Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Interesting how there seems to be some much more adversarial posting on this site now. I think that?’s interesting because it seems that most here have the same long term goals?…to preserve the community and school system we all support.

Then here?’s the only two questions that seem to matter :

Is there anyone out there who thinks that the current level of property and income taxes on current residents can sustain the current level of school and community services if this community grows at a pace of 300 homes per year with no commercial other than the ?“service?” businesses that always follow people?

Are you willing to pay more taxes to keep those levels of service and allow this community to be built out with high density residential?

The answers are now pretty clear, right? Is there anyone left out there who disputes that high density residential costs more in services than it provides in taxes? There are literally hundreds of sources that confirm that every house built adds to a mounting deficit in terms of tax dollars versus services. It?’s been said many ways, but I think the most common saying is ?“rooftops don?’t pay bills?”. I don?’t know of one source, other than a developer, builder, or their attorney that would dispute this fact. (and then only at a zoning hearing)

I guess then we?’re down to paying more taxes. I?’ve done that, and guess what, I might even pay more. But not forever, and eventually I?’ll forsake athletics, even live with split sessions if something doesn?’t change. Do you believe I am the only one who thinks that way? Will someone who lives in a community authority be willing to vote for more taxes again in a year or so if that person already knows that I don?’t have to pay as much as he does? Think about the future folks?…

Here?’s my point. I can?’t address the issues that the builders, developers and council have. They want to maximize their profit right now and at all times in the future. I will fight them. But, I would ask those who appear to be engaging in a smear campaign over school board and council candidacy if they aren?’t actually serving the interest of those who are destroying our schools. Nothing helps their cause like significant divisions among those who oppose them. In the end, only slowing residential growth and mandating commercial development will provide long term funding for schools, sports and infrastructure. Otherwise, we?’re giving this community to the developers, and fighting amongst ourselves for the crumbs.

If it was developers and builders that started this recent rash of negative postings, then nice job, you?’ve again succeeded in temporarily distracting us from the main issue. If it was other than that, then know that you are doing the bidding of those who are choking your community to maximize their profits. Nice Job?…

It is coming

In what is sure to be a strategically placed and timed story in the papers, our city father, the sometimes honorable (except when it comes to paying his taxes) lou will answer your questions about cost of community services. Thanks to a study they contracted for and the taxpayers paid for and having given the required result to the contractor ahead of time, we will soon find out that we actually make money off the houses. This ?“study?” will show that we spend less per house than the taxes bring in. This is one of those ?“for the first time in recorded history?…?” announcements that is just an election ploy for his holiness, father lou.

I hope at least one person digs into the study to see what they left out of their cost calculations!


By Just the facts

So who really is the adversary?

Mr. Johnson

Your summation about costs is about to come ?‘true?’ (without the truth) at all of us from our ?“good friends?” at City Hall.

CITY OF PICKERINGTON
FINANCE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2003

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Wright called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Wright and Mr. Parker were present. Mr. Fox was absent. Others present were: Joyce Bushman, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Bob Mapes, Susan Crotty, Ray George, Dale Kocaruk, and others.


Here is the URL of their June Finance meeting http://216.29.246.215/picktown/documents/meeting_minutes/doc215.htm

B. Review of Cost of Community Services Study. Mrs. Bushman stated about a year ago a study was done by Dr. Prindle of Otterbein College for the County on two townships to get a feel of the cost of community services in those townships. She stated there was some confusion because the study, as it related to townships, did not relate to how a city operated and how you judge the cost of community services for a city. Mrs. Bushman stated as requested, staff had contacted Dr. Prindle and requested he do an evaluation of the cost of community services relative to how the city operates. Mrs. Bushman stated she felt the study showed that we deliver services at a very reasonable rate. Mr. Wright added that new information had been taken and that methodology was applied to calculating the cost of community services. Mr. Wright stated in the past it had been stated that it cost the average city $1.15 in expenses for every $1.00 of revenue, and the City did not feel that was correct. He stated this study shows that our expenses are around $.90 out of every $1.00. and the study further shows that the City of Pickerington is about 68 percent residential and 32 percent commercial. Mr. Wright stated he would like to ensure that all of Council received a copy of this study for their review. Mrs. Bushman assured Mr. Wright that the study would be distributed.


And of course the latest levy and earlier school building bonds aren?’t supposed to count in the Bushman Study. Please advise the County Auditor of this and have your taxes reduced appropriately because Ms. Bushman & Mr. Wright say so?…..


By its obvious

did they figure the schools

I think we need to take a close look at the COCS study the city commissioned. Did they include the cost of the infrastructure needed for schools or just the costs to the city?

I think we probably know that question's answer, it is not their responsiblity of course so why should they consider the schools in the equation? It just does not matter to City taxpayers right?