Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

April - June 2003 - For our readers general knowledge --

Aug 13, 2003

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers." - John Adams

In a recent edition of the Lancaster Eagle Gazette the following was noted;

The latest U.S. Census figures place Pickerington as the city with the largest growth in population in Ohio from 2001 to 2002, with Lancaster at No. 26 (with a 0.9% growth rate).
Pickerington went up in population from 10,391 to 11,146, a 7.3 percent jump that topped the list of 167 places in Ohio with more than 10,000 people.
"We sit next to one of the most thriving cities in the United States and that helps," said Pickerington Mayor Lou Postage. "Our great community with good parks and close proximity to Columbus are key factors. But there is no doubt that the one big factor drawing people to our community is our great schools and their quality."

Lancaster Mayor Art Wallace said population increases are not the main driving forces for development in his city. "We are not real anxious to bring in more housing developments," Wallace said. "We want to concentrate on industrial and commercial development -- trying to provide jobs and make life better for the residents who already live here."


Please note the differences in approaches?…..

Consider the following facts;
1. The Pickerington Local School District had an all time record enrollment increase of 439 additional students in 2002 to satisfy the needs of newly built houses.

2. Unfazed by this explosive student growth, the City of Pickerington issued an all time record of 385 single family residential unit building permits issued in 2002.

3. The Pickerington Local School District went on the ballot in November of 2002 requesting additional millage of 7.9 mills to operate its schools. That issue failed then and again in February and will be back on the ballot in August. Passage would raise approximately $6 million dollars per year of this proposed 5-year levy while PLSD?’s own projected figures show that the school district will be $6 million dollars in the red in the 2004 school year alone. Remembering that each additional year of explosive growth increases the districts operating costs above current levels.

4. Even with the opening of two new schools in 2003, one school official recently stated that the growth rate in the district will require three additional school buildings behind to keep up with the pressures of growth.

5. In early July single family residential building permits for just the City of Pickerington stand at an additional 642 (350 approved and 292 pending) in the first part of 2003 with a full half of 2003 remaining.

6. A majority of City of Pickerington officials await an early August proposal of a Community Authority from the developer / builder members of the Building Industry Association (BIA) as a means of adding additional property tax receipts on only some of the future housing units. Figures provided by a school board member indicates that these funds will be far below the necessary revenue for school buildings and will provide NO money earmarked for operating expenses.

7. A majority of the Pickerington School Board members have not opposed years of unrestrained residential growth?…..

8. There is not currently --- nor is there being proposed ---one acre of Business / Commercial / or Industrial Parkland within the boundaries of the Pickerington Local School District.



So - - are these the actions of people concerned about the future of our excellent school system?

There?’s plenty of blame to share for the growth quagmire in which we?’re stuck.


As you?’ve noticed while fighting traffic, pausing at lights, and viewing the myriad of residential units spring up we ALL have a very big growth problem.



The 2002 Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission?’s Annual Report clearly documents where our area?’s growth glut is centered.



There were 73 platted
subdivisions consisting of 2,868 platted building lots recorder in all of Fairfield County in 2002..
Of that number 2,357 subdivision lots were located within the City of Pickerington. *** *** ***
Fairfield County is 505 square miles.
The City of Pickerington is approximately 11 square miles.

The City of Pickerington represents over 82% of the residential growth in Fairfield County. *** *** *** *** ***

Are we all mature enough to stop accusing everyone else and see who the primary culprit of aggressive residential growth is?

*** *** *** *** *** ***

Our last Newsletter addressed proposed ?“Recreation Lands?” (a.k.a. Sewer Plant Expansion) to provide you with additional information regarding the City of Pickerington?’s proposed Sewer Plant expansion we submit this map of the proposed Sanitary Sewer Service that the City of Pickerington has submitted to the Ohio EPA.
Is the Sewer Plant Expansion really about Parkland?


Take a look at this map and judge for yourself!


From the map that the City of Pickerington has supplied to the Ohio EPA it appears that the ?“Deal?” is really about getting the ability to service sewer needs for 1,800 acres of lands to the west (Isn?’t it ALL RESIDENTIAL?) and 1,750 acres of land to the east (Again, appearing to be ALL RESIDENTIAL!!)
note MAP on the "Our Pages" section - Expanded Sewer service area.

YOU SHOULD KNOW that in the 1970?’s the only limiting factor to residential building in the City of Pickerington was it?’s limitation to provide sanitary sewer service for additional homes! Building permits for housing STOPPED for a period of time awaiting a previous plant expansion.
As a little reminder here is a quote from one of the majority members of the Pickerington City Council:
Council is taking a look at options to help slow city?’s residential growth

City Councilman, Doug Parker, called Postage?’s plan to create a community authority ?“ a very bold step,?” but expressed reservations concerning a proposed moratorium because of the impact it could have on the city?’s water and sewer plant debt.
He also said a moratorium on building within Pickerington could simply push new developments onto the outer fringes of the city?’s borders.
?“This is not going to stop development,?” Parker warned.



