Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

September - October 2001 PATA Newsletter

Nov 04, 2001

Grappling with growth issues:

PATA?’s Members believe that our community needs to:
1. Manage residential growth.
2. Promote Commercial/Industrial Growth to broaden our Tax Base.
3. Encourage a realistic comprehensive plan for our schools.

Citizens of various communities in Ohio all grapple with growth issues. A recent article in the Columbus Dispatch shows how citizens in communities, like the village of Plain City, are dealing with their ?“Developer influenced?” local governments. Next month (Nov. 6th) Plain City residents will have the opportunity, via Referendum, to vote on turning down the zoning decisions of subdivision projects that their City Council has approved. They have the opportunity to say NO to the Homewood, Dominion, and M/I proposals. Additionally, their ballot will contain a measure to set up a Planning and Zoning Commission, which will employ the professional services of specialists to develop a Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

You see, in Plain City their current council has been influenced by developer interests and their residents have taken action to take back control of their futures. Their council members do not pass rezoning measures as ?“Emergencies?”, so citizen?’s rights aren?’t trampled.

Pickerington residents could learn a lot from these (and others) efforts.

As we go to press, it is important to note that one of the candidates in our upcoming City Council races has just submitted an Initiative Petition to limit the use of ?“Emergency Legislation?” here in Pickerington. Do Pickerington residents want (and deserve) the same rights as their Plain City
counterparts?


We have placed a link to the web site of the Plain City based Citizens Caring About Their Town (CCATT) and also a link to the Dispatch article (to view this information go to http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/pata and see Our Pages).

Noted within the Dispatch article is a quote from the Executive Director of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, Bill Habig, ?“A large housing base doesn?’t guarantee commercial and industrial development. A community that subscribes to the theory could be setting itself up for a fall.?”
Here are a couple of points in the unchecked growth vs. reasonable growth control argument:

Myth #1: Growth provides needed tax revenues.

Reality Check: Growth tends to raise tax rates.
''The available evidence shows that development does not cover new public cost. That is, it brings in less revenue for local government than the price of servicing.'' (Management and Control of Growth of Small Governments, Washington D.C., Vol III, Ch 16). The direct and indirect costs of growth place new demands on local resources and public services. Those who are expecting a windfall from new development will be sadly disappointed. It will cost more money than it generates. We, as residents of Pickerington, will now be burdened with extra and new taxes.

Myth #2: Growth is inevitable. Growth management doesn?’t work and therefore we have no choice but to continue growing. You can?’t put a fence around your town.

Reality Check: You can establish limits of growth and have a voice in establishing the future of your community.
''The U.S. Supreme Court and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution supports the right of communities to enact reasonable regulations for this purpose. The right to protect the health, safety and the general welfare goes a long way and includes matters of quality of life.'' (Land use in America, Diamond Henry, Washington D.C. Populations Environment Balance) The statement that ''growth is inevitable'' implies that we are helpless victims of change; that we must accept whatever growth is thrust upon us and that our only choice is the manner in which we accommodate it. We don?’t believe that is true.
There is a wide range of things we can do. There are many new and innovative zoning regulations to help control growth. If we just pass two zoning regulations we could slow things down. One is ''capping'' regulation. This is a regulation that states that the town will only grow let?’s say 1% a year over the current population. It is a matter of direction and attitude. The question is, do the council and the mayor want to try those things?

A few facts and figures from the Ohio Department of Education give the telltale story of the Pickerington area?’s drive for growth over the last 10-12 years. Today there are 612 school districts in the state of Ohio. Below is ODE facts for enrollment data and ranking size in the state.

School Year Enrollment Rank

1990 4,130 89
1991 4,348 78
1992 4,665 76
1993 5,075 66
1994 5,445 62
1995 5,817 57
1996 6,232 48
1997 6,598 44
1998 6,719 43
1999 7,035 38
2000 7,228 35
2001 7,598 31

In 1990 we were waiting for our ?“new?” High School to finish construction. The doors opened in the fall of 1991. By 1996 we?’d place portable classrooms at our overcrowded facility. In the fall of 2000 we needed to double our facilities, placing a $77.5 Million dollar bond measure for both a new high school & junior high school ?– which are now under construction. This booming growth rate continues. Is being in the top twenty a goal our community should strive toward?

