Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Development
Council adopts new guidelines


Thursday, November 3, 2005

By SEAN CASEY
ThisWeek Staff Writer
By Lorrie Cecil/ThisWeek

Heidi Riggs, president pro tem of the Pickerington City Council, makes a comment to Councilman Mitch O'Brien as the vote on an ordinance to adopt a new growth assessment strategy was being taken at Tuesday night's meeting. The ordinance passed with a vote of 6-1.


Pickerington City Council took another step toward exerting more control over the city's development Tuesday night, voting 6-1 to adopt a new growth assessment strategy.

The plan lays out 10 general legislative priorities for monitoring use of city land and contains statistical analyses to help municipal leaders make choices that best meet Pickerington's needs.

The report, produced by consulting firms McBride Dale Clarion of Cincinnati and TischlerBise of Bethesda, Md., recommends the focus on attracting more businesses to the area, while promoting infrastructure and public-service cost controls and cultivating consistent design standards.

Ultimately, TischlerBise consultant Chris Cullinan said the strategy would help Pickerington balance the benefits of slowing down residential growth and the costs of putting that system into place.

''It gives you an idea of what are the key pressure points,'' said Cullinan, who authored the cost of land use portion of the report.

For example, according to the statistics provided in the study, attracting office development may be more beneficial for Pickerington -- as opposed to a big-box retailer -- because the office would bring in more income tax revenue, which makes up approximately 60 percent of Pickerington's operating budget, Cullinan said.

The office is also likely to require fewer public-service costs than the large-scale retailer, based on the study's statistics, he added.

In general, the study recommended five strategies for developing greater fiscal sustainability -- emphasizing economic development, cultivating of regional partnerships, establishing a better link between land-use planning and capital-facility planning, assessing costs of growth considerations when planning new development, and considering the implementation of a system that will control the rate of growth.

The study also recommended five strategies for protecting quality of life standards: taking a more geographically focused approach to land-use planning, updating land-use and zoning regulations, upgrading building design standards to reflect improvements in construction methods and materials, prioritizing plans for parks and recreational land and considering the evolving needs of aging populations.

Additionally, Greg Dale, principal of plan consultant MDC, said the city may want to consider adding to its nominal administration in order to meet the needs of the rapidly growing area.

According to councilman Ted Hackworth, the city has begun undertaking some of the initiatives the report suggests. Pickerington officials have already started to update some of the zoning code and design standards, and council voted earlier this fall to implement an impact fee policy, which requires developers to pay for the infrastructure necessary to support their projects, he said.


By Council Junkie

Continuing with This Week


Additionally, council voted last month to authorize the pursuit of joint economic initiatives with Violet Township and Canal Winchester.

Now that council has adopted the growth-assessment guidelines, Hackworth said the city will take on few of the strategies at a time. At the top of the priority list, in respect to implementing the policies, are continued updates to Pickerington's zoning code and its comprehensive land-use plan, he said.

Despite Hackworth's support of the plan, councilman Doug Parker, who voted against its adoption, said he does not believe the study was an appropriate use of city dollars.

''Here are the 10 conclusions we paid $85,000 for,'' Parker said, pointing at a summary of the report. ''It's pathetic. We paid all this money to find out things we already know.

''We already know we need commercial development,'' he said, adding that the city could have found better uses for the money.

Hackworth defended the plan, stating one of its main attributes is that it provides strength to the city's defense against legal challenges to its authority to manage growth.

''The issue is when you start making zoning changes and residential-design standards changes, you start stepping on some people's toes,'' Hackworth said. ''If we were called into court for any reason, we could have a plan and a study that could justify what we did and how we did it.''

Still, councilman Michael Sabatino, who voted for the plan, said the city cannot pursue implementation of the recommendations without thoroughly gauging their results.

''It presents some info that needs to be digested,'' he said. ''When we consider these (strategies), we are going to have to see what the impact on new residents is going to be.''


By Council Junkie

Bill Wright in 2003

This was an article written by Bill Wright and at the time he was Chairman of the Finance Committee. It was published in This Week. Ohhh how a few years make things change.

Here is Bill Wright telling us his version of the Pickerington Big Lie::::


Rapidly expanding communities like Pickerington must make important decisions about managing the type and rate of future growth. These decisions have an impact on the tax revenues collected from residential, industrial, commercial, and other types of land use. Decisions on land use policy also impact the costs for services provided by the City, such as parks, police, roads, water and sewer, etc.

Recent discussions in the local media and in public meetings have revolved around growth issues. One topic commonly addressed in these discussions questions whether the City can afford to provide basic services to the new houses that will be built in Pickerington. Because of the great differences in characteristics between jurisdictions, generalizations based on cost of service studies from other cities and townships cannot accurately be attributed to Pickerington. To answer such a question properly, a study assessing the City?’s ability to provide services to new development must be conducted solely for Pickerington.

In February of 2003, Council President Bill Wright, chair of the City?’s Finance Committee, commissioned a study to determine the cost of providing city services in Pickerington. The author of this study was Allen Prindle, an economics professor at Otterbein College. Professor Prindle has also submitted two previous reports to the City. One of those reports evaluated Pickerington?’s revenues and expenditures during the ten-year period from 1991 to 2001. The other report was a literature review related to density and the cost of community services. Dr. Prindle is considered to be an expert on determining the cost of community services, and is very familiar with Pickerington.

