Dale:

 

I'll not be able to attend the Finance Committee meeting, but only because an unscheduled Board meeting has been called for another organization which I serve. Thanks for getting the report up on the website so quickly -- it was interesting to see the results.

 

As you know, I am deeply interested in matters of school funding and residential development from several perspectives. First is that my kids enjoyed a tremendous K-12 educational experience in the HCSD, and I want all kids in our community to have that opportunity. Secondly, as a resident of Brown Township and a member of the Brown Township Comprehensive Plan committee, I am interested in seeing the rural nature of our township maintained through a conservation development approach that preserves the streams, woodlands and open fields while giving the large landowners a chance to sell their farms to developers. Lastly, because commercial development in Hilliard has not kept pace with residential development, the existing residents of our school district are effectively subsidizing the impact of residential growth on our schools. My property tax bill has doubled in the past ten years (not all of that due to the schools), and residential growth without corresponding commercial growth will continue to cost me money.

 

I wonder how many folks in the community understand that a third high school south of Roberts Rd (which I support), places the school outside the boundaries of the area which can be annexed into Hilliard, meaning that as long as Columbus controls the water/sewer system (something which may change), placing a high school south of Roberts Rd also means placing it in the City of Columbus. I think the Hilliard city government might oppose this because of the loss of income tax revenue generated by the staff of the high school.

 

The Davis Rd site or anywhere along the western side of Alton-Darby Rd would be good if it were not for that pesky Environmentally Sensitive Development Area. If proponents of a third high school in that area (primarily developers) are successful in having the ESDA designation removed, we may gain a site for a school, but it will also open hundreds of acres to residential development bringing hordes of new students to the district. We will need not only a third high school, but maybe a fourth plus additional elementary and middle school buildings. No one wins except the residential developers.

 

HB920 and Phantom Revenue are marginal problems. While they would generate additional revenue if repealed, the amount is not significant compared to the burden created by a new development of 1,000 homes, or acres of new apartment complexes. That's where we need to focus our energy -- educating our community on this economic fact. The attached PowerPoint file is a failed attempt to simplify this issue. Maybe someone else can make it more clear.

 

Regards,

Paul Lambert