Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

CITY OF PICKERINGTON

FINANCE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2005


REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

E. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance adopting new debt policy for the development and implementation of the City of Pickerington?’s Debt Program. Mrs. Fersch stated the draft presented this evening includes the request of this Committee that we will not exceed the 7.5 mills of the City?’s taxable assessed valuation except in temporary emergency situations and that we would seek the approval of the County prior to issuing general operation debt for emergency situations. Mr. Wright inquired what would constitute a temporary emergency and Mrs. Fersch stated that would be something like having to borrow for operating although we have never had to do this type of borrowing. Mr. Hackworth inquired what would happen if someone else had an emergency. Mrs. Riggs stated she would like to see communication between all entities and Mr. Wright stated that was his concern. He would like to make sure we are not limiting ourselves, and there is some mechanism in place where we are watching what the other entities are doing. Mrs. Fersch stated we would have to inquire on a regular basis. Mrs. Riggs stated she felt a meeting with the County Auditor would be appropriate to request some kind of policy on how they will communicate to the other entities when some one is using part of the millage. Mrs. Riggs stated we are trying to be a good neighbor, and she would like to see them hand back and communicate to all the municipalities. Mr. Wright stated that was precisely what he would like to see happen. Ms Gilleland stated she would like to work on establishing some formal policy. Mr. Wright stated he thought the wording under Tax Increment Financing stating developers will be required to secure?…, he thought that should be developers may be required. Ms Gilleland stated she has talked about that and some other language similar to that. She stated perhaps the wording should be something showing approval for exceptions will be made by the Finance Committee. She stated she and Mrs. Fersch will work on this wording and bring the draft policy back to the next Finance Committee meeting.

Campaign $$$$

I wanted to further explain the continuing effort on the part of the hold over council members of the Daryl days.

The new city manager and the NEW MAJORITY council has been trying to further establish a debt policy to avoid in the future what the current city administration is facing in debt.

One big issue is ''Tax Incremental Financing''. TIFs in the past have been handed out like candy. They had little or no thought in their formation. The way these TIFs were set up in the prior years was to place ALL of the RISK onto the City and Community Tax Payers. It also is very clear that many if not all the time one local developer stood there in the right position at the right time to benefit from new zoning and newly built infrastructure while the proposed commercial development sat there with vacant land and no pressure on the developer to perform what he said he would in his initiation presentation. Further more it left the city and the school with no tools or leverage to force the developer to pick up the huge debt they had put on the City's General Fund.

It is interesting to note that Bill Wright received huge campaign donations in 2001 from this builder that has benefited regularly from these TIFs.

It seems to me in the future when infrastructure is needed to promote a commercial development then that infrastructure should be build by or at the very least the risk guaranteed by
the developer who stands to make all of the profit not the taxpayers. It seems to me if the system to divert tax dollars away from our Schools, Fire Department and Police to pay for these infrastructure needs and the risks are only on the city then it is time to change how we do business. If the developer is going to reap the benefits then he must bear the risks.

Bill Wright wants to continue business as usual and provide a huge business supplements to his campaign benefactor. You might also consider why Bill Wright abstains so much. Is it because he accepted so much campaign money from people doing business with the City on a regular basis?

Another ppoint

B. ORDINANCE 2005-41, ?“AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY AND LANCASTER CITY HEALTH DISTRICTS TO FORM THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY COMBINED GENERAL HEALTH DISTRICT PURSUANT TO ORC SECTION 3709.07,?” First Reading, Wright. Mr. Wright moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Mr. Wright stated this is the renewal of a contract with some changes. He stated through the negotiation process amongst the different entities we have come up with a much fairer process of creating a budget and determining how the expenses would be shared with the different entities. He stated this is one of those pieces of legislation that does show cooperation between multi-jurisdictional units and he is proud to have been a part of it. Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O?’Brien, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Wright voting ?“Yea.?” Motion passed, 7-0.
============================
Mr. Wright is also proud to have been a part of multi-jurisdictional cooperation. I challenge those of you who know the truth about his ''cooperation'' to post your experiences here.

How about cooperation with the Township?

How about cooperation with PLSD?

How about cooperation with Canal?

How about cooperation with Berry?

How about cooperation with other developers?

We all know that Wright has been around a while and so have some of us. Share your experiences with all readers to show just how much cooperation Wright has been a part of and to whose benefit.