Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Sylvania Township Update - December 2008
Topics have been piling up in the last 2 months. The end of the year has been so busy, and I want to get some of this information out before year end, so here is an update on roads, fire, my thoughts on government bail outs and Life Squad billing, and Wind River.
Watch The Roads This Winter
Be careful on the roads this winter. Information has come to me that the county has cut back on its plowing/salting of county roads this year due to the high expense of salt and a corresponding salt shortage as well as budget concerns regarding the cost of overtime. Numerous factors contributed to a salt shortage this year; the county has 25% less salt than the last 5 year average of salt use for this season's winter weather. This has resulted in a decision to decrease salt application by 50%.
Budget concerns have also prompted the county to cut in half the manpower used in salting and plowing roads during the overnight hours.
At the township, our budget allows for continued use of overtime when the weather dictates the need, but we are conserving salt resources and have reduced application rates by 1/3 in order to make sure we have enough salt to last the season.
Remember - the township maintains neighborhood/subdivision roads, while the county maintains the major thoroughfares such as McCord, Sylvania, King, Whiteford, etc.
I don't know if the Ohio Department of Taxation has changed their policy regarding salting/plowing Central Ave. and 23/475 this season. But either way, be cautious on the roads this season. They may not be as clear of ice and hazardous snow as we are used to.
Budget concerns have also prompted the county to cut in half the manpower used in salting and plowing roads during the overnight hours.
At the township, our budget allows for continued use of overtime when the weather dictates the need, but we are conserving salt resources and have reduced application rates by 1/3 in order to make sure we have enough salt to last the season.
Remember - the township maintains neighborhood/subdivision roads, while the county maintains the major thoroughfares such as McCord, Sylvania, King, Whiteford, etc.
I don't know if the Ohio Department of Taxation has changed their policy regarding salting/plowing Central Ave. and 23/475 this season. But either way, be cautious on the roads this season. They may not be as clear of ice and hazardous snow as we are used to.
Fire Station 3 To Be Relocated
The Trustees discuss progress on the fire levy at almost every meeting, but sometimes the details don't make it to the community in general. Our most recent step in implementing the fire levy plans is approval to purchase land at 5046 and 5056 Haddon Road which is at the corner of Whiteford and Haddon, just north of Monroe Street. This property encompasses just over an acre and was purchased for $100,000.
While our levy proposal did not include costs for the purchase of land, we are comfortable with this purchase price and with the remainder value of the current fire station location at the corner of Whiteford and Monroe.
As far as plans for the other fire stations, those are moving forward as well. Station 4 will be undergoing renovations over the winter which will move department headquarters from Station 1 (downtown Sylvania) to the station on Sylvania Avenue. We awarded contracts for the general construction, HVAC, plumbing and electrical at this week's meeting, contracts which came in under budget by about 8% for this portion of the building plan.
We are still considering new locations for Station 2 (Central/475). Finding property that is available, affordable, and that meet our needs with regard to location and size has been more challenging for Station 2 given the heavy traffic and land prices in the Central Avenue area. We are considering several options and hope to have property under contract before the end of the year.
With regard to Station 1 in downtown Sylvania, we are working with the city to relocate this facility. While a location was initially identified earlier this year, it was later eliminated due to logistical concerns. We have not received any other proposals regarding new locations for Station 1 from the city since then. Since Station 1 was scheduled to be the last to be rebuilt (in 2010), we still have time to consider a new location. If a new location cannot be identified (and there are similar concerns with regard to availability, affordability, and location), we have already confirmed that a new station can be built at the site of the current Station 1.
While our levy proposal did not include costs for the purchase of land, we are comfortable with this purchase price and with the remainder value of the current fire station location at the corner of Whiteford and Monroe.
As far as plans for the other fire stations, those are moving forward as well. Station 4 will be undergoing renovations over the winter which will move department headquarters from Station 1 (downtown Sylvania) to the station on Sylvania Avenue. We awarded contracts for the general construction, HVAC, plumbing and electrical at this week's meeting, contracts which came in under budget by about 8% for this portion of the building plan.
We are still considering new locations for Station 2 (Central/475). Finding property that is available, affordable, and that meet our needs with regard to location and size has been more challenging for Station 2 given the heavy traffic and land prices in the Central Avenue area. We are considering several options and hope to have property under contract before the end of the year.
With regard to Station 1 in downtown Sylvania, we are working with the city to relocate this facility. While a location was initially identified earlier this year, it was later eliminated due to logistical concerns. We have not received any other proposals regarding new locations for Station 1 from the city since then. Since Station 1 was scheduled to be the last to be rebuilt (in 2010), we still have time to consider a new location. If a new location cannot be identified (and there are similar concerns with regard to availability, affordability, and location), we have already confirmed that a new station can be built at the site of the current Station 1.
Government Bail Outs
While Congress contemplates various request for 'bail-outs' from the banking and automotive industries, significant requests from government entities have surfaced, including pleas from states, counties, cities, and school districts. (I have not heard of a township asking for money, but maybe I missed it).
Most of the requests are being made for 'infrastructure' or 'capital' projects that the jurisdictions 'need', projects that will 'put hundreds of people to work.' But I have to question why all of a sudden these projects need to be done now? In reality, these governments have been putting off these infrastructure projects for years in favor of funding special programs and pet projects because those get more media attention and good press for elected officials who want to be re-elected or move on to higher office. Spending such as this tends to feel more immediate impact on the community, while ignoring the much greater impact that failing infrastructure has on the viability and sustainability of a region.
