Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

February 2001 Newsletter

Mar 12, 2001

R-4 Zoning Ordinance REPEALED!!

At the Pickerington City Council Meeting Tuesday Night, March 6, 2001 Council Ordinance #2001-27 was passed. Ordinance #2001-27 was placed on their agenda without any prior notice or publication. This ordinance repealed Ordinance #2000-137, which specified that all land annexed to the City in the future, would be annexed at R-4 (Residential up to 4 units per acre). The initial ordinance (2000-137) was passed in December of last year and was the subject of a successful referendum petition just after the first of this year. The Referendum was scheduled to be on the ballot this November for a citywide citizenry vote either in favor of, or against automatic R-4 zoning. While the membership of PATA is pleased that this ordinance was repealed by City Council, thus ending the automatic R-4 zoning, we are feeling cautious about this victory. The concern is that City Council may come back very soon with ?“Emergency Legislation?” that again automatically brings new land to the city as Residential Property with up to 4 homes per acre. ?“Emergency Legislation?” is dramatically overused by the City Council. By invoking this ?“Suspended Rules?” tactic, the Council can read and pass legislation without the typical three readings (at three consecutive meetings) and with limited public comment. Other Ohio cities have used this tactic to overcome citizen involvement toward zoning concerns. The most noted of these is the City of London?’s decision that brought about a 5-2 vote in the Ohio Supreme Court backing that municipality?’s use of Emergency Legislation to avoid the referendum process. Quoting the comments of Judge Stratton Lundberg, ?“ I disagree with the


majority?’s conclusion that property may be annexed through ?“emergency?” legislation not subject to a referendum. I believe that allowing such a process deprives Ohio citizens of their right to a referendum provided under Section If, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. It is difficult for me to imagine a more deliberate attempt to thwart a constitutional right. I fear that the majority?’s approval of this procedure will provide a road map to each municipality in the future to avoid referendums when they have been filed, as we set forth no guidelines or exceptions for allowing such circumvention, but rather grant wholesale approval to the emergency process.?” So, this type of legislation is also not subject to repeal by public referendum. In other words, the Council and Mayor Hughes can do what they want without suffering recourse simply by suspending the rules and passing into law ?“Emergency?” measures. So again, while we should all be very pleased that the voice of the people has been heard, we should also be wary of Council?’s history of taking measures into their own hands.

More on ?“Emergency Legislation?” in forthcoming Newsletters.

VIOLET-CANAL CEDA IN THE WORKS (COOPERATION PAYS OFF)

On Thursday, March 1, 2001 a joint session of the Canal Winchester Village Council and the Violet Township Trustees was held at the Canal Winchester High School as a public hearing on the Cooperative Economic Development Agreement (CEDA) that is under consideration between the Village of Canal Winchester and Violet Township. Township Trustees Dunlap, Weltlich and Diley are to be commended for their efforts thus far as are the member of the Canal Winchester Village Council.

This CEDA is good for all of us. As noted in earlier editions of the PATA Newsletter, this CEDA is set up to use the land that is along the Rt. 33 corridor, just north of Canal Winchester. The land is a part of the Canal School District. The Economic Development of this area, combined with the agreement that is being struck between the two governmental agencies, should provide considerable growth in tax income for the Village of Canal Winchester, the Canal School District, and for Violet Township. While a few citizens of the City of Pickerington expressed concerns about the CEDA and the economic impact on the Township, the math simply shows that the Township (remember that ALL of us live in the Township whether we live in Pickerington, Canal, or the Unincorporated areas of Violet Township) will generate significantly more tax revenue under this agreement than it would under the current land use, or if the City of Pickerington were to annex the land. EVERYONE WINS ?– Canal, Canal Schools, and all of us in Violet Township.


Pickerington needs a CEDA. While City Council and the Mayor of Pickerington have been crying sour grapes over this deal, the fact of the matter is that the land in this CEDA is, always has been, and always will be a part of the Canal School District. So if the City actually was interested in this plot of land, it could not have been to bail out the over extended Pickerington Local School District. Any development, any tax dollars generated from this land would have gone to Canal Schools no matter what. Pickerington desperately needs some industrial/commercial development within School District boundaries. Without, our current ?“Pickerington Pride?” will be replaced with ?“Under Funded School District Blues?” in the not too distant future.