Annexation & rezoning are the driving factors of our growth.

Annexing ( a residential builders perspective )
As a developer wouldn?’t you be thinking?…?…
1. Free city provided sewer & water taps ($2,687 per each per lot - $5,374) for me that I can charge for or build into the price of the home or offer as incentives. That will boost my profits, without costing me a nickel.
2. Higher density, I can build more houses per acre. Let?’s see Violet Township?’s R1 zoning is 20,000 square foot lots and Pickerington has helped all of my developer friends by continually approving R4 zoning with 8,500 square foot lots. More homes on a parcel of ground. I can see the dollar signs, can?’t you? Boy, that Mayor?’s last election promises of getting the residents to see that R4 zoning as GOOD is money in the bank for me.
3. Pickerington has more of those pesky little fees (tree fee, parks fee, storm water fees, building permit fees), but I?’ll just pass them along in the closing price. That was a close one, but it?’ll work as the Council keeps playing the residents off against each other.
4. I wouldn't care that the purchaser of the home could have had a choice to annex or not, I made the decision for them. I decided they would pay Pickerington an income tax and support any levy imposed. I took their ability to decide. Since there are so few job opportunities in Pickerington, the new homeowners are only going to pay one half of one-percent income tax anyway.
5. Don?’t you just love those voters who just O.K.?’d that School?’s construction bond. They forgot that their existing High School has only been open for 10 years and they go ahead and build another one for ME. I just wish that I?’d capitalized last decade, but this time I?’m sure to get in ?– build the subdivision out ?– and be out of town before I have to listen to the moaning about overcrowding.
6. And best of all, it only cost me a few bucks for the occasional election contributions to keep them ?“good old boys?” in office to keep killing any Referendum or Initiative efforts to stop me. My desire to profit is an ?“Emergency?” for me and the Council is only to willing to see my dreams come true. Isn?’t ?“Free Enterprise?” great!

Well, the vast numbers of people reading this Newsletter aren?’t residential builders. They?’re just ordinary people who want to live in a nice place and want to trust that THEIR elected officials are looking out for the resident?’s best interests. There are reputable developers. The question is do we have the correct land use plans in place to allow development and maintain a quality of life which our residents desire?

As another November election approaches, you are being told how great the performances have been in ?“Economic Development?”. How promising things will be if we can just annex and get our way to Route 33. Exactly what are we going to do on the annexed lands till we get close enough to Route 33? Do we have to get close enough to Route 33, as we have had to do along Route 256? On Route 256 do you see any development other than retail? Is any of that development further back than a stones throw from the roadway? Even if the City gets to Route 33, is there anywhere near the potential commercial land to finally balance the tax base? Remember that much of the land along Allen Road (Route 33) is not in the Pickerington School District! I map to illustrate this point was in our last Newsletter and can currently be viewed on our web site at the following link - http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/clubextra.html?nclubid=68303919&nid=582626182 Currently the PLSD tax imbalance is 13% Commercial / Industrial to 82% Residential. Should the residential subdivisions to get to Route 33 be on 20,000 square foot lots or 8,500? Is there a land use plan other than sea after sea of subdivisions that would benefit the majority of residents already in our community?
Election Day is Nov. 6th Your vote determines who decision-makers are for 4 years!

A few weeks ago you were told. These words come directly from current officials. Were you listening?

Oct. 3rd This Week in Pickerington titled?– Bushman authorized to negotiate. City officials refuse to acknowledge legislation may deal with annexation. By a 6-0 vote Pickerington City Council members approved an Ordinance authorize the City Manager, Joyce Bushman, to ?“negotiate and execute an agreement?”. In the words of Council President Pro-Tem Lou Postage, ?“We?’re giving her the authorization to negotiate. If there?’s land out there to be had we?’re going after it.?”

Oct. 10th Pickerington Times-Sun titled ?– Council O.K.?’s 8185 Farms annexation. Again the words of Lou Postage, ?“It?’s us or them when it comes to annexation of land along the boarders of Pickerington. The ?“us?” being Pickerington and the ?“them?” being Columbus.