I look back at the township and the status of some infrastructure projects when I took office in 2006. In 2004, the township paved 0.99 mile of roadway; in 2003 no roadway was repaved. Given that we need to repave 6.5 miles +/- in order to maintain a 20 year repaving schedule, these two years put us drastically behind. And why did this happen? Because the administration and elected officials chose to focus resources on feel-good stuff like brush pick-up and weekly leaf pick-up. They also raided the road department budget to operate the fire department.
But my point is that the township was not allocating proper resources to the road department so that they could maintain our infrastructure. Failure to maintain and repair our roads, storm drains, and other infrastructure is a costly decision, because the longer you put off infrastructure projects, the more costly they are to do. For the last three years, the trustees have unanimously agreed that we needed to refocus our attention on the township's infrastructure and structured the budget accordingly. Earlier this year, the trustees were criticized by some for not doing additional brush pickup throughout the summer storms. But our road department was involved in extensive road resurfacing projects and the cleanup of both Schlicker and Smith Ditches to prevent flooding. Despite the criticism, I believe we made the right choice to focus on infrastructure projects as opposed to aesthetic projects such as brush pickup.
Other governments have been doing (and continue to do) what the township used to do - putting resources in non-mandatory services that sound good, look good, and feel good, but in reality take needed resources away from maintaining the equipment and facilities that are needed to support keeping our roads, bridges, buildings, water, sewer and other systems in good condition. By asking for funds from the federal government, these governments are asking others to pay for their poor decisions and mixed-up priorities, while communities like Sylvania township are making those hard decisions on our own and paying for them out of our own pocket.
I am not in favor of the federal government bailing out state, local and regional government's failure to properly allocate enough resources and revenue to infrastructure projects. The voters of these communities elected their public officials; let those same voters figure out how and who should address their infrastructure needs. It is not the job of the federal government to bail these governments out, at the expense of all taxpayers.
Most of the requests are being made for 'infrastructure' or 'capital' projects that the jurisdictions 'need', projects that will 'put hundreds of people to work.' But I have to question why all of a sudden these projects need to be done now? In reality, these governments have been putting off these infrastructure projects for years in favor of funding special programs and pet projects because those get more media attention and good press for elected officials who want to be re-elected or move on to higher office. Spending such as this tends to feel more immediate impact on the community, while ignoring the much greater impact that failing infrastructure has on the viability and sustainability of a region.
I look back at the township and the status of some infrastructure projects when I took office in 2006. In 2004, the township paved 0.99 mile of roadway; in 2003 no roadway was repaved. Given that we need to repave 6.5 miles +/- in order to maintain a 20 year repaving schedule, these two years put us drastically behind. And why did this happen? Because the administration and elected officials chose to focus resources on feel-good stuff like brush pick-up and weekly leaf pick-up. They also raided the road department budget to operate the fire department.
But my point is that the township was not allocating proper resources to the road department so that they could maintain our infrastructure. Failure to maintain and repair our roads, storm drains, and other infrastructure is a costly decision, because the longer you put off infrastructure projects, the more costly they are to do. For the last three years, the trustees have unanimously agreed that we needed to refocus our attention on the township's infrastructure and structured the budget accordingly. Earlier this year, the trustees were criticized by some for not doing additional brush pickup throughout the summer storms. But our road department was involved in extensive road resurfacing projects and the cleanup of both Schlicker and Smith Ditches to prevent flooding. Despite the criticism, I believe we made the right choice to focus on infrastructure projects as opposed to aesthetic projects such as brush pickup.
Other governments have been doing (and continue to do) what the township used to do - putting resources in non-mandatory services that sound good, look good, and feel good, but in reality take needed resources away from maintaining the equipment and facilities that are needed to support keeping our roads, bridges, buildings, water, sewer and other systems in good condition. By asking for funds from the federal government, these governments are asking others to pay for their poor decisions and mixed-up priorities, while communities like Sylvania township are making those hard decisions on our own and paying for them out of our own pocket.
I am not in favor of the federal government bailing out state, local and regional government's failure to properly allocate enough resources and revenue to infrastructure projects. The voters of these communities elected their public officials; let those same voters figure out how and who should address their infrastructure needs. It is not the job of the federal government to bail these governments out, at the expense of all taxpayers.
Fire Union Negotiations
We are currently in the process of negotiating a new contract with the fire union. We have quickly moved from negotiations to fact finding (a mediated process) because there did not seem to be any true intent by the union representatives to negotiate with the township. Typically we agree not to discuss the issues being negotiated during the process by signing an agreement setting out the ground rules. But IAFF Local 2243 declined to sign on to the ground rules this time. So I am free to talk about our negotiations.
Union negotiations are always a give-and-take process; we ask for stuff, they ask for stuff, both sides compromise and find something in the middle. As I said with the police negotiation, this is not a win-win situation; everyone thinks they lost something. Which probably mean we have a decent compromise.