Where can Pickerington go?
There are three prime sections of real estate that the City could or already has annexed that could be used to develop an industrial park that would benefit the City and the School District.

The land to the South and East of the Violet/Canal CEDA is a natural extension of the Development District and makes a great deal of sense for Pickerington to work on. A CEDA between the City and Violet Township in this area would make a great deal of sense, and would allow Pickerington to compete with Canal for Industrial Tax Payers.

The Diley property ?– just north of the proposed CEDA and directly in place to take advantage of the new RT 33 interchange - is going through the annexation process now. The Fairfield County Commissioners voted 3-0 on March 6th to approve Pickerington?’s request for annexation. This is another great piece of land that could be used for Industrial development. This property has many of the characteristics needed for strong industrial growth. Unfortunately, the City has already entered into a pre-annexation agreement with a homebuilder to plop more housing into the school district. In the near future Pickerington City Council will be voting to accept this annexation. Will they succumb to the all to familiar mode of evermore-residential development within the Pickerington Local School District ?– or ?– will they ?“see?” the vision of the commercial potential? Construction is slated to begin within 13 months on the RT 33 interchange. Is Pickerington?’s best use of the land connecting with this interchange another 1,000 homes?

A third area that the City should consider for Industrial Development is the ?“Painter/Kohler?” properties just north of the Diley property. Since our last Newsletter the City of Pickerington has filed for annexation on 149.1 acres, with the Fairfield County Commissioners, of these properties. A public hearing for this annexation request is slated for May 15, 2001 before the Fairfield County Commissioners 201 East Main Street Rm 301 Lancaster. Again, this area has many of the characteristics that would make it appealing to commercial/industrial developers. Unfortunately the City has already promised this land to ANOTHER homebuilder to put EVEN MORE HOUSES into our city and our school system.

The City of Pickerington has had plenty of opportunities to develop Commercial/Industrial land. Instead, and with great consistency, we found a way to turn our valuable properties over to greedy homebuilders who expand our population. This continues to add to the number of children attending our schools, while not adding enough to the coffers to offset additional expenses (see January PATA newsletter). An outstanding example of this is the land that is now being developed behind the Kroger strip mall on the corner of Rt 256 and Refugee Rd. A 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan designed by Pickerington City Council set aside this land for commercial development. They felt that this land was IDEAL for commercial development and would have provided the stable tax base that this city so desperately needs. Unfortunately former Mayor Lee Gray and Currently Mayor Randy Hughes have led City Council down the path of residential development that will eventually strangle our schools.

The problem with Pickerington?’s lack of Industrial/Commercial Development

The fact of the matter is that Pickerington City Council?’s actions mean that more and more houses are being built, with almost no commercial/industrial development to generate a strong, stable tax base.

Again (as stated in previous newsletters) this means one of two things. Either your taxes will go up, or our schools will suffer. And the picture right now isn?’t that pretty to begin with! A 1999 State of Ohio survey found that of 612 School Systems in the State of Ohio, Pickerington ranked 524th when measured on the % of school taxes generated by residential taxes. In Central Ohio, only Upper Arlington had a higher percentage of residential taxes supporting their schools. And while Pickerington is a great


community, we do not have the type of residential property that Arlington does. Of those same 612 school districts, Pickerington ranked 600th, ALMOST DEAD LAST, in the category measuring school taxes as a percentage of income. (A chart of this ranking is included within this newsletter.) This means that residents of the Pickerington School district are paying more of their income to support the schools than almost anywhere else in our state. On top of that, the Pickerington School District spends less per pupil than any other school system in suburban Central Ohio. WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER! (Please check out the web site www.ode.state.oh.us/interactive/ for specific data). Also remember that this data was compiled and reported before the passing of the recent tax levy to build and operate more new schools.

The pressure that our residential growth is putting on the school system is already starting to show. A recent memo sent to the Curriculum Council Membership of the Pickerington School System quoted the following statistics:

 20% of the class of 2003 (this year?’s sophomores) has below a 2.0 cumulative GPA.
 13.5% of this class has less than 5 credits of the 21 needed to graduate.
 28% of this class moved into the school system since 1999.

 13.5% of the freshman class (2004) has below a 2.0 GPA.
 40% of this class has moved into this school system since August of 2000.

