What are Worthington community members concerned about?

Q:  What’s going on with the Lifestyles Communities (“LC”) property on High Street?

A:  First, some background: formerly known as the United Methodist Children’s Home, the LC purchased the property from the Methodist Church in early 2021.  In September 2021, the LC submitted this proposal to the City via the Municipal Planning Commission (“MPC”).  No communication or negotiation with LC was undertaken by City staff or the MPC.  In October 2021, the MPC voted to deny the proposal, which was also subsequently denied by Council in December 2021. 

On January 18th, 2022, Council passed an amendment eliminating a democratically enacted, community focused section of Worthington’s Comprehensive Plan in favor of a few paragraphs likely written by a special interest group.  This action was taken with no notice to the community, no publishing of the amendment itself, no inclusion of the items to the regular City Council agenda, and no real opportunity for the people of Worthington to comment.  I was the only person who managed to comment, in person, on this amendment, urging Council to undertake the normal, transparent processes by which these documents are amended.  My words were unfortunately not enough.  Council passed this amendment with numerous promises to canvass the community for reactions and opinions, and to update the Comprehensive Plan in the future as a result of that process.  Council has, to date, undertaken none of those actions.

About two months after the amendment was passed, on March 24, 2022, the LC sued the City of Worthington, in US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  To date, a number of procedural activities have occurred resulting in further clarity of the claims at issue.  The case, however is still active and represents a significant potential liability for the City of Worthington, in addition to the continued ongoing costs of the litigation itself (totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars for outside counsel).  It is also important to keep in mind that even in the event of a victory by the City, the outcome will change nothing in Worthington – the LC will still own the property.  At best, we will have spent potentially millions of dollars in legal fees to be back to the status quo.  City staff have also recently began updating our community on the City’s website. 

It is unlikely that even in the 4 year term starting this January 2024 an outcome will be reached in the legal case, due to likely procedural and substantive appeals.  I will ensure the City’s rights are protected while also keeping in mind our continued economic sustainability throughout the lawsuit’s progress. 

Q:  Is there anything we can do while we wait for the legal process to play out?

A:  Of course!  As I have been advocating for at Council since the lawsuits’ commencement, an activity we can undertake is to replace the “imposter” Comprehensive Plan with one that incorporates significant public input, and reflects the values Worthington has for transparency and accountability in government.  This should be done by ensuring all communities in Worthington have the option to participate, and not just the most involved/loudest voices.  When we determine what we as a community want on that property, it will make it significantly easier for us to move forward once it is time to potentially build on that property, while also including we have significant citizen buy-in to our plan.   

Q:  So let’s get in a time machine and pretend you can help determine what to build on that property.  What would you do?

A:  If I could do anything with that property, I would build more of what we love – Old Worthington.  I would love to see, closer to High Street, 3- and 4-story buildings consisting of restaurants, shops, and other smaller commercial enterprises below apartments, condos, and Class-A office space.  These buildings would taper in height as we moved westward.  In the center, a park proportional to the density we build at the property, can be the centerpiece of the site while creating a buffer between the High Street development and the rear of the property.  And in the back, smaller homes such as patio homes can be built to preserve the residential character of the existing neighborhood.   

 This would be a development built with sustainability in mind – with certain blocks of the High Street area not allowing automobile traffic, and instead encouraging walking, biking, and mass transit.  It would also encourage sustainability of community, by allowing those in our neighborhoods wishing to downsize houses an option to buy and stay.  And because we have the ability to prescribe building materials, the entire site would be developed with an eye towards renewable energy (via solar panels, etc.) and environmentally-friendly building practices. 

Q:  Ok, you talked about housing in the last question.  What’s your views on housing?

I’ve got a lot to say about housing!  I believe housing can and should be the foundation of our community moving forward, especially given the housing pressures Intel and other central Ohio developments will put on the region.  A few high level ideas I support:

·         Accessory Dwelling Units:  ADUs, or “granny flats” as they are sometimes called, are one of the easiest ways for a community to build more housing.  An excellent explanatory article is here. 

·         Attainable Housing:  I believe in attainable housing throughout Worthington, and not confined to 3% of our available land area as proposed in a recent affordable housing bond.  I believe a fully inclusive community deserves inventive attainable housing solutions, and I am excited to work with partners moving forward to see how we can leverage our resources to make this happen in Worthington. 