But in the case of the fire department, I was truly astonished by the extent of their initial demands. I won't go into line-by-line detail, but will outline two items. First, from a straight financial standpoint, the requests are astronomical to the extent that the 1.25 mill levy that was passed earlier this year will not even begin to pay for the monetary demands. In fact, their demands would have the department in the red by over $8 million in the next three years, a situation that would require a 2.3 mill levy be passed next year just to keep them solvent for three years.
Even the seemingly non-financial issues their proposal calls for can lead to significant cost increases to the township. The union has requested that the firefighters be restricted to performing only 'traditional' firefighting or emergency medical care. When asked, the union declined to define the phrase 'traditional', but I think it would be easy to interpret this to mean they don't want to mow the lawns, shovel the sidewalks, or maintain and clean the living areas, etc. Now, some will say "but you don't make police officers do that stuff" which is true. But when we pay a police officer 8 hours to work, they are performing police duties for those 8 hours. When we pay a firefighter for a 24 hour shift, we are in essence paying them to be available, because (thankfully) they are not actually performing firefighting or EMS duties for the whole 24 hours. So while we are paying them to be available, they are eating, and sleeping, and working out. I don't think it is unreasonable that they do other stuff like sweeping floors, mowing lawn, and doing dishes while waiting for a call to come in. If they don't clean and maintain the fire stations, we'll be forced to hire someone to do this work for them.
Certainly, the township asked for numerous items as this process began a few weeks ago. Most important, we asked for contract restructuring that will allow us to implement the plans as put forth by the Fire Chief during the levy campaign. Without these changes, the fire levy will not last the 5 years projected.
So while we are taking steps to make sure the fire levy fulfills the pledges made to our community, the fire union is looking for more money ... to the tune of twice what the voters of Sylvania already agreed to this year. In fact, it is even more money than the operating levy which was turned down 4-to-1 back in 2005.
We'll keep working to negotiate a union contract that is financially sustainable and provides a department structure that allows us to implement the fire levy plans. It may take a while, but it's our obligation to the community who relied upon the chief's plan in voting for the fire levy.
Union negotiations are always a give-and-take process; we ask for stuff, they ask for stuff, both sides compromise and find something in the middle. As I said with the police negotiation, this is not a win-win situation; everyone thinks they lost something. Which probably mean we have a decent compromise.
But in the case of the fire department, I was truly astonished by the extent of their initial demands. I won't go into line-by-line detail, but will outline two items. First, from a straight financial standpoint, the requests are astronomical to the extent that the 1.25 mill levy that was passed earlier this year will not even begin to pay for the monetary demands. In fact, their demands would have the department in the red by over $8 million in the next three years, a situation that would require a 2.3 mill levy be passed next year just to keep them solvent for three years.
Even the seemingly non-financial issues their proposal calls for can lead to significant cost increases to the township. The union has requested that the firefighters be restricted to performing only 'traditional' firefighting or emergency medical care. When asked, the union declined to define the phrase 'traditional', but I think it would be easy to interpret this to mean they don't want to mow the lawns, shovel the sidewalks, or maintain and clean the living areas, etc. Now, some will say "but you don't make police officers do that stuff" which is true. But when we pay a police officer 8 hours to work, they are performing police duties for those 8 hours. When we pay a firefighter for a 24 hour shift, we are in essence paying them to be available, because (thankfully) they are not actually performing firefighting or EMS duties for the whole 24 hours. So while we are paying them to be available, they are eating, and sleeping, and working out. I don't think it is unreasonable that they do other stuff like sweeping floors, mowing lawn, and doing dishes while waiting for a call to come in. If they don't clean and maintain the fire stations, we'll be forced to hire someone to do this work for them.
Certainly, the township asked for numerous items as this process began a few weeks ago. Most important, we asked for contract restructuring that will allow us to implement the plans as put forth by the Fire Chief during the levy campaign. Without these changes, the fire levy will not last the 5 years projected.
So while we are taking steps to make sure the fire levy fulfills the pledges made to our community, the fire union is looking for more money ... to the tune of twice what the voters of Sylvania already agreed to this year. In fact, it is even more money than the operating levy which was turned down 4-to-1 back in 2005.
We'll keep working to negotiate a union contract that is financially sustainable and provides a department structure that allows us to implement the fire levy plans. It may take a while, but it's our obligation to the community who relied upon the chief's plan in voting for the fire levy.
Life Squad Billing
Last month, the Lucas County Commissioners voted to begin billing for the use of Life Squads, the advanced life support ambulances that are paid for through sales tax revenue. The Sylvania Township Fire Department mans a Life Squad, and we respond to Life Squad calls dispatched throughout Lucas County, though the majority of time it remains in the Sylvania area with occasional runs in outlying areas to the west, Springfield Township, Toledo and Ottawa Hills. I adamantly oppose soft-billing of Life Squad services for several reasons.
The decision to begin billing is based in part on a supposed need for increased revenue for the EMS system. The EMS system is supported by a sales tax that was passed specifically for this purpose a couple of decades ago. Officials say this is not enough to continue to support the system as it currently exists, and that soft-billing is just a band-aid. But this 'band-aid' has been 6 years in the making - yes they have slowly been working up to nailing the taxpayers with soft-billing for 6 years, and yet it is only a temporary fix. Instead of taking 6 years to provide a temporary fix, why didn't they seek a permanent solution?
