Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Lisa Ross,

I noticed under my heading 27 to 1 and 3 to 1 (the number of postings got long) your intent to post some information on the PATA homepage.

It may be helpful to post the summary of the 1997 PLSD Facilities Committee report listing the phases for building new schools over the next 15 years. The next phase calls for an elementary school within the very near future. If you need a copy, I will get you one.

In addition, so we are all comparing apples with apples, I suggest you post the information from the PLSD Treasurer's office regarding revenue income from commercial and residential in the City of Pickerington and Violet Township. Jeff Fix has a copy of it. If you need another copy, I would be happy to supply. Then, we all can debate the information with the same database.

Finally, it also may be most helpful to obtain how many citizens living in the unincorporated area of Violet Township work in the City of Columbus and pay 2% city income tax with no portion of it returning to the township. My guess is that Violet Township residents pay more income tax to the City of Columbus without getting any moneys back than any other community in all of Central Ohio. City of Pickerington, I believe, get a half of a percent back from the taxes paid to the City of Columbus by Pickerington residents. Again, details of this information along with facts will be helpful to post on your homepage.

By Mark W. Uher

Question for Mr.Uher

Since you felt the other discussion got too long, Ill ask my questions here. Here is a vopy of the first:

Thank you Lisa for this information. Let me try and put two and two together for my own purposes:

There was a facilities study done by and for the PLSD in 1997. The projections for new school construction are based entirely on that study. By your figures, there is the possibility of ?“up to hundreds of additional homes per city project versus Township projects?”.

Did the facilities study include this possibility?
Is there any intent to adjust the facilities study to incorporate the higher than anticipated growth?
Is there the possibility that we could already be behind the power curve even though we are in the construction phase of the two new schools?
Is there a possibility that there could be more bond issues in the near future besides the imminent one for the required elementary school to support the Villages at Sycamore Creek?
Who would be responsible for answering these types of questions? PLSD Administration, PLSD Board, Mr. Uher, if he is a representative and spokesperson for the PLSD as inferred in these postings?

Sorry if I open up a can of worms, but the questions are sitting there waiting to be asked.

Second question for Mr. Uher

Mr. Uher,

Sorry if this gets tedious but you have put up so much valuable information, it might take me a while to organize all the questions it has generated for me.

Thank you Lisa for this information. Let me try and put two and two together for my own purposes:

There was a facilities study done by and for the PLSD in 1997. The projections for new school construction are based entirely on that study. By your figures, there is the possibility of ?“up to hundreds of additional homes per city project versus Township projects?”.

Did the facilities study include this possibility?
Is there any intent to adjust the facilities study to incorporate the higher than anticipated growth?
Is there the possibility that we could already be behind the power curve even though we are in the construction phase of the two new schools?
Is there a possibility that there could be more bond issues in the near future besides the imminent one for the required elementary school to support the Villages at Sycamore Creek?
Who would be responsible for answering these types of questions? PLSD Administration, PLSD Board, Mr. Uher, if he is a representative and spokesperson for the PLSD as inferred in these postings?

Sorry if I open up a can of worms, but the questions are sitting there waiting to be asked.

Facilities Review Committee

Yes, the Facilities Review committee took into consideration all potential growth estimates, and all current and future housing projects.

In fact, the committee scope was for 15 years when the entire district will be developed (hopefully, more commercial and less residential and very few apartments).

The next phase is to build an elementary school (Phase IV). Phase V a new middle school or junior high. Phase VI a new junior high or middle school. And, phase VII a new high school (probably in ten years).

Again, within in 10-15 years, all if not most of the available land within the district will be developed. Currently, almost all the land within our school district within the City of Columbus has been developed.

However, we must develop our land wisely. Currently, apartment complexes primarily in the Tussing area within our district house 758 of our district's student population compared to 736 students in all of Summerfield.

Smart development is the key.





By Mark W. Uher