Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Here is a copy of proposals actually made that have been edited in many ways by others on this site that reference it. Think for yourself. Others have come before you in the same expression of concern.

Joint Economic Development Committee ?– Residential Subcommittee Proposals
February 4, 1998

The Residential Subcommittee had several meetings. These were the proposals presented with the consensus of those involved. Members were Bob Blair, Terry Dunlap, Bill Miller, Debbie Carlier, and Joyce Bushman.

Proposal One
Issue: There is a perceived lack of community unity when it comes to developmental issues. Two separate governmental entities, City and Township, have separate zoning and development plans which can lead to the developmental community playing one against the other looking for the best deal.
Proposal: This Committee should call for a merger committee to be formed to allow the community to reform into one government entity.
Discussion: Several communities have merged and many communities have formed the committee to look at the issue. Since it takes a separate vote of the Township and City many feel the attempt should be made to put the issue to a vote.

Proposal Two
Issue: The subcommittee recognizes a merger will be difficult because of the long history of ?“separate?” growth. Some worry a merger committee is doomed to fail and could further lead to frustration and failure which could further separate the community.
Proposal: The committee should call for the City and Township forming one zoning code which is common in the community.
Discussion: It might be impossible for a merger committee to find a compromise on all issues facing the formation of a unified government. However, it might be more reasonable to ask the governmental entities to unify on a single issue such as a zoning code. When a developer looks to come into the community there is much confusion as to which code offers more benefits. A single code would go a long ways towards preventing one governmental entity being ?“pitted?” against the other.

Proposal Three
Issue: Most people agree that ?“managed?” growth is desirable. The larger questions are the definition of managed growth and how to accomplish such an end.
Proposal: The Committee should call for the Township and City to establish a percentage or number of residential units they ?“wish?” to permit each year.
Discussion: The Subcommittee knows of the property rights issues and the danger of constituting a ?“taking?” of land, however there is no possible way of establishing managed growth without at least setting a number. Some members feel the schools should be considered a part of the infrastructure similar to sewer and water and the long practice of linking their growth to the supporting infrastructure. The Subcommittee recognizes the act of relating growth to the school infrastructure is problematic, however setting a target might be possible. Some members felt the legislative bodies of the School, Township and City should meet as a group to find a target number which would have the large benefit of bringing the three groups together as a working body.

About That JEDC 2

Proposal Four
Issue: It appears the General Assembly at this time is not going to change the practice of local schools going to the voters for operating levies. The Subcommittee recognizes the difficult task passing operating levies and forecasts a continuing trend in the future.
Proposal: The Committee calls for the General Assembly to look at other methods than local schools going to the voters for operating funds.
Discussion: The Subcommittee recognizes the growth trends in Pickerington are linked directly to the quality of our schools. Most believe the growth has been positive as it has lead to increased property values and it is going to continue. While there is agreement operating levies will be difficult to pass there are differing opinions on what to do; some would say more effort needs to be made in cutting operating expenses, others would say change the methods of funding and another position is continue the system but put more effort into educating the voters.

Finally,
The Subcommittee chooses to make no proposals on the issue of impact fees. While much discussion centered on this issue there were several concerns.
1. It does not appear enough revenue can be generated through impact fees to remove operating issues from the ballot. There is a fear people will believe the problem ?“solved?” if fees are levied and there will be even less chance of passing future operating levies.
2. It would take extreme effort in getting the General Assembly to pass a law allowing impact fees to occur. The developmental community has in the past and can be expected in the future to fight such laws. Considering the many constitutional questions it would be difficult to gain the needed votes.

A Charitable Foundation

One might also look at the setting up of a certain charitable foundation in this community by a developer to be similar to the discussion given to the impact fees. It is not sufficient to offset any real expenses that will be created by the development. Anyone wishing to apply must first go through the developer. It was a brilliant move by the developer to create a tax write-off.

PATA member, Bill Powers was given credit for this piece of work and kudos were given by PATA on their pages. Then, last I saw, criticism was being directed at an actual contribution by other developers, businesses, and the City of Pickerington. Let's see....something tangible to be used for the kids or something that is just on paper....let me think.....why would you praise one and then criticize others? All the while, PATA praised similar efforts in Violet Township. Am I seeing a pattern here? I believe so!

I'm glad for Pickerington $$

I am glad Pickerington asked for and got money for the Homewood project, yet I still oppose the project as it will be harmful to the ponds in many ways in addition to overloading our schools regardless of the donation. If it was not passed by emergency measure there would be a referendum on the ballot in November. An initiative addressing this and the Diley development are still a possibility in addition to the initiative Mrs. Ricketts created last week.


I know the city would do the project anyhow, no matter how many people protest so I guess a donation is better than nothing. I believe that no donation would have been solicited or offered if not for the pressure of citizen groups and individuals on the developers who donated in Violet Township prior to this proposal. I do know that citizens have been asking the board and administrators for several years to use the ''bully pulpit'' you can speak from to encourage outside donations and urge the limiting of the residential growth rate in this community. Unfortunately,the usage of the bully pulpit on this issue has been occassional and weak at best. I believe you could do better and hope that the new members of the board, whomever they will be, will try to encourage rational development at a rate the community can afford.

It is very reasonable for members of the communtiy to ask for and demand that elected officials use every tool possible to limit the rate of residential growth to maintain the quality of life in our community. We often hear of ''how nice certain developments are in our community,(like Melrose) so why not create the same type of development on this land?'' Well, I do not disagree with this but why do we have to approve ten or twenty of these ''nice'' developments in 5 years or less when the community cannot handle this influx? Just allow one or two per cycle or whatever rate the community could handle. This is absolutely reasonable to ask and expect for the sake of our children.

Thank you for posting detailed information, Some of it does prove that exactly nothing has been done with any good ideas that came out of this committee....wonder why.....


On the Wellington Park property donation from David Ruma, did you ever get that in writing???.... because the word is that he will sell this land and take the money and run after he annexes it into the city (with the free sewer and water he will get from the city) and another developer will develop it. I hope our school officals follow up on this.