Let's talk about what soft-billing is and how it negatively affects you. Soft-billing is the practice of billing insurance companies for use of the Life Squad by county residents. Any billed amount not paid by the insurance company is not pursued. For those who end up utilizing the Life Squad who do not live in Lucas County, the insurance company is also billed, but if they don't pay the entire bill, the user will be pursued for the remainder, up to and including collection action. For those who work or shop in Lucas County and directly or indirectly pay income, sales and real estate tax, that doesn't matter, they will still be hard billed for services. One excuse for doing soft-billing is that it 'doesn't cost' anyone anything. Wrong. It costs your insurance company, and your insurance company sets your rates based on how much is paid out on behalf of your group. So soft-billing will negatively affect insurance rates, though admittedly it may only be a minor amount (because the cost is spread out among so many insureds).
Sylvania Township receives approximately $660,000 from the county for manning Life Squad 6. Unfortunately, it costs closer to $1 million to operate it 24/7. We have happily subsidized this cost, as have the other four jurisdiction that operate Life Squads, because it provides a valued service to our community, not just Sylvania but the county as a whole. But in deciding to begin soft-billing, there is no agreement or firm intention to increase the amount of money the township will receive. So, while the County will be profiting off of the efforts of our firefighters, we continue to subsidize this service at great expense.
Another problem that I have with the soft-billing is the reasons they give for soft-billing, such as increased run volumes and more complex medical protocols which strain the system. Yet there is no data to support these claims. And the guestimate of $2-3 million in revenue from soft-billing is literally just that - a guestimate. There has been no study or review of run data done to arrive at that figure. They could be off by millions, they have no idea.
Finally, Lucas County EMS implements and directs new medical protocols be used in the treatment of patients without any follow-up study or review of medical data to determine if the new/added medical treatments being used are successful in preserving life. These new protocols take added personnel to implement and therefore are very expensive to the township to support and implement. If they are successful - GREAT! It is well worth the added cost. But we don't know if they are successful because there is no follow-up study being done. And again, we are being compensated at a rate that does not even cover manning the Life Squad with two Paramedics. These protocols can take three or more personnel to successfully implement.
For four years we have been reimbursed at the same rate for the Life Squad, approximately $660,000. Yet our costs are increasing (wages, benefits, insurance, fuel, etc.) every year. Add on top of that the increase demand on our personnel. Sylvania Township is being asked to provide more and more, while we are paid the same. Meanwhile, Lucas County will now begin to profit from the work of our employees (as well as the other jurisdictions' employees) with no guarantee on where that soft-billing revenue will go. There is some intent that a portion of it will go to purchase new Life Squad units, but that is not in writing. There has been some talk apparently that revenue will be shared with other jurisdictions that do not staff Life Squads, in order to supplement their fire and rescue services. But no guarantees, no promises, no commitments, just a decision to begin soft-billing.
I am opposed to the county implementing a plan to soft-bill for Life Squad services until a study has been completed which reviews all options for funding and providing emergency medical services and advanced life support transportation to those in both our community and throughout the township.
The decision to begin billing is based in part on a supposed need for increased revenue for the EMS system. The EMS system is supported by a sales tax that was passed specifically for this purpose a couple of decades ago. Officials say this is not enough to continue to support the system as it currently exists, and that soft-billing is just a band-aid. But this 'band-aid' has been 6 years in the making - yes they have slowly been working up to nailing the taxpayers with soft-billing for 6 years, and yet it is only a temporary fix. Instead of taking 6 years to provide a temporary fix, why didn't they seek a permanent solution?
Let's talk about what soft-billing is and how it negatively affects you. Soft-billing is the practice of billing insurance companies for use of the Life Squad by county residents. Any billed amount not paid by the insurance company is not pursued. For those who end up utilizing the Life Squad who do not live in Lucas County, the insurance company is also billed, but if they don't pay the entire bill, the user will be pursued for the remainder, up to and including collection action. For those who work or shop in Lucas County and directly or indirectly pay income, sales and real estate tax, that doesn't matter, they will still be hard billed for services. One excuse for doing soft-billing is that it 'doesn't cost' anyone anything. Wrong. It costs your insurance company, and your insurance company sets your rates based on how much is paid out on behalf of your group. So soft-billing will negatively affect insurance rates, though admittedly it may only be a minor amount (because the cost is spread out among so many insureds).
Sylvania Township receives approximately $660,000 from the county for manning Life Squad 6. Unfortunately, it costs closer to $1 million to operate it 24/7. We have happily subsidized this cost, as have the other four jurisdiction that operate Life Squads, because it provides a valued service to our community, not just Sylvania but the county as a whole. But in deciding to begin soft-billing, there is no agreement or firm intention to increase the amount of money the township will receive. So, while the County will be profiting off of the efforts of our firefighters, we continue to subsidize this service at great expense.
Another problem that I have with the soft-billing is the reasons they give for soft-billing, such as increased run volumes and more complex medical protocols which strain the system. Yet there is no data to support these claims. And the guestimate of $2-3 million in revenue from soft-billing is literally just that - a guestimate. There has been no study or review of run data done to arrive at that figure. They could be off by millions, they have no idea.