Oct. 16th Mr. Postage was subsequently questioned, by a Pickerington resident, at the following Council meeting as to how Columbus could possibly be a threat to Pickerington residents when the parcel in question isn?’t even contiguous to Columbus, therefore not being subject for Columbus annexation. It is very questionable if this parcel is even contiguous to Pickerington. With a map, provided by Pickerington?’s Chamber of Commerce, the facts spoke for themselves. Mr. Postage?’s response was to imply that he was misquoted in the papers. Mr. Postage?’s last quote in this same 10/10 article was ?“Anytime there?’s annexation along our borders we?’re going to take it.?”

Maybe now we?’re getting to the true picture! How many unanimously approved decisions have you seen in the last two years? Do those seeking election to the 4 open seats differ from Mr. Postage?’s stated comments?



As you read this year?’s campaign rhetoric about commercial development you should question why Pickerington City Officials are also working on annexation deals north of the city limits?

 Why are City Officials negotiating with David Ruma on the proposed Wellington Park subdivision? Are they offering a deal on paying for a road into this proposed Township subdivision in order to get the income taxes?
 Why are City Officials willing to continue to offer ?“free?” sewer & water taps on the sewer & water lines in the Milnor Road area when they are already within access from Fairfield County Utilities?
 What deals have City Officials promised to the Dominion Homes project ?“Spring Creek?” ?– from Milnor toward Refugee Road that already has been platted and has a phase mostly built out?
 Will the congregation members of the church to the north side of Refugee Road accept the ?“deal?” of a developer paying ?“in full?” for the subdivision of there lands in return for R10 (City Zoning) of that 30 ?–40 acre sub-plat? R-10 City zoning is apartments / condos.

For those of you that have a little knowledge of the area this leapfrogging of roads would place the new and improved City of Pickerington boundaries in conjunction with the new construction for the High School & Junior High School.

What potential commercial / industrial value will be gained? If your answer was none, you?’re right! But remember the pot of gold at the end of this rainbow, ?“Income Taxes?”!!

Current city residents will subsidize roads, sewer & water, and whatever other matters that developers negotiate in order for Pickerington to get their hands on the Income Taxes of the teachers. In so doing all PLSD residents will then pay more in operating expenditures, as the teachers won?’t want to loose ground in their take home pay.

So much for the rhetoric of Cooperation, you wouldn?’t merge ?… we didn?’t get our ?“Business Park?” in the Canal Winchester School District. We?’ll get even ?– and get it all ?– one way or another!
♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦

The September issue of Columbus C.E.O. contained a very interesting article written by Tony Goins on a ?“suburb?” (We will call the community XXX) that has made strides at Commercial Development. Frequent readers of our web site are aware of the dynamic way that this suburb has made strides toward diversifying its tax base?…. See some of the points below.

Careful planning, business friendly attitude making XXX a hot commercial development community. The massive ------ center of business is on its way to becoming a signature project among the growing commercial developments?…. ------ will assure XXX?’s economic vitality for decades to come.
The vision that became -------- business center began with roads ?…?… weaving then into a grid and linking them ?…..
WORKING TOGETHER - XXX?’s plan is to make businesses feel welcome, make them feel like part of the community. Businesses are encouraged to take an active role in civic and school affairs.
The city offers real estate tax breaks on new structures in the area of up to 65 percent for 15 years. Schools get the other 35 percent, as well as taxes on equipment and land. Unlike many communities XXX?’s Board of Education member says ?– the city involved the school district from the beginning, you don?’t always see it that way. We have a pre-arranged formula or all of the developments in -------- business center?….. that keeps the city and schools from having to negotiate on each and every business development within the business center.

What you won?’t see on -------- development are sprawling subdivisions packed with new homes. Residential development is discouraged. This is XXX?’s last real opportunity to make employment happen in our city.
XXX made major financial commitments to this business center?…?… including utilities ?– water, sewer, widening roads, new bridges, and special conduits for fiber optic communications.
XXX has chosen a unique way to finance municipal infrastructure. Rather than applying for grants or issuing bonds --- the city paid cash. To do this the city saved money to improve the business center?’s geography out of its yearly budget.

Does this sound like Pickerington?