·         Multi-family housing and density:  These are NOT bad words.  These are housing options to ensure current and future members of our community have a range of living options in our community.  “High-density” has already been thrown around as a scare tactic, as if there will be 15 story apartment buildings being built in the center of our single-family neighborhoods.  This will never happen here, and I will never support it.  What can, and should, happen here is ensuring our transit stops and existing walkable communities have housing available near them, because this is how a community like Worthington can best do our part to mitigate climate change – building sustainable, multi-modal developments that are human-scale and people-first.  As an example of the type of property I would love to see more of in Worthington, look to the Hartford, recently completed by National Church Residences.  Or simply look to Old Worthington – human scale buildings that I hope to multiply throughout the High Street corridor, buildings with residential or office space located above shops, restaurants, and other buildings that bring vibrancy to our community. 

Q:  What about the Pool?

A:   As background, the Worthington Pool is in rough shape.  SwimInc, the nonprofit that manages the pool, is estimating that after the 2024 season the Pool will not be suitable for occupation any longer.   As a result, there have been a number of conversations at Council about the Pool. 

On June 20th SwimInc’s consultant, Brandstetter Carroll, presented three options for restoration of the Pool.  That meeting and presentation is here.

Option 1 is essentially a simple rebuild of what is currently existing.  A direct link to that section of the Council presentation is here.  There is some allowance given to improvements but in general, it is a one-for-one replacement of what is currently at the pools.  It is estimated to cost $10.3m and will result in the highest long-term cost due to needing to significantly renovate and add to the facility in the future.  The architectural features are also not consistent with the character and appearance of Worthington. 

Option 2 is a rebuild of the existing pools but a total reconstruction of the pool house and other buildings on-site.  Above and beyond option 1, this will result in significant family-friendly and ADA improvements to the building structures.  It is estimated to cost $12.8m and will result in lower long-term costs than option 1, but higher than option 3.  A link to this part of the presentation is here.   

Option 3 is a total reconstruction of essentially all Worthington Pool facilities.  Above and beyond Option 3 it would result in a 50m lap pool being installed, a splash pad that can be used even when the remainder of the pool facilities are closed (think those warm weekends in early May or October sometimes), and additional ADA and family-friendly improvements.  It will result in the lowest long-term cost due to the total reconstruction aspect of the option, and also will fit in very well with the existing architectural character and aesthetic of Worthington.  It is the most expensive option, at $15.4m, and this part of the presentation starts here. 

I am greatly in favor of Option 3.  I do not believe in half-measures or phased approaches.  If we are going to do something, we should do it right the first time, and set our community up to have the best facilities possible moving forward. 

Q:  Nothing’s free.  How are we going to pay for that?

A:  On June 5, the City’s Finance Director, presented a number of options for how the City may be able to pay for the proposed Worthington Pool options.  The link to the video is here.  Because this was presented prior to knowing the extent of funding needed, I've made a few notes on options that are likely unsuitable due to the total cost of our pool designs.

 The first option, at 49:57, is the no-build option.  While not presented in the SwimInc discussion, this can be thought of as both a funding and renovation option – in that none of it happens.  Long-term this almost certainly results in the closure of Worthington Pools. 

The second option, at 51:02, is to utilize existing City funding on hand.  Due to restrictions on the amount of funding needed to remain on hand and the amounts required, this option will not meet the needs of the Pools.  It may be utilized to a lesser extent in combination with other options, though. 

At 53:03, the City discusses a voted bond option.  This option would require a City wide vote.  This bond would be financed via an increase in property taxes in the City of Worthington. 

At 54:59, the City discusses an unvoted bond option.  This would also issue debt to pay for whichever Pool option.  However, because there would be no vote, taxes would not be raised, and repayment of the bond would come from existing City revenue sources.  This would likely significantly strain the existing City budget. 

At 57:25, a hybrid approach is discussed.  This is simply combining any of the options discussed with other options to attempt to find a funding stack that fulfills the Pools’ need. 

Fundraising is discussed at 58:06.  This is a strategy very successfully employed by the McConnell Arts Center.  However, given the needs of the Pools, it is unlikely this will work to fund the entire amount. 

Finally, a Joint Recreational District is discussed at 58:42.  A JRD is an independent political entity created by other entities, such as the Worthington School District and the City of Worthington, via Ohio Revised Code 755.14.  The first step to set up a JRD is to have a vote throughout the proposed JRD area to establish the JRD – such as throughout the City and School District.  If that passes, the JRD is then able to levy taxes upon the citizens in the JRD at large, however, those taxes would also be subject to a vote.  Thus, two successful votes are needed. 