Finally, Lucas County EMS implements and directs new medical protocols be used in the treatment of patients without any follow-up study or review of medical data to determine if the new/added medical treatments being used are successful in preserving life. These new protocols take added personnel to implement and therefore are very expensive to the township to support and implement. If they are successful - GREAT! It is well worth the added cost. But we don't know if they are successful because there is no follow-up study being done. And again, we are being compensated at a rate that does not even cover manning the Life Squad with two Paramedics. These protocols can take three or more personnel to successfully implement.
For four years we have been reimbursed at the same rate for the Life Squad, approximately $660,000. Yet our costs are increasing (wages, benefits, insurance, fuel, etc.) every year. Add on top of that the increase demand on our personnel. Sylvania Township is being asked to provide more and more, while we are paid the same. Meanwhile, Lucas County will now begin to profit from the work of our employees (as well as the other jurisdictions' employees) with no guarantee on where that soft-billing revenue will go. There is some intent that a portion of it will go to purchase new Life Squad units, but that is not in writing. There has been some talk apparently that revenue will be shared with other jurisdictions that do not staff Life Squads, in order to supplement their fire and rescue services. But no guarantees, no promises, no commitments, just a decision to begin soft-billing.
I am opposed to the county implementing a plan to soft-bill for Life Squad services until a study has been completed which reviews all options for funding and providing emergency medical services and advanced life support transportation to those in both our community and throughout the township.
Wind River Update - Approval to Demolish
After years of trying to work with the owners of 7510 Wind River Drive, and failing to make any progress, the township finally has judicial authority to remove the structure that was destroyed in a fire over two years ago. Judge Jennings confirmed the resolution that we passed in July, authorizing our Zoning Manager to deal with the hazard which exists due to the burned-out structure and a failed attempt to renovate.
We are moving forward, obtaining bids for demolition. I am pushing to have this completed before Christmas, but sometimes the wheels of government don't move that fast (no matter how much I bug them.) To those interested, I will post here when we have a date scheduled for demolition. Neighbors are invited to come watch.
That wraps up a lengthy township update for 2008. Although we approved our 2009 budget at our last meeting, I will save detailed discussion of what is in the budget for a post early next year.
DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee
We are moving forward, obtaining bids for demolition. I am pushing to have this completed before Christmas, but sometimes the wheels of government don't move that fast (no matter how much I bug them.) To those interested, I will post here when we have a date scheduled for demolition. Neighbors are invited to come watch.
That wraps up a lengthy township update for 2008. Although we approved our 2009 budget at our last meeting, I will save detailed discussion of what is in the budget for a post early next year.
Sincerely,
DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Comments enabled
I have had several requests to enable comments on my blog. I have hesitated until now for several reasons. I have no problem with discussing rationally some of the issues which face the township and decisions I have made that some people disagree with. But only if everyone can remain civil and rational. Up until now, I wasn't sure that was possible. But I'm willing to give it a try, so commenting has been turned on. We'll see how it goes.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Another Sylvania Township Police Officer Suspended
It was only two weeks ago that we had our first public disciplinary hearing in almost 2 decades, yet we held another hearing at our meeting Wednesday evening. This time the charges were much more serious and were dealt with accordingly.
Remember, it is a part of the Ohio Revised Code as well as the union contract that police department employees have the right to a disciplinary hearing before the trustees for charges which may result in time-off.
In this particular case, the officer - Sergeant Robert Colwell - attempted to waive the trustees hearing after we had already filed charges. In fact, Sgt. Colwell wanted to waive the trustee hearing only after seeing the results of our last disciplinary hearing. After having received an email from Sgt. Colwell's attorney late on Nov. 4 again stating that they wanted to waive the trustees hearing, we discussed the request in executive session at our meeting on the evening of November 5. Unfortunately, Mr. Colwell declined to attend the hearing nor did he send his attorney to represent him. As a result, we proceeded with the hearing.
Sgt. Colwell was charged with several serious offenses. We carefully listened to the testimony of four witnesses and had the opportunity to ask our own questions. Ultimately, we found Sgt. Colwell in violation of several department policies as follows:
1. Sgt. Colwell had two unsecured firearms in an area of the Sylvania Township Police Department which is accessible by visitors, witnesses, suspects, victims, and other non-department persons. The weapons were left unsecured in Sgt. Colwell's former office after he was transferred to another department from the Detective Bureau. How long they were unsecured before his transfer, we don't know. This was clearly in violation of the department's policy on Weapon Security.
2. Sgt. Colwell failed to properly process evidence; he did not log it into and out of the property room as actions necessitated. As a government entity, we must be careful to account to each piece of property which comes in to our control. This is an obligation that we owe not only to the public in general, but victims and accused in order to ensure justice in criminal situations. Again, the department has a clear policy on handling of evidence which in this case was violated by Sgt. Colwell.
3. Also in regard to evidence, Sgt. Colwell failed to properly log a laptop computer into the property room and left the laptop in his former office, untagged and unsecured for over one year. This action breached the evidentiary chain of custody for the laptop, rendering any evidence that may have been contained on the laptop vulnerable to tampering and thus challenge if criminal charges were brought regarding evidence contained on the laptop. Sgt. Colwell has a clear duty to follow proper procedures so that evidentiary issues are clear and evidence is not compromised.
4. Finally, as a detective, Sgt. Colwell was charged with properly maintaining and filing reports regarding cases that he investigated. When Sgt. Colwell was transferred to another department, he failed to correctly report the disposition of several cases involving identity theft and forgery. This is in violation of the township's policy on Departmental Reports.