For those of you that want to delve into the discussion pages postings on our web site on this topic try - http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/clubDiscussion.html?nid=67318166&nclubid=68303919&nsupercity=437534213

Mystery Community XXX will be identified after the November 6th elections.

♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦

Recap of ?“Old Business?”

- Least we forget to learn from the past.

July 2000 ?– After a lackluster performance by the 1997-1998 JEDC (Joint Economic Development Committee). Our community finally begins to hold ?“Growth Summit Meetings?”.

The ?“Growth Summit Meetings?” turn into more of a game of one-upmanship, through threats of members boycotting, a contrived attempts to find a ?“quick ?‘n easy?” solution of Merging the differing government entities. It was a real show of a lack of cooperation.

December 2000 ?– Pickerington Mayor calls off the City?’s participation in the ?“Growth Summits?”.

January 2001 ?– Violet Township announces the formation of a CEDA (Cooperative Economic Development Agreement) with the Village of Canal Winchester for some of the portions of the Township located in the Canal Winchester School District.

January 2001 ?– City residents circulate a Referendum effort to stop all annexed land from receiving automatic R4 zoning.

In addition to all members of the Pickerington City Council mailing a letter to incorporated residents, (2) PLSD Board majority members become the vocal opponents to the CEDA. Statements to the effect that this is were Pickerington should be locating it?’s Commercial Tax Base are expounded by both parties.

March 2001 ?– Council repeals the ?“automatic?” R4 rezoning Ordinance, thereby nullifying a referendum vote. In the following months Council approves annexations of Diley Farms, Kohler ?– Painter Farms, Steiger ?– Worthman ?– Bickel Farms, Hill Road Nine Properties, and more all at R4 or Pr4 zoning.

May 2001 ?– Violet ?– Canal CEDA becomes reality, Pickerington & Fairfield County are invited to join in his venture and language is left in the document for future participation.

A Little ?“New Business?”

- Initiative petition begins to ?“limit?” the use of ?“Emergency Legislation?”.
- Suit by city resident against the City of Pickerington relative to attempts to rezone the ?“Krivda?” property?… improper notifications, excessive tabling, etc.
- Suit filed in the name of a city resident against City officials on the use of public funds related to the City Managers participation in the NO on State Control of Property Rights. (an attempt for a statewide Referendum against annexation reform)
- Potential for actions related to breach of contract over the ?“Pickerington ?– Canal Winchester Sewer & Water Agreement?” related to Steiger ?– Wirthman Development proposal.
- City continues to added funds to the Law Directors budget of Contractual Services ?– now increased to over $300,000.00 for annexation issues, legal expenses, etc.

A Little Insight on the Police Station Location:

* note - (For those of you that want to view the maps, advertisements and letters presentedon the last 2 pages of this Newsletter - spare copies are available at both the Senior Center & the Library. Copies of the material are also available from PATA.)


The Parcel in question was formerly the Hellwig Farm. November 23, 1999 BMG contruction purchased the 77.5 - acre farm for approximately $5,000.00 per acre.

A map of the location is noted to the right. This is at the extreme western boundary of the City of Pickerington, on Refugee Road. (See note above)

The land in question was discussed in Pickerington's 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for a "Business Park". You'll note in a letter from the new developer / owner's real estate agent (Ms. Pisanelli) a newly proposed land use plan. (See note above) - in short the contents state:

27.3 buildable acres

Berry & Miller Construction has - Condominium ground under "contract". (30.5 acres)

Available apartment ground has been zoned for 10 units per acre on another 27.3 acres of the site

This zoning is rare .....

Ad listed on July 6, 2001 Business First -

. 27.3 acres
. located next to the new Pickerington Police Site
.Zoned for 10 unitts per acre
.$2,500,000

Some points to Ponder?

1. Who will finance the cost of providing Sewer & Water Services to this 77.5 acre site? Current lines are far away/

2. Who will pay for the road through the middle of the site? (See note)

3. When was this zoning change, noted in Ms. Pisanelli's letter approved?

4. Is this location in the best interest of incorporated residents?

5. Were other sites given a full, unbiased level of consideration?

6. Will a competitive bidding process be utilized on the construction of this $3 million dollar project?

7. Will that bidding process include design - consulting costs -or- with the land donation, have decisions related to this been pre-determined?