Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Pickerington considering one-time fees on new buildings

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Kirk D . Richards

The Columbus Dispatch

The crush of homes being built in Pickerington is leading officials to consider charging them one-time impact fees. But legally that cannot be done without also charging businesses for buildings they construct.

That could discourage businesses from locating there, some City Council members say. ''I think the consensus in the business community is this really wouldn?’t be advisable,'' Councilman Michael Sabatino said.
A city consultant recently prepared a report detailing the maximum fees Pickerington could legally justify, based on population and development projections. One figure that stuck out to Councilman Doug Parker was a $118,000 fee that could be assessed on a 100,000-square-foot office building.

That cost could drive commerce to the nearby village of Canal Winchester, Parker said. ''They?’re offering abatements over there and we?’re looking to charge them extra.
''Businesses aren?’t banging down our doors to come here.''

Councilmen Ted Hackworth and Mitch O?’Brien are ready to support impact fees to help pay for the added strain that new residents and workers bring to a community. Police become stretched. Increased traffic wears down streets. Parks and recreation areas get more use.

''It?’s a fair way for new builds to have to buy their way into our community,'' O?’Brien said.
The money could go only to improvements needed to cover the impact of more people, said Susan Crotty, who was Pickerington?’s economic-development director until she started a job this month with Columbus Urban Growth. ''The council could decide to assess for police but not streets, for instance, as long as it applies to both residential and commercial.''
Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman has promoted impact fees as part of his ''pay as we grow'' policy.

Delaware started assessing them in 2001 and has taken in $1.76 million, City Manager Thomas Homan said. Some of the money was used to purchase parkland, expand a police locker room, add parking-lot spaces and construct bike paths.
''It doesn?’t pay for operational costs, which is always a challenge,'' Homan said. ''But at least it covers half of the equation.''

Hackworth suggests that Pickerington try impact fees then monitor the results.

''If the fees aren?’t working properly, we could adjust upward, downward or rescind the whole thing,'' he said. ''Is it going to actually slow growth down? I don?’t know.''

Figures prepared by the Tischler-Bise consulting firm in Maryland take into account Pickerington?’s estimated population of 13,066 people in 5,699 housing units. During the next 10 years, the city is projected to add 1,950 housing units and 7,430 people.

The maximum impact fee for a new single-family home in Pickerington would be $3,471, according to the study.

Council President Heidi Riggs supports the concept but wants to ensure that the city has the staff and procedures to administer the fees.

''How are we going to be able to monitor it? Do we need a new body?'' Riggs asked.

O?’Brien expects to hammer out issues in Service Committee before an ordinance is presented to the Pickerington council.

''I hope it?’ll happen this year,'' he said.

krichards@dispatch.com

Limiting the sewer taps

Pickerington waste plant can handle a little more work

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Kirk D . Richards

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Tests on Pickerington?’s sewage-treatment plant show it can handle an additional 400,000 gallons a day, enough to serve about 1,200 new homes.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency accepted the results, which means Pickerington could delay expensive plans for a larger plant to serve its growing population. The work of city-hired engineers led the state to revise the plant?’s approved capacity from 1.2 million gallons a day to 1.6 million gallons a day.

The change likely is unprecedented.

''This is the first one I?’ve heard of,'' said Greg Sanders, an environmental specialist for the Ohio EPA. ''I?’ve never had anyone ask for it before.''
Meanwhile, city officials disagree whether further delays on a larger plant would be wise. Last year, Pickerington leaders considered building an $11 million plant that could handle 3.5 million gallons of sewage per day.

Although Mayor David Shaver and some council members say the newly approved capacity could allow the city to hold off on a larger plant, others contend that a long-term fix should be sought immediately.

''It?’s always more expensive to do it later than it is today,'' said Councilman Michael Sabatino, noting the rising costs of steel.

''With this, you?’re buying a little more time, but you know that sooner or later, you?’re going to have to build a plant or an addition to the plant,'' Sabatino said.

Councilman Doug Parker agreed, saying the city should have embraced plans for a larger plant last year. Like Sabatino and William Wright, Parker often is on the losing end of 4-3 votes on the council.

Parker called the extra capacity ''only a patch.'' ''This is not going to take care of what needs to be done.''