In summary, the trustees unanimously authorized a 15-day suspension (without pay) and a written reprimand. The offenses Sgt. Colwell was charged with were serious and are at the heart of the integrity of our police department and how it is viewed not only by our residents and businesses but the criminal justice system itself.
To respond to accusations that this was retaliation against union activity, let me say that we did not act in retaliation for any specific or general union involvement. I expect every employee to conduct themselves in a manner that is in compliance with township policy and Ohio law. Union activity does not elevate an employee above rules and regulations. The safety and security of our residents is of utmost importance; failing to follow policy and procedures that are necessary for a properly functioning police department cannot be tolerated.
I would love for these disciplinary hearings to be handled internally, without the public hearings. The township attempted to change the union contract language to that affect during our recent negotiations. The union disagreed, and ultimately the conciliator agreed with the union. So we will continue to have these hearings as long as employees wish to selectively bring discipline matters to the board.
DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Attorney General Opinion Received on Merger Questions
Several weeks ago, the Township Trustees requested an opinion from the Ohio Attorney General's office to address several issues that we felt were unclear with regard to the merger commission. Today, we received Opinion No. 2008-035. Below is a direct copy of their conclusions:
Volume #77, Report #208, Article #12--Monday, October 27, 2008
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION
No. 2008-035. Requested by Sylvania Township Law Director Truman A. Greenwood. SYLLABUS:
1. If a person is named as a candidate for township representative in a petition for a merger study commission that is submitted to the electors under R.C. 709.45 and, prior to the election, the candidate ceases to be a resident of the unincorporated area of the township, the candidate lacks the residency qualification required to serve in the position of township member of the merger study commission if the creation of the commission is approved by the electors. The board of township trustees has no authority to appoint a replacement candidate prior to the election, but if the creation of a commission is approved by the electors, the election of a township candidate who does not reside in the unincorporated area of the township will automatically create a vacancy on the commission to be filled by the board of township trustees under R.C. 709.46(B).
2. A community improvement corporation that is established under R.C. Chapter 1724 and receives financial support from a municipal corporation and a township does not have authority to contribute funds or other resources to an entity established to support or oppose a ballot issue relating to the proposed merger of the municipal corporation and township.
So, we now know how Mr. Steinman, the commissioner who has been annexed from the township to the city, will be replaced if the commission is approved by voters of the city and township. That helps clarify this process going forward. While many people thought this would be the process for replacement, the law was not clear as to these specific circumstances, so I am glad we asked the opinion and now have clear direction.
For a bit of background on item 2 above, there was a lot of concern among residents and my fellow trustees about the Sylvania Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) making significant contributions to OneSylvania. The CIC is funded in part by membership fees of the city, township and Sylvania schools. While the CIC has been a neutral facilitator and financial supporter during the last few years of 'studying' the potential tax affects and efficiencies of a merger, I raised objections when OneSylvania came to the CIC and requested funding for the campaign itself. But my objections were overruled by a majority of the executive committee and board. Okay, actually, everyone but me supported giving OneSylvania up to $15,000 for the campaign.
Now we have an Attorney General opinion which clearly states that this campaign contribution was not an authorized expenditure of the CIC. The reasoning is pretty logical, in my opinion. Townships are restricted in where and how we can make expenditures; we can only spend money where we have clear authority to do so. We can only contribute money to a CIC to defray the administrative expenses of the CIC. Townships do not have the authority to expend funds to support or oppose a ballot issue pertaining to a merger, and we are not allowed to use the CIC as our agent for this purpose. The AG Opinion concluded that because township funds are commingled with other funds of the CIC, the CIC is unable to use any of its funds for this purpose.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Almost forgot ...
My apologies - I really try to remember everything before I hit 'send', but in this case a long weekend combined with my desire to publish my merger thoughts tonight prompted me to forget a very important addition to my comments on the proposed merger.
I wanted to let everyone know of a website for a group who is opposed to the merger: Stop Sylvania Merger.
Check out both sites, OneSylvania and Stop Sylvania Merger. Get your questions answered about the merger commission so that you understand the issue that is facing our community.
(I also just added the rest of the links that I include in my email newsletter so that you can visit them directly from my blog.)
DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee
Opposition to Merger Detailed
I said in my last regular post that I would talk more about why I am opposed to the proposed merger commission. I'll take this chance to explain in more detail and depth why I am opposed to continued 'study' of merging the township and city. Some of what I have to say is based on fact and the law, while some is simply my opinion and perception of what I would expect of a merger and its process. This post has turned in to be quite long, so I'll do a summary list and the longer explanations will be below (you may have to click on 'older posts' to get to all of the explanations):
1. Just having the merger commission on the ballot is costing taxpayer dollars.
2. I'm opposed to giving the Merger Commission a blank check to spend taxpayer dollars on more 'study'.
3. No consideration has been given regarding the negative effects of businesses and residents leaving community.
4. Government will spend as much money as we can get our hands on; that doesn't mean we need more in the form of an income tax.