With that as background, I believe there should be a diverse funding stack created for this project that reflects the unique place the pool holds in Worthington.  We can likely use a variety of instruments to finance this project – potentially including bonds both voted and unvoted, fundraising from the community, and potential grants and corporate donations.  The way I’d like to see this work is that we initially push to attempt to bring down the top-line figure via the “softer” methods, such as corporate sponsorship and resident donations, in an attempt to reduce the potential bonding needed.  Then we can determine what mix of financing is appropriate to fund the remainder of the project.  There is also the option of a Joint Recreational District - though because that requires significant coordination with the School Board, that’s not something I can speak to directly, beyond noting it would be another hopeful option, to potentially replace any bonding required.

I do believe that a voted component is important.  As I noted in my previous posts on this subject, as a public policy determination there are two questions I believe should be asked: does Worthington want a pool; and if so, which option of the construction plans should we take?  The first question is a community question and I believe a vote would be helpful in ensuring that those of us (prospective) elected officials are moving forward with the will of the people.  I firmly believe, from having numerous conversations with many of our community members, that the pool is an important part of our community, and that we want the best long-term improvement (Option 3).  But as a public official, I cannot determine simply based on my “bubble” - the entire community should have a voice. 

One other item we must pay attention to is opportunity cost.  It is very easy to simply say that we can pay for this without affecting anything - that our cash on hand and financial situation allow us to just charge it and pay it off over time, essentially.  But as noted by City staff, this creates other effects down the road.  An unvoted bond reduces our working capital approximately $1m for the next 20 years.  That will affect the speed and quantity of capital projects - projects such as the refurbishment of parks, replacement of water lines, repaving of roads and installation of sidewalks.  It will also reduce our ability to pay for policy items we wish to see in our City.  Projects like an affordable housing bond, the Worthington Mile, or any significant economic development incentive for an Intel supplier will be much more difficult to navigate due to a higher debt load.  It is these policy considerations that must be considered before choosing a path forward. 

None of this is easy!  It is complex and cannot be solved overnight, or explained in one or two lines of text on Facebook.  There are thousands of additional words I’m leaving out that can help explain where I stand on this matter, but this is way too long already.  What I will close on, though, is that I am committed to continuing to do the work to navigate a solution to the pool that minimizes the financial impact to our community.

Q:  There’s an element of fiscal sustainability in that answer, it looks like.  Right?

A:  Indeed!  One of the most important issues for me is to ensure Worthington remains both fiscally sustainable and competitive among central Ohio communities.  Currently we have been lagging behind – Worthington’s revenues have increased 31%, while other central Ohio suburbs like Whitehall and Upper Arlington have increased 50% and 110%, respectively, since 2014.  Inflation over that period was 28%, meaning while other suburbs saw double-digit revenue increases, Worthington barely kept pace with inflation at an adjusted growth rate of 3%.  This is reflected in the increasing tax burden put on our residents, further reducing the affordability of our community.

We cannot continue to avoid increasing our revenues, not in a world where the pressure being put on our region by Intel and other developments will continue to increase our costs and housing prices.  Without new sources of revenue, we the citizens of Worthington will continue to be burdened with a larger and larger percentage of our City’s bills.  10 years ago would have been the best time to begin to grow our revenue, so that it could fully mature over a decade and help us reduce our taxes and invest in our community.  But luckily, the second best time to begin this process is today. 

As the only economic development professional running for Council, I will bring my expertise and lend my voice to ensure central Ohio knows that Worthington is now open for business.  And I will use my skills in evaluating public-private partnerships to evaluate each transaction and reject ones that do not provide significant benefits for my community.   The bottom line is I will do everything I can to ensure Worthington is a competitive destination for businesses while keeping our culture and history intact. 

Q:  The deer keep eating my plants.  What can we do? / I love the deer.  How can we keep them here?

A:  The deer have had a long history in Ohio, briefly outlined here, and they’ve existed in Ohio since before Worthington was founded.  The only effective controls over the years have been habitat changes, due to the felling of forests to create farmland, and hunting, as humans are the only true remaining predator of deer left in significant numbers in Ohio.  As hunting is outlawed in Worthington and our habitat has remained roughly similar for a very long time, the deer have multiplied to catastrophic numbers.  Whether one appreciates or dislikes the deer, their overpopulation is an issue that cannot be ignored.  Sickness and fighting for territory result in situations like ours, and we have an obligation to do something to ensure the deer population stays at a healthy level – for both the deer population’s sake and ours.  I look forward to working with City staff and the appropriate experts and local and state agencies to find ways to responsibly reduce and manage the deer population.