Dr. Prindle?’s recent study of the impact of growth on Pickerington asked the following question: ?“For every dollar collected during the year for each land use category, what is the cost of providing services to that land use category??” For the purposes of this analysis, the land use categories referred to by this question were residential and non-residential. This question is important because its answer will indicate whether or not residential property generates enough revenue to pay for city services. The answer is also important because it applies specifically to the City of Pickerington.

This report calculated the City of Pickerington Cost of Community Services (COCS) Ratio. City revenues and expenditures were allocated to either residential or non-residential land use categories. Dividing expenditures by revenues in each category, residential and non-residential, determined the COCS ratio. A COCS value of exactly 1 means that expenditures equal revenues. A COCS value greater than 1 means that expenditures for city services are greater than tax revenues. A COCS value less than 1 means that revenues are greater than expenditures, and therefore represents a self-supporting activity.

Based on data from 2001, the Cost of Community Services ratio for non-residential property was 0.64, and 0.90 for residential property. Both values are less than 1, indicating that the revenue collected was greater than the cost of providing city services in each land use category. In the case of residential property, for each $1 collected in taxes, only 90 cents were spent to provide services.



By Council Junkie

Bill continues with his big lie


It should be noted that these figures reflect only the cost of city services. It does not include school costs because that is a service provided by the school district. The 0.90 COCS ratio indicates that the City of Pickerington has an infrastructure that is capable of delivering basic city services to the new homes being built in the City. This ratio also explains why there hasn?’t been a need to increase water and sewer bills in over 10 years, or to raise the income tax to cover expenses.

While this study confirms that residential growth pays for city services it uses, Dr. Prindle?’s study does not address the serious issue involving school funding. Pickerington is trying to bring to the table all jurisdictions that place students in the school system in an effort to forge a regional approach to the problem. We will continue our efforts until a solution is found.

The City of Pickerington has been a responsible steward of the public?’s trust. Prudent management of basic city services has contained costs in a manner that allows residential development to more than cover the expense of these services.





WHAT THE PRINDLE REPORT ACTUALLY SAID WAS FROM 1991 UNTIL 2001 THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON OPEN UP A GAP OF 33% BETWEEN ITS REVENUES AND ITS EXPENSES. THAT GAP WAS FILLED BY THE CITY WITH DEBT.

YES THE CITY DIDN'T RAISE ITS SEWER AND WATER USER FEES THE LAST 13 YEARS AND IT RELIED ON WATER AND SEWER TAP FEES TO PAY THE DEBT.

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS KIND OF DEBT MANAGEMENT IS THAT IF THE HOUSING MARKET GOES SOUTH THEN YOU CAN'T MEET YOUR EXPENSES AND YOU THEN MUST BORROW THE MONEY TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE BILL WRIGHT SCHOOL OF FINANCE IS THAT PICKERINGTON IS VERY NEAR IT DEBT BORROWING LIMIT (5% OF THE CITY'S ASSESSED VALUE) AND PROJECTS LIKE DILEY ROAD THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE THE BORROWING POWER TO FINANCE THE ROAD BY ITS SELF. SO WAS THE CITY REALLY KEEPING UP WITH ITS INFRASTRUTURE NEEDS IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETIES?

tHIS ALSO FORCED THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON TO COMPETE WITH OTHER CITIES AND THE TOWNSHIP IN ATTRACTING NEW BUILDS TO KEEP UP THE TAP FEES REVENUES TO PAY THE DEBT AND SO ON. IN ACTS OF DESPERATION BEFORE THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN THE CITY WAS OFFERING HUGE TAP FEE INCENTIVES TO LURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS. AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PRE-ANNEXATION AGGREEMENTS OF 2001 THEY WERE WILLING TO GIVE AWAY OVER $3,000,000 IN INCENTIVES TO ATTRACT NEW HOMES BUILDERS TO THE CITY. IN THE PROCESS THE HOMES BECAME SMALLER BECAUSE OF A MORE DEMANDING MARKET AND THOSE HOMES STILL HOUSED OVER 2 KIDS PER HOUSHOLD.

THAT IN TURN HAS OVER CROWED OUR SCHOOLS AND HERE WE ARE TUESDAY LOOKING AT BUILDING TWO NEW SCHOOLS UNDER THE BILL WRIGHT SCHOOL OF FINANCE.

ISN'T TIME THE CITY ADJUSTED IT WATER ANS SEWER RATES SO THAT IF THERE IS A DOWN TRUN IN BUILDING THEY CAN PAY THEIR UTILITIES DEBT?

IF THE COUNCIL ENACTED A RESIDENTIAL GROWTH RATE CAP NEXT THEN WOULDN'T IT BE IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE UTILTIES DEBT WAS BEING PAID AND NOT ON THE VERGE OF BEING INSOLVENT?

WOULDN'T IT BE IMPORTANT TO RESTRUTURE THE CITY'S DEBT TO MOVE MOST OF THE UTILITES DEBT TO REVENUE DEBT SO THE CITY COULD FREE UP ITS GENERAL FUND DEBT CAPACITY AND IMPROVE THE INFRASTRUTURE OF THE CITY THAT BILL WRIGHT CLAIMED WAS BEING TAKEN CARE OF.



By Council Junkie