5. Township residents and businesses already pay our 'fair share' of taxes, even without an income tax.
6. Township residents will end up paying a significant portion of debt the city has incurred over the last 20+ years.
7. The new city will assume debt incurred by Lucas County to maintain and repair county roads located in the township.
8. The new city will assume the cost of repairing, plowing and maintaining 110+ miles of heavy-trafficked roads, plus 15 bridges, and expense that could run into the millions annually.
9. The potential to be subjected to an income tax without a vote exists with a city; in a township that is not possible.
10. Pledges that the tax burden of retirees will not increase is not true.
1. What will this vote cost?
Some residents have asked if just taking this to a vote will cost the taxpayers. OneSylvania has responded no, there is no cost just to vote on this issue; I have to disagree. According to the Lucas County Board of Elections, the township will be assessed what is called a 'chargeback', or a fee for the Board of Elections to administer votes in the township. So just voting on this will cost you money.
2. A Blank Check:
Would you approve a situation where the government was handing over to some entity a blank check? This merger vote would do exactly that. Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) §709.46(C), "The costs of the commission shall be divided among the participating political subdivisions in proportion to the population that each participating political subdivision bears to the total population of the territory proposed to be merged."
There are no restrictions to how much money the merger commission can spend; we have no ability to limit it, make sure that it is being spent wisely, or set reasonable guidelines. The merger commission has free rein to hire attorneys, accountants, engineers, planners, consultants, etc. You name it, they can do it. How much will this cost? I have no idea, but the township will bear the majority of that burden. Interesting, it is township residents and businesses that will bear the brunt of the tax increase, and it is the township property owners that will bear the brunt of studying how to make the township residents and businesses pay more taxes. I don't like the way that works.
3. How many will leave?
Many proponents of a merger have said that the study done by the University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center (UAC) in 2007 was very 'comprehensive'. Well, it was a comprehensive look at where money could come from and where it would be spent (although I didn't necessarily agree with the assumptions and conclusions that were made). But it didn't even touch on some very important issues, one of which is analyzing how many residents or businesses may leave if the township becomes part of a city or if there is even a study. Certainly some of our large businesses have invested too much capital to up and move, but there are many, many more small businesses that are mobile and can easily be moved.
So while the UAC study projects an additional $12 million in income, will that figure hold out if there is a mass exodus of township businesses and residents? And what will happen to our property values as people flee the income tax? Values have already declined considerably due to the mortgage meltdown and economic slowdown.
Finally, what will happen to economic development in the next few years if the merger commission is formed? Would you move or start a business in a community where you don't know what form of government there will be in a few years, or who will be running it? While the Sylvania Community Improvement Corporation says this merger idea is all about providing a sound tax base to support the schools, I think we would see some very stagnate development trends for 3-5 years if this process continues.
4. Taxing Non-Residents:
According to the UAC study, imposing an income tax on those who live and work in the township would increase tax revenue by $12 million. Mind you, this is really nothing more than a wild guess, because they acknowledge that certain information is not available to determine the accuracy of the income tax impact on the township. But the study specifically says "This shift would transfer costs of city services from property owners, primarily residents, to employed persons, primarily nonresidents, and decrease reliance on a static financing source." The UAC study estimates that 80% of the people who work in Sylvania Township live outside our community, in Toledo, other parts of Lucas County or Michigan.
There are two arguments to taxing non-residents. The first argument is that these workers don't pay for the services that they use while working in our community. They use our roads, our police, our fire, etc., but they aren't paying for it. So why shouldn't we make them pay for those services via an income tax. This argument ignores the fact that their employers pay property tax, which in turn supports our services. Not only is commercial property typically assessed at a higher value than residential property, but commercial property tax rates are higher than residential rates under Ohio law. So, we are being paid to provide services to these 'visitors' to our community, visitors who provide valuable services, goods and knowledge that help our community thrive and grow.
The other argument in favor of imposing an income tax on non-residents is really almost offensive: "They don't vote for us, so why shouldn't we tax them?" Wow, what a statement. And yes, I have heard that exact statement verbalized by more than one city elected official and merger proponent. So, should we tax people just because we can and they can't stop us? I don't think so. Do we really need more money to operate our township government and services? I don't think so. Quite honestly, governments will spend as much money as they can get their hands on. We don't need more just because we can get it. Unless government is constrained in the amount of money it has available, we will find reason after reason to spend what we have.
Bottom line, Government should not tax beyond what is needed to provide services. I don't think we should tax non-residents just because we can or because there is no political fall-out from imposing such a tax.
5. Paying Our 'Fair' Share:
Now, if taxing people because they don't vote for you isn't bad enough, the next justification for considering imposing an income tax on township residents is worse. On several occasions when I have been talking to pro-merger people (making logical points as to why a merger is not a good idea) the ultimate response that I get is "it's not fair that township residents don't pay an income tax." Fair? It's not fair that we don't pay an income tax? I just really don't understand the logic of that. Who gets to decide what is fair? Is it 'fair' for city residents to decide what is 'fair' for the township residents?
I really don't even know how to respond to this assertion. Township residents pay the level of taxes that we need to in order to continue to provide police, fire, schools, parks, recreation, etc., to our community, on a level that we feel is necessary and appropriate. If that can be done in a way that excludes the necessity of an income tax, than that is the choice of township residents.
