Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Pickerington road loan OK?’d amid flap



Councilman refuses to abstain from voting; impact fees on new buildings move forward


By Kirk D . Richards THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH




Pickerington Councilman Michael Sabatino refused to abstain last night on borrowing money to widen Diley Road, even though the law director said Sabatino has a conflict of interest because his mother lives on the road.
Looking at his colleagues, Sabatino said, ''If you want to file a challenge (with the Ohio Ethics Commission), go ahead.?’?’
Sabatino was the only council member who voted against an ordinance authorizing a loan from the Ohio Department of Transportation to fund the city?’s portion of the project that would widen Diley from two lanes to five. The loan is not to exceed $7.7 million.
Councilman Brian Wisniewski questioned Sabatino?’s vote, and Law Director Phil Hartmann said he already had issued an opinion saying that Sabatino had a conflict.
''You never gave me that,?’?’ Sabatino told Hartmann. ''No one has ever informed me that you rendered that decision.?’?’
Sabatino said former Law Director Bob Mapes supported his voting on the issue as long as the vote did not directly apply to his mother.
''The previous law director disagreed with you,?’?’ Sabatino told Hartmann. ''He was acting in his legal capacity at the time.?’?’
''If there?’s even an appearance of a conflict, I would abstain,?’?’ Hartmann said. ''Why put yourself in a position that would put you in constant turmoil if it?’s not necessary??’?’
In other business, Sabatino joined his colleagues in voting 6-0 to support charging impact fees for new homes and businesses in Pickerington.
However, members acknowledged concerns over the fees that are intended to cover the impact that new developments have on roads, law enforcement or other city services. They would add as much as $3,470 to the cost of a new home and hundreds of thousands of dollars to new business buildings, based on square footage.
Council President Heidi Riggs said one concern centers on how the city will track and administer the fees.
''It may not be perfect, and we may need to make some changes along the way, but I think it?’s good for this city,?’?’ Riggs said. ''It?’s a work in progress.?’?’
Councilman Doug Parker was dealing with the death of a friend, the mayor said, and did not attend last night. Parker has said that he would like the council to consider a community authority, a special taxing district that would assess millage on new homes, with some of the money going to the public schools.
''I look forward to discussing that with him when he gets back,?’?’ Councilman Mitch O?’Brien said.
Councilman William Wright was more concerned about the fees for businesses. He said Pickerington could be at a disadvantage in competing for businesses with towns that don?’t have fees.
The final vote could come at the Sept. 20 meeting, and the fees would take effect 30 days later.
krichards@dispatch.com

By Grouchy Old Fart

Ethics Commission

OK Ethics Commission. You may not read this discussion board, but we hope you read the Dispatch. Despite warnings from the law director and a fellow councilman, Sabatino voted on a Diley Road ordinance. It doesn't matter if he voted for or against - he voted - and he should have abstained. (I never thought I'd hear myself say that!)

Given the previous ethics challenges and the investigation I am sure is under way at the commission, Mikey, Mikey, Mikey... SHAME ON YOU!

You can't vote for minutes of a meeting, which no one can understand, but you vote for issues that are a direct conflict of interest? And after you were warned?

By Grouchy Old Fart

Community Authority

I took the time to look back through these postings to find information on Community Authorities. So maybe I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but what I do see is this, for Parker's edification:

I may not entirely support the school's constant demand for more money. My reasons for that are twofold. First, I do not trust the administration and board. I think we're being lied to about enrollment projections and the schools are crying wolf. Second, I just can't get over the Taj Mahal disparity and I am in the north district.

That being said, if the city enacted a community authority (CA), how would the schools benefit? Let's look at this hypothetically. Let?’s say that Melrose was placed into a CA. There are about 400 homes in Melrose. Put aside all the Parker purported benefits of this and look at it from a taxpayer angle. If I live in Melrose and am forced to pay my taxes at a higher millage than say, my neighbors in Cherry Hill, why on God?’s green earth would I also vote to pay more taxes when asked for a school levy?

Again, Melrose has around 400 homes with potentially 800 votes. Add 800 votes to an already failing levy campaign (2-1 failure, by the way) and by the city enacting this CA, you have effectively alienated every single voter in the CA from voting for yet more taxes, no matter who they are for. The city should not punish the schools for the city?’s sins of the past.

Come on Parker ?– let NEW development pay part of its cost. Forget this CA crap and don?’t punish the schools for your unusual thought processes. You are not a property owner and you do not have children in the school district. You do not have, nor have you ever had a stake in this community. You are a city welfare case. You draw a monthly allotment from the taxpayers and contribute nothing.

Let the stakeholders of the community make the decisions and go tee off in Delaware. Since there is a golf outing, take your buddy Mike with you. He has about the same intelligence as Taft so you all ought to get along just fine. Heck, take Taft with you, too. He insists on getting his 18 in every other day.


By Township dude

Ethics Nazis

I wonder who at the Dispatch is looking over Michael Sabatino and not allwoing them to report what I understand Michael said twice now. He actually called the Ohio Ethics Commission the Ethics Nazis.

This is the very same commission that just indicted the governor. Apparently our esteemed councilman believes the Ohio Ethics Commission is too busy to bother with him. This appears to be the very same attitude put on display by the former Mayors Hughes and Gray.

Just to jog everyones memory the Pickerington Police picked up a suspect for drunk driving in the early morning hours of July back in 1998. Despite the fact the news media finally got a hold of the story by late November in 1998 no one was held accountable for the then Mayor Lee Gray to respond to a drunk driver that was in the rear seat of a Pickerington Police Cruiser and the police officer turned over his prisoner to the mayor.

Once this became public Randy Hughes went after the news media and anyone who would listen to what an outrage and this was an ambush interview. Hughes never addressed the issue of a mayor using his influence to remove a prisoner out of a police cruiser.

Clearly we can all say these two were ethically challenged.

Now we have Councilman Sabatino who seems to suffer from the same challenges that these two former mayors had. Does it bother anyone that Mr. Sabatino is voting against a project that will directly affect his mother's front yard. Remember the pay outs now and in the future will be determined by Council.

Speaking of Ethically Challenged we can also look at the Maxey Fox duo. I received their envelope today from their mailing company Target Business Systems. It was nearly empty. Apparently trying to see to a legitimate businesses is much harder when you don't have a councilman to control over business reimbursements to a company. Fox is proving he is not effective in being a salesman. Maxey is proving that telling the truth has it rewards or failures neither of which he will ever realize.