 13% of this year?’s 8th graders (2005) have below a 2.0 GPA.
 29% of this class has moved into our school system since August of 2000.

What all of this might tell you is that our schools are expanding so rapidly, and with such a high number of students coming from other schools, that our teachers are having to spend their time and efforts focusing on ?“At Risk?” kids. While these efforts are to be commended, how far can we stretch our faculty before our children begin to suffer? Today Pickerington?’s schools are recognized for their achievement in the standardized state wide testing programs. Do these statistics tell you that this will still be the case in a couple of years?

All of this then begs the question, Why would School Board members Debra Carlier and Larry Sigman stand up to support the City of Pickerington in its continued exuberant residential development and promoting Pickerington?’s request for commercial/industrial development in another school district. One would think that these majority School Board Members would be screaming for help, rather than standing in support of City Council as Council binds the School Board?’s hands and feet, preparing to see it walk the plank.
And if Carlier and Sigman as majority School Board members can?’t see through this, are they the ones that we want negotiating the Teacher?’s Contract that is up for renewal this summer? Are these the right people to entrust with the educational future of our children?

The bottom line is this: Today there are about 10,000 homes in the Pickerington School District and about 7,600 students. New Residential Development in our area has 5,000 more homes on the books to be built in the near future. Simple math tells you that this should bring about another 3,800 students, or more, to our already crowded schools. How many more new schools are we going to have to pay for before our leaders wake up and understand that there needs to be a balance between Commercial/Industrial and Residential Tax Base? It just doesn?’t seem that hard to figure out.


Our Economic Diversity Shell Game

Susan Crotty is the Economic Development Director for the City of Pickerington.

In the March 5, 2001 issue of the Southeast Messenger Ms. Crotty is quoted often in an article entitled ?“Pickerington Looks to Diversify Commercial Growth?”, written by Chiree McCain.

First Ms. Crotty talks about the economic development along St. Rt. 256.

Two questions:
1. What type of genius do you have to be to figure out that with thousands of new homes being built; retailers want to be close by?
2. Why is the development along RT. 256 only along RT 256? Why is there no development more than 500 feet deep off of 256? Why is it that the land behind the Kroger complex is not being developed commercially? Why is there no other deeper development along our main thoroughfare than restaurants, gas stations, and other retail establishments?

?“Retail Development is dependent on residential development,?” said Ms. Crotty. How much are we paying this woman?

Many of the new openings Ms. Crotty notes in the article are simply businesses moving from one part of town to another. The new Dairy Queen, the Dentists office, and World Gym have all moved to new locations, none of which are generating incremental tax revenue for the City or the Schools. While all of these are great businesses that we hope will thrive in their new locations, they are not the types of Commercial Industrial development that this city needs.

Crotty said, ?“Pickerington does not have much industrial development because of its geographic location.?”

How many small towns in Central Ohio can you name that are wedged between two major highways with easy access to both, and with a rail system running right through town? Not many? Are we using our transportation corridors, the lifeblood to commercial/industrial development, wisely?

It?’s actually pretty disappointing that the City, our City, apparently lacks the vision and direction to maximize our potential for the diverse tax base this area, our citizens, our school district and children so desperately need.

Unfortunately, any Economic Development Director would be limited in ?“true?” development of a broadened tax base with zoning decisions favoring residential land uses.

Take out all of the retail, restaurants, and gas stations and what is left? Not enough to hang your hat on to relieve the burdens of our Costs of Community Services. And we have all witnessed the transient nature of retail businesses.


Annexation Reform:

Senate Bill #5 has won approval in the Ohio Senate. It will begin consideration in the Ohio House (Wednesday) March 7th with sponsor testimony in the Ohio House Local Government & Township Committee.

If you are concerned about the continuation of annexations and their affects to our community, contact PATA for a list of Representatives now considering this legislation in the Ohio House Local Government & Township Committee.

   


Bob Harding Jeffery Fix
Contact Person Newsletter Editor

PO Box 518 Phone: 755-2464
Pickerington, OH 43147

Email ?– pickeringtontaxpayers@hotmail.com
Web site ?– www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/pata

inserts within the mailed copy of the Newsletter include a complete listing of the "Our Pages" items and the chart titled See Your PLSD School Taxes as Percentage of Income See Your PLSD School Taxes as Percentage of Income "See Your PLSD School Taxes as Percentage of Income"