1. Unrestrained Residential GROWTH caused by an uncontrolled majority city council abusing the emergency declaration in the Pickerington City? Charter and passing thousands of final plats in September of 2002 and contract zoning in 2001 ?….. all by emergency so the voters couldn't run referendums on the ordinances.
? 


2. Unrestrained Residential GROWTH caused by a complacent school board majority that has sat on the sidelines for years with no input on or involvement with the subject of growth within the school district, particularly when it came to the City of Pickerington.



3. Unrestrained Residential GROWTH caused by an ever expanding availability of utilities. And if that ain't enough houses here folks Council wants to bury the city in debt and provide enough sewer and water for 4100 additional homes besides the 2000 it approved hastily last September.
? 


4. Unrestrained Residential GROWTH caused by Voters and taxpayers with far too much apathy to get involved with local politics or be informed on the issues. This apathy has encouraged the majority of council members to follow their own agendas for so long they now refuse to listen to the? citizens and their requests. Yes, average citizens must help with the efforts to get these ?“representatives?” out of office.
? 
5. Unrestrained Residential
GROWTH caused by a school system
rich in extra curricular activities and high
standardized testing scores. ?– That?’s a good thing! New home builders and developers are using the school's reputation to sell homes yet exhibit total disregard for the citizens of the city that have built this fine school system. Once the houses are built and the taxpayers can no longer afford the to build needed buildings and handle the operating costs left behind they will be gone in search of greener pastures. ?– That?’s not good!!



*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

So - - are these the actions of people concerned about the future of our area?



*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***



Sit on the sidelines or take action -
Violet Township recently sponsored a Public Informational Meeting with guest speakers well versed on some of the issues of Community Authority, Township Home Rule, and Merger potentially affecting our community. Considerable time was dedicated to questions and answers between the audience and the experts. The text of that meeting is available for your review at http://www.violet.oh.us/june-1-2003-transcript.htm. As an addition to those meetings YOU have the ability to share your opinions and concerns through an unofficial survey on topics of Community Authority, Home Rule Township Status and Merger through the Township website at http://www.violet.oh.us/Survey-Summer-2003.asp for those without computer connections the Township will also take your input in writing to add to their unofficial survey results.

These issues impact our area?’s future growth habits!

Have you considered the factors of ?“ ?…in consideration of the development?….?”

?“?… part of the solution.?”
** see Developer "Contribution" letter from William Goldman to ?Laurie Saunders? and Indian Giver notations in "Our Pages"

Is this an example of a ?“positive?” or more an illustration of a larger ?“negative?”?


Read on for more additional details?…?….

On June 10, 1997 William Goldman, Don McAuliffe, Daryl Berry, Mike O?’Reilly and others brought before the Pickerington Planning & Zoning Commission a motion to propose a rezoning of 77 acres of land on Refugee Road. Mr. Goldman stated the development plans for this parcel included a combination of offices, retail, an assisted living facility and a golf course.

What you see on the site today is the Pickerington Police Station, 275 apartments and the future proposal for 250 condominiums?’ in what was to be C-2 (Mixed Use Commercial).

In addition let?’s remember the comments of Tom Hart, Executive Director, of the Building Industry Association:

Local builders reportedly are to donate $225,000 of the amount, but they?’re balking because of attempts by Pickerington City Council to muzzle residential development, said Tom Hart.

?“It?’s hard to say, ?‘Let?’s help the school system.?’ When there could be no market there at all for builders because there?’s no predictability there,?” Hart said. ?“Do we pledge money and then have nothing to generate it within that market??”

How about putting on our thinking caps for a minute ?….

The public learned last week that the Building Industry Association (BIA) re-pledged the
$225,000 to the Pickerington Local School District that was originally pledged in May, after the
operating levy failed. This time, however, it has been pledged to be given in three installments of
$75,000 over the course of the school year. There are also additional conditions placed on the
money. Pickerington cannot impose a moratorium, and they must accept the proposed
community authority. The BIA will not put the pledge or the additional strings in writing. Are they
counting on voters to forget the fact that they will not have given one penny to the schools
before the August operating levy?

Did You know? -- -- -- in 2001

Beth Miller, an Associate in the Law Firm of William Goldman, tough a Johnstown resident, contributed
the following amounts to the reelection campaigns of Pickerington Councilmen; $750 for Maxey, $250 for Wright, $250 for Parker.

Daryl Berry, of BGM Construction (the builders of the new Police Station) contributed the following amounts to the reelection campaigns of Pickerington Councilmen; $500 each to Maxey, Wright, and Parker.

John Miller, of BGM Construction directly and through a trust contributed the following amounts to the reelection campaigns of Pickerington Councilmen; $1,000 each to Maxey, Wright, and Parker.



Is this just some friendly gestures or pieces of the puzzles that led to the recent headline of one local newspaper -- -- BOARD TAKES NO STANCE ON GROWTH?