Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

I want to address a couple of the issues that have been raise here on these discussion pages concerning our local issues of funding the schools and economic development.

First the issue of is our tax system fair? Should it be reformed? Is it the responsibility of the State Legislature?

Whether taxes are fair or not is relative only to the one asking the question. Most people would prefer not to pay any taxes if it where possible. In relationship to funding our schools we hear it is unfair to tax real estate but please take a moment to study that question. Real Estate is one of the few taxes that stay constant over the years. Our school funding problems right now are because some of our school tax base is coming from income based taxes (school income taxes and state aid which is based on sales taxes and state income taxes). I think the state legislature tried to correct a taxation problem in the 70s only to cause more problems later.

There seems to be people in this community wanting to blame our current problems on state funding or blame it on the state funding formula for the schools. The fact is our local problem is solely based on local leaders failing to control growth and neglecting our economic development to the determent of the school system. Clearly because of the large bite the school?’s take out of our local taxes, problems tend to show up there first. If we don?’t address the school funding issue then other local tax problems will soon follow.

Clearly our school funding is based on our real estate valuation. Even our state aid (currently 52%) is based partly on our property valuation and how much we currently tax ourselves. What we must do is to raise the property valuation per pupil amount which is currently at around $94,500 per pupil (as reported in a recent School Bell). The higher that number the more money we raise per pupil with each mil on the ballot. (Example: if the most recent levy was based on say $189,000 property valuation per pupil then to raise the same amount of money for the schools the milage requested would have only needed to be 3.8 mils) So ask yourselves if lowering that milage down to 3.8 would it have passed last week? I think it would have.

I think it is within our local power to solve our problems and we should do so. We should, as a community, resolve to address every development with the idea that we will raise that property valuation per pupil figure with every action we execute. How do you raise that figure? One way is to slow down residential growth. Our local sub-divisions show that mature housing sub-divisions have lower per child per household rates than newer developments. Build higher priced homes. Develop commercial property. Does this Community Authority address any of these concerns?




Continued

Growth plan continued

First we must stop this uncontrolled residential growth. Even if the levy passes in August we will be faced with yet another operating levy next year. The school board has failed to prove to me that they have the operating money past next year even with the $ 6 million that the levy will raise. If you place 450 new students in the school system and give the teachers their 4.25% raise and any other cost increases we will all be facing the exact same problem next year folks.

To slow down some of these cost increases we must call for a moratorium in the city for up to two years. Last year the city placed into the system over 400 new homes. Even if we use the lower stated figure of one child per household we still must educate 400 more students this year and we are still only receiving real estate taxes based on the lot valuation of these 400 new properties (taxes are collected in the rears and houses closing today will not be at full value and paid to the schools until 2005). The Pickerington City council has the power to call for a moratorium unlike the township. I see in the short run a very large cut in expenses to our school system by calling for the two year moratorium. I would be happy to expand on this if I am not clear to everyone.

Will reducing the number of students coming into the school system for a couple of years extend the operating money the schools are currently seeking? Would reducing the number of new homes from 400 down to 70 per year further extend the operating monies of the schools? I believe the answer to both questions is yes! In that two year period the local leaders must work on a plan that makes steady progress in increasing property valuation per pupil from here on out until our community is fully developed.

I know the group CommUNITY First has been organizing into groups to address some of community?’s problems. I am not sure I fully understand where they will go with their recommendations but clearly community involvement in how we develop is a must.


I think one of the only actions that city council has done that I approve of is that they are hiring a demographer in cooperation with the township. I believe a TOTALLY unbiased outsider should look at our community with no RESTRICTIONS on what they are looking at to make recommendations to this city and the township residents prior to approaching our plan. Hopefully we will have figures and other data that will justify what and how they feel the community should develop. Once that is completed then it should be the public?’s turn for their input. Many times I hear suggestion made by residents that sound good but once you start to fully analyze the suggestion it many times has flaws based on lack of knowledge of the law or how our taxes are collected.


I agree with Mark Uher, ?“that Rome is burning.?” We must come together and leave the personal insults at home. That includes Mr. Uher. Those insults last for years and makes community leaders ineffective because of the toes they step on and the mistrust they create.

Plan - Impact Fees & HB 920

Ted,

I would agree that we need a comprehensive growth plan.

In developing such a plan, I hope there would be strong support given to the introduction of two pieces of legislation within the Ohio General Assembly.

The first is to give Ohio school boards the legal authority to levy impact fees on homebuilders so they have the tools to limit the number of students they must educate. Impact fees would fairly tax homebuilders and make those honorable business operations an integral part of our community. Current tax laws exempt only homebuilders from community taxes, but tax every manufacturer, newspaper, printer, theatre, restaurant, apartment complex and store within the community.

The second is to modify or repeal HB 920 enacted three decades ago in a time of rapid inflation. HB 920 limits our school's ability to receive new revenue as the result of growth.

Now that all eyes are on Pickerington ... it is time to take our crusade to Columbus. Let's tell our legislators they can keep their state money with all the strings attached and the massive red tape, but they need to help us educate our children in the manner set forth in the Ohio Constitution.

Keep 920

I think we should keep HB 920. Right now it is the only way we have of holding school boards accountable for the money they spend other than elections because they must come back to the voters to propose why they need more money. In districts like ours it is a huge job because of the growth but most other disticts need this tool to reign it their tax and spend school boards.