junior high.
If growth is controlled in conjunction with impact fees, the money raised for impact fees would not have to be spent immediately on new schools to offset a rapid increase in growth. Slow absorption of new students into the school system would allow time to develop strategies for efficiently utilizing these funds, hopefully without the necessity of building multiple new schools that will eventually become empty building when the demographics of the community change. Hopefully, if we continue to make Pickerington a good place to live, people will remain after the children have left the school system, thereby making room for the slow, steady influx of new students. Moreover, some of the impact fees can then be used to develop resources that this community desires, such as a teen center/community center, recreation facilities, bike paths, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service 2
I also have some concerns about why we are ''negotiating'' with the builders on the issue of impact fees. This is somewhat akin to negotiating with the fox on the conditions under which he will enter the hen house. I am quite sure the citizens of Pickerington will support impact fees and it really should not matter whether this is acceptable to developers. Please do not misconstrue this statement. I have tremendous respect for developers. They, however, are in the business of building homes. It is our responsibility, not theirs, to determine the structure of our community. If we abdicate this responsibility to the developers, do not be surprised that we will have a community that is little more than a collection of residential housing developments
There is another issue that mandates a moratorium on new housing plats. We have very little land left in Pickerington that is not already committed to residential development thanks, in part, to the unprecedented onslaught of plat approvals by other members of council last fall (shortly before the election where the voters spoke decisively about the desire to control growth). if we are going to have any hope of developing parks or commercial parks, we need to take action immediately.
If this issue interests you, I would recommend that you attend the next service committee meeting on Thursday, February 20, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.
|
|
|
One vs. the Other
David,
Thank you for the information you have provided here. Your information seems to be categorized into two areas: moratorium and impact fees. Speaking to the moratorium issue, I am not sure I understood your answer on the houses per year or sewer tap suspension. If I might ask a couple of questions on this it might help clarify it for me. If you impose a moratorium on residential building permits, does that mean that even though an area is platted, the building permits have not been issued? Or are permits issued in conjunction with the plat approval? If it is the former, then a moratorium on permits seems prudent. If it is the latter, then another course of action might be in order.
Likewise, when in the process are the sewer taps issued? That timing would weigh into whether a permit moratorium or tap moratorium would be most effective. Wouldn?’t the sewer tap moratorium have more effect for the citizens of Pickerington? Since the sewer plant is operating at or over capacity, if we stopped letting more sewage in, then the plant could handle the load. Additionally, since the City obtained permission to increase the capacity of the plant, they should be able to maintain the status quo. The suspension of the issuance of sewer taps would have a twofold benefit. If we did not allow more sewage to enter the plant, we could hold off on the proposed $9 million expansion, which is questionable whether or not we can afford. The expansion, to me at least, seems to be another of the City?’s Catch-22 situations. If we don?’t build it, they won?’t come, but if we do build it then we have to build a lot of homes to utilize it or it would have been all for nothing. We also have (at least in my mind) the unresolved issue of how much more water we are capable of providing to handle the growth. I am not convinced that drilling wells near Pickerington Ponds will not have a permanent detrimental effect on the ponds. The Hereford field is old, at capacity and located in an area that a single HAZMAT spill from the railroad would have a profound negative effect on the citizens. The City refuses to utilize existing water and sewer services located throughout the area operating at way below capacity. I think the citizens have the right to be involved in a decision on a sewer tap moratorium after they have been given all the facts with clear explanations and exposure to all the Catch-22?’s the City seems to open itself to.
Lastly on this, my personal opinion is that a 1-1?½% growth rate is more productive than just setting a number of 100 per year. The growth rate should be tied to the overall size of the community rather than an arbitrary number.
On the subject of impact fees, I could not agree more with your analogy of the fox and the hen house. The developers have no right to have a say in the growth rate of this City nor should they have a say in what their contribution towards it should be. It is our City, not theirs, at least for the time being. We simply tell them that this is the cost of doing business in the City of Pickerington. If you don?’t like it, leave. There are many more reputable builders out there that are willing to come to Pickerington that have been effectively kept out of Pickerington by the current bloc of builders that are here.
|
|
|
Who's Invited ???
What I want to know is who is attending the Negociations between the City Council & Builders to hear what type of Impact Fee's are being discussed & how they will be structured? Where is the press ?????
That meeting is NOT public to the best of my knowledge - maybe the Times-Sun will write another editorial on this issue. I would think this particular negociation should have a wide reaching affect on our Community & it would be in our best interest to know what is being discussed before it is accepted & not reflective of the needs of the Schools.
By The Goose and the Gander
|
