Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

As I?’ve stated, I don?’t have all the answers. I do support the concept of the community authority, but IT HAS TO BE DONE RIGHT. What I have seen on this website are some great questions that need answered satisfactorily BEFORE the final community authority agreement can be accepted by the community as a whole. My list is as follows. Please reply with any corrections/additions, and I will be sure these questions are presented and, to the extent possible, answered, by those who would know.

1. What is the voting history of those within a community authority when new school levies come on the ballot? (Are they less likely to vote for the levy since they are already paying more?)

2. Will development in the Township be able to come into the one community authority being proposed in the City? (I think this is a must)

3. With respect to the homes to be within the currently proposed community authority:
a. How many homes are we talking about?
b. Where are the homes (show us a map).
c. What is the average value per home, per subdivision.
d. Any special features of these subdivisions (i.e. condos targeting older couples; starter homes targeting young families, etc.)
e. How many children per home can we expect once the subdivisions are complete?

4. How many additional children do we expect per year to come into the school system, and what is the total amount of additional children we expect overall (and in how many years):
a. Under the current ordinance;
b. Under Mr. Hackworth?’s proposed growth plan.

5. With respect to the two growth plans cited in No. 4,
a. What additional school buildings will be needed (and timeline)
b. How much money will we need to build the buildings (and timeline)
c. How much additional operating expenses will be needed (and timeline for increases)

6. What additional millage would be required to meet the needs identified above? How would that affect home sales / would new residents be willing to pay that additional amount?

Why the rush

Sara,

I cannot understand the big rush to ''get something'' from these builders and slap this Commuity Authority (CA) together! Why aren't the documents public, why don?’t they solicit input from the people of the community, many of whom are very intelligent and can provide valuable suggestions and options in this scenario. If you read the ORC section on CA's and I know you have, it is sweeping what can be done. The vision of the ''new community'' can be excellent. My impression here that it proposal as it is planned to be executed is just a band aid to let developers build at any pace they wish to. It is too little too late. I do not propose giving it up as many have?….read the following.

New Albany and Granville did not rush formatting their CA, they did it correctly. The developers only agreed to do the CA in Granville after the people there took them to the Supreme Court to block their development! Sounds familiar doesn't it?…. So much for the public relations of Developer benevolance.

I approached the school board about doing a CA in 1997 and implored them to push for it. Bruce Rigelman even talked to Greg Stype (New Albany CA attorney Squire Sanders and Dempsey) about the complexities of doing such in our school district given the fact that we have several municipalities and townships within PLSD boundaries.

IF this would have been done in 1997/98 the bond burden we now carry to fund facility construction would be much less and the community would have more of an ability to add additional millage to provide operating funds at a healthier level. The board at that time was unwilling to pursue the path to push other local government entities to propose such an authority to developers.

For too long the developers and landowners have dictated how our community will develop .there is no long range vision formatted by members of the community. Land use plans exist but in the city case they are amended to suit a developers will (Kroger land with homes behind it)

We have paid a high price for this, our children have and will continue to pay the highest price as we can no longer fund or are willing to fund the runaway growth costs that are needed to maintian the status quo. Lets look at the status quo for the past eight years or so. We meet state MINIMUM standards on the ''report cards,?” but do you really think the situation is the best for the kids with portables, limited enrichment programs, limited ability to participate in extracurriculars because our schools are each so large in population? These are all dictated by the past, current and future financial crises which will not go away unless the growth is slowed down.

rush continued

I do not trust the developers with a vision of the future of our community, what they have given ius in the past is a hodge podge of rampant growth that is even accelerating to an unbearable level now?…even given the school crisis!



The people need to take this community back. If the developers will not do a CA that will fund the needs they create THEN THEY SHOLD NOT DEVELOP HERE. WE CAN STOP them if that is what it takes to get them to agree and be good business partners with their customers who pay the bills for the infrastructure. In the city if no emergency legislation is used we can referenda every rezoning. In the township, we can do the same because they cannot do any emergency legislation. They either come to the table and choose to develop at a pace that the community can afford and contribute financially to the burden they create, OR GET OUT of TOWN AND TOWNSHIP! We should dictate to them at this point in time because we have no other choice than to let the community be destroyed by lack of control.

On commercial development. I am glad you are encouraging such, I just wish each and every new commercial venture in our school district was not going to be in a TIF area like the plan is now. These TIFs ensure that an entire generation of kids and taxpayers will not benefit substantially from any commercial development in our school district. Does Dr. Schone know or did he sign the papers to allow 75% of his property taxes on his new facility to be funneled to the city for infrastructure. Did his projected participation in the ?“Cross Creeks TIF?’ encourage him to build a new facility? Or is this just the city parasitizing the school taxes to pay for infrastructure development that they cannot afford to pay for on their own, infrastructure provided to developers that increases the value of the land for that developer and he sells at a huge profit. Developers who are their friends and supporters so they can profit at taxpayer expense. I am not just getting this from letters to the editor, these are facts as I sit on the Pickerington TIF commission. These TIFs will pay for streetlights on SR 256, sure we need may need them, but are they going to attract business here because we have them? Shouldn?’t this be something the city or Township or State pays for out of local revenue, not funneling potential school taxes to do such. They are now TIFFING existing businesses at Cross Creeks and elsewhere, eroding current school revenues to pay for this infrasturcture building boondoggle. The road Windmiller Drive is in a TIF. This is a road Darryl Berry promised that he would build for them and pay for if they allowed him to have a rezoning from commercial to residential behind Kroger. He stated so in 1997 Service committee meeting minutes as they asked for the road to be completed as soon as possible so that the limited commercial land remaining behind Kroger could be developed (he owned the land). Now the road winds up in a TIF with Berry paying nothing to build the infrastructure for his land and he sells the land for a huge profit. The city is acting as the (his) development company, for his benefit?….. at the expense of our children as the tax revenue from the businesses here now go to pay for the road he promised to build.


Do you see why we do not trust the current city council to ?‘HELP?” the growth situation with a CA proposed only for city lands. They have acted in devlopers interest at the expense of taxpayers in the past, why would they change now. There is no trust.


By LR

final comment

My suggestion is to wait until we have a new council, new city manager and mayor and then do the CA the right way. I support the community authority if it is done correctly and that housing growth is managed at a much lower level. If the growht is slowed the CA monies would not be needed so soon to build as the demand would be significantly less. This is a most reasonable path, one which would preserve what is left of the quality of life we all came to enjoy, which is now being destroyed by the adults in charge, at the expense of our children, our safety on the roads and our happiness in many ways.

By LR