Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

$35 M is net for buildings

The numbers I stated (3800 homes, $35M, etc.) were numbers used early on in discussions on the C.A. These numbers were from the City (I think) on numbers of homes & average value. The $35M needed for construction of buildings was a number from the Schools.

You raise a good point about money raised having to pay for interest on debt service, but please note that the $35M is the net left over after paying interest, which would be used to build buildings. If I remember right, the actual amount raised with a 6 mill levy over 20 or so years was in the range of $77 million. And, remember the ordinance passed called for 10 mills over 40 years, minimum.

With respect to Mr. Rigelman's concerns, I would have to say that is the main reason the City is offering to pay for an independent third party to verify numbers - numbers of houses, rates of growth, number of school buildings needed at each level. We really need to wait for that report to come back; Mr. Postage stated is would be complete around mid-June. I know Mr. Rigelman and others have spent significant amounts of time putting together information on what they think the cost of building needed would be. I strongly encourage them to pass that information along to the entity hired to assess demographics. It is critical that they have all the information they can get so that their numbers are accurate.

Ted, I also agree that we need to increase commercial growth to balance the residential growth. I am on the CommUNITY 1st task force looking into how we can do this. I encourage you and others interested in helping to e-mail me so we can include you in this effort.

Finally, I agree we can't keep putting levies on the ballot. One main purpose of the C.A. is to prevent this from happening.

So, it sounds like we really agree on quite a lot! Let's reserve final judgment for after we get the independent numbers back. (And, after the final C.A. document is sumitted.)

Planned growth can happen

I know you have done a lot of research in this area, and I would be glad to meet with you to discuss what you have learned.

I don't have all the answers. I don't know exactly how Hudson and the other cities you cited compare to Pickerington point for point. What I do know is that other cities have been able to deal with rapid growth - look all around central Ohio for example.

Is rapid growth the BEST way for a community to expand? Probably not. Without a plan to accommodate the growth, most certainly not. That doesn't mean rapid growth can't happen, or can't result in better things in the end. It's how we deal with the growth that matters most.

I have encouraged Mr. Postage and others to look to how other communities have done it successfully. They can be the models we use.

Yes, the Chamber members I have spoken with support residential growth, as you stated. That is what feeds their businesses. However, I have not spoken with any that think rapid, unplanned growth is good. No one I know of wants to sink the community - not even the BIA. The builders are here for the long run. They have thousands of lots to build on, and it will take many years to build all the houses. Schools which are over crowded, under funded, and without extracurricular activities will not help sell homes.

You wonder whether I have a spreadsheet, and ask me to ''show you the numbers.'' What, specifically, do you want to see? I have no current spreadsheet, but would be glad to work to provide whatever information would be helpful in reviewing and planning current growth strategies, including the C.A.

Not Enough Dollars

Sara,

I am only working with a little cheap calculator but even your numbers of $77 million gross don't quite add up. What I am looking at is when we get the loan and when we start paying it off is years down the road unless the investor give us 4 or 5 years to start payments. I am also using 4% interest because I think those rates have bottomed out or at least they start upward prior to us being in a position to borrow for anything.

So I will wait to see what the experts say about furture money costs and how many houses this takes.

I feel you are assuming the BIA will accept what the Council passed last Tuesday. I fear the BIA will come back with a counter offer and those five still on council will be likely to accept that counter offer.

I believe above there was some postings by Brian W. and you should review them as well. The New Albany and Granville school districts do have CA in place. Both were very small districts and both were impacted with large increases in potential new students. In New Albany's case Mr. Wexler donated a huge sum of money to build the schools. Maybe you could convince Les to move into town. New Albany used their CA mainly for Roads.

Granville faced a large impact also and they used their CA for new schools.

The point here is that the CA being proposed here represents an much smaller portion of the school district. We are also more diversted here in Pickerington in terms of where we live and the level of taxation.

I believe to install a CA in the City of Pickerington whould be counter productive in the long run. I am afraid it would pit one section of the community against the other and the fight would last for years. The expensive new high school on Refugee Road is causing real pain in the district already and I don't believe we need more division.


The one thing I do want to say about New Albany and Granville is that their leaders saw the problem of uncontroled growth early in the process. They reacted to the problem early and they are better off for it today. Our community has tried to out do each other and everyone is getting their cut of the pie not thinking of the over all commnuity.

The only hope that I am aware of is to install a plan in the city simular to the Hudson, Ohio plan which has been tested in the courts. I know you don't want to hear this but Hudson, Ohio had lots that were in final plat process just like Pickerington.

Our leadership over the years have failed us all. That includes the City, The Township,and even those parts of Columbus that are in our school district. Our current choices are very limited. If you can come up with a better plan I am open to any idea but I reject the CA that is being proposed and the way it is being applied.

Sara Rose - please reply - pt 1

Sara,

In your posting titled ?“Response (part 1)?”

You clearly stated - ?“When I moved into Pickerington, I didn't pay for the increased costs to the school system by bringing in 2 more kids to the district. Neither has anyone else yet. Why should new residents be expected to do so??”

Either this was a typo or you don?’t really believe what you just said with your embracing of the community authority. New residents moving into the city, with or without kids, will be expected to shoulder a MUCH greater financial burden than those who moved in last month or last year because of this 10 mill, 40 year Community Authority.

I also take exception with the ?“Neither has anyone else yet?” statement. I would like to state that my wife and I have lived in this community for 15 years without any kids in the school system and have paid income taxes each and every year and property taxes for 13 years so I think we?’ve pre-paid for our kids education for at least the first few years. I think it is pretty arrogant to expect the next family who moves to Pickerington to pay another $800 or more a year in taxes because they got here after I did, so they can build a school for ?‘their kids?’ and help build the community pool, etc.

I agree the fighting between the city and the township has to stop but with the CA being limited to the city is just another way for the city officials to point their fingers at the township and say ?“look what we are doing, what has the township done for the schools? When will the township follow our great lead??”

Mayor Postage wants to use some of this money to bring Pickerington Central up to the quality of the new Castle off Refugee. He is using the CA to further divide the community instead of bringing it closer together. Let?’s use the money for a CITY park and rec center. Let?’s use the money to build more schools within the CITY limits. Etc.

more....