Councilman Ted Hackworth, who chairs the Service Committee, says the larger capacity at the current plant can serve about 1,200 additional homes. ''This gives us some breathing room,'' Hackworth said. Pickerington issued 235 building permits last year, but 71 were voided.

He said it would be best to wait for the city to complete a growth-management plan to help officials determine how large a plant Pickerington needs.

However, the capacity increase comes with added EPA scrutiny. The city will be required to conduct daily tests on the current plant?’s ability to treat the additional sewage.

''If they?’re found to be in violation, they?’d have to improve the plant,'' said the EPA?’s Sanders.
''The plant?’s got to perform,'' Hackworth said. ''So if it starts having problems, we might have to speed up our schedule.''

Mayor Shaver said the city could end up cooperating with other jurisdictions to provide more service to the area without spending money on an expensive new plant. But even if a new plant is necessary, he said, waiting could result in a more efficient facility.

''The longer you delay, the more options you have with technology,'' Shaver said.

Pickerington Service Director Frank Wiseman said the capacity at the current plant could be increased as soon as some paperwork is completed.

krichards@dispatch.com

Net results

I just read the above articles in the Columbus Dispatch. I am impressed with a couple of numbers and the statements made by the former city council members and their justification for a massive sewer plant expansion last year.

I seem to remember that in 2003 Bill Wright was quoted that he could not support a citizen's moratorium initiative because the City needed 350 building permits each year to pay their bills. I have also read that to pay the debt service on the $11 Million Dollar Sewer Plant and Park debt last year the City would have had to sell over 300 sewer taps each year meet just that debt service.

Now as a result of a Moratorium restricting the building permits in 2003 we find the NET number of building permits issued in 2004 was 164 for the City of Pickerington.

Please also keep in mind that at least half of these building permits were for the Villages at Sycamore Creek and Fox Glen. These two sub-divisions are served by the Canal Winchester Sewer Plant.

So with approximately 82 sewer taps issued last year and the city has only issued only 58 building permits in 2005 just how deep in the hole would the City's sewer debt be in right now?

WHAT PRESSURE WOULD BE ON THE COMMUNITY TO SELL EVEN MORE HOMES?


Then if the city had not fought the BIA and just how many more homes would be needed for even more schools?


Then there is the impact fee schedule that is working its way through the council. The City's consultant has advised the City Council that a portion of the capital expenses for EACH new home costs the existing Tax Payers $3,471. This DOES NOT include the schools or the Fire Department.

For those advocates of growth in our community please be advised that we have an official report in front of us all that is showing us just a small portion of the costs of EVERY new home that comes to our community.

I would say as a City TAXPAYER:

GO TEAM!!




By Things a happen

Dip in the Road

What a novel idea. A city WEB site that posts upcoming Special Meetings. It has taken teh citizens of this this long to actual have a city hall the lets them know what is going on. I have to wonder if the sepcial council meeting has anything to do with Sabatino voting against the ordinances to pay these property owners. It this his way of stopping the Diley Road project? What a Dip.

PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

MONDAY, MAY 23, 2005



COUNCIL WORK SESSION



6:30 P.M.





1. Roll Call



2. Review and discussion regarding Impact Fees



3. Adjournment







PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

MONDAY, MAY 23, 2005




SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING

CALLED BY THE MAYOR



7:30 P.M.



1. ROLL CALL.



2. SCHEDULED MATTERS:



A. ORDINANCE 2005-46, ?“AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A 0.147 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FEE SIMPLE INTEREST, FROM JOSEPH E. HARR AND RUTH A. RIEMENSCHNEIDER, LOCATED EAST OF DILEY ROAD, CITY OF PICKERINGTON, COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD, STATE OF OHIO,?” Second Reading, Hackworth.



B. ORDINANCE 2005-48, ?“AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST CONSISTING OF 0.035 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FROM ROBERTA I. SCHAFFNER, IN PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF S.R. 256, CITY OF PICKERINGTON, COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD, STATE OF OHIO,?” Second Reading, Hackworth.



3. ADJOURNMENT.



We might want to attend this meeting to see what our city is doing with their spare time.




By C.O.