6. Who Pays The City's Debt?
According to the city's 2007 financial report, they owe approximately $18 million on bonds, note and other obligations. Some of this debt goes back to 1986 and $4.5 million was borrowed in 2007 for projects. If the two communities merge, who pays this debt? Most of it is general obligation debt, so it must be paid out of any general revenue and is not restricted to certain levy or revenue source.
So who will pay for this debt in a merged city? We all do. That’s right - it is assumed by the new city, such that everyone in the new city will be paying this debt, debt that was incurred to provide streets, infrastructure and other projects in the city. Is it really fair that township residents be forced to pay for these improvements when city residents were the main beneficiary of them? Township residents and businesses would end up paying $12 million in liabilities that we really didn’t benefit from and we had no representation in deciding to incur that debt.
7. OPWC Debt Owed by Lucas County.
Let me start this subject with an explanation of who takes care of roads, including repaving, plowing, salting, mowing, etc. In a city, the city takes care of all roads - subdivision roads and main arterial roads. In a township, the township is responsible for taking care of subdivision roads, the county takes care of county roads (Sylvania Ave., McCord Road, King Road, Whiteford Road, Monroe St.,) and the state takes care of state roads (Central Ave., 475).
Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC) loans are made available to communities in Ohio to help finance necessary infrastructure work. They are typically 10 year loans without interest. Sylvania Township has taken out several of these loans for township road projects in the township. Lucas County has also taken out several of these loans for county road projects located in the township (ex. King Road, McCord Road, Sylvania Ave., Monroe St.) I'm not sure of the extent of this debt, but I do know they plan on taking out more OPWC loans in the near future.
Here is the surprising part: these loans were secured by the county at a time when the county was obligated to provide road work on certain county roads in the township. But if we merge and become a city, we have already been told that the county will stop paying on these loans and the new city will have to pay them off.
This debt was incurred by the county, at a time when the county was receiving various tax revenues from township sources (gas tax, etc.) that pays for the infrastructure projects. But since the roads become the new city's responsibility after merger, the county cuts lose not only maintenance of the road, but the past debt they incurred to do that maintenance. This information was not taken in to consideration when the University of Toledo did their study.
8. Taking on County/State Infrastructure:
Right now, the township maintains about 130 miles of subdivision roads. 'Subdivision' roads is important because they are less traveled and constructed for lighter traffic. But if the township becomes part of a city, the city will have to take on approximately 110 lane miles of heavily traveled roads, including Central Ave., Alexis Road, Monroe St., etc. These roads have heavy, heavy truck traffic and repair, maintenance and resurfacing is much more expensive than our average subdivision road. The added cost would be several million dollars a year, perhaps more.
There are also at least 15 bridges that are currently maintained by the county and state which would become the obligation of the new city. Recall the Main St. bridge project in the city last year? It cost almost $1 million - multiply that by 15 and then try to figure out where the money is going to come from.
9. Income Tax Without A Vote:
Is it possible to have an income tax without the voters' approval? Yes it is, under Ohio law. Municipalities are allowed to impose an income tax up to 1% without a vote. Keep this in mind as One Sylvania pushes the idea that no one knows what the end result of a merger would be. Even if the commission was able to formulate a plan that excluded an income tax - the new city could impose a 1% income tax without voter approval.
10. Pledges cover most, but not all.
There have been pledges from numerous supporters of continuing the merger discussion that retirees in the city and township will not see an increase in their tax burden if there is a merger. They make this pledge because they think that retirement income is not subject to the city's income tax. But did you know that one of the homeowners that was recently annexed in to the city is a retiree who will have to pay income tax on his retirement income? It's true. So maybe the merger proponents meant 'most' retirees won't see an increase in their tax burden if there is a merger.
There have also been pledges that 'most' township residents will receive a tax cut. But what does this mean? Do they consider a decrease in property tax while that person's income tax increases a 'tax cut'? And what is most? 'Most' implies that some will not get a tax cut, and in this case will in fact see a significant raise in their taxes
But is it really fair to throw your fellow retiree, your neighbor, under the bus when it comes to higher taxes just so you can save a little bit? And what happens if all of those people who will end up paying higher taxes because of this merger decide to move … who is left to pay for the higher cost of government? (Hint: all of those who just got a tax cut - you'll have to start paying more.)
There have also been pledges that 'most' township residents will receive a tax cut. But what does this mean? Do they consider a decrease in property tax while that person's income tax increases a 'tax cut'? And what is most? 'Most' implies that some will not get a tax cut, and in this case will in fact see a significant raise in their taxes
But is it really fair to throw your fellow retiree, your neighbor, under the bus when it comes to higher taxes just so you can save a little bit? And what happens if all of those people who will end up paying higher taxes because of this merger decide to move … who is left to pay for the higher cost of government? (Hint: all of those who just got a tax cut - you'll have to start paying more.)
The township form of government is the closet to the people - for the most part when you call the township with a concern, you can speak directly to a department supervisor, our administrator or leave a message for one of the trustees - and we do return our messages. Someone pointed out to me that if you look in the government section of the telephone book, the township has 9 people listed; the city has 24 - and they service 10,000 less residents. Mergingcity and township will increase government bureaucracy, increase our tax burden by millions of dollars, and be a huge benefit to the county who no will no longer provide us with services. But it will not be a benefit to township residents and businesses.
I like living in the township; I like the idea that when a law is passed that affects me, it was thought out very carefully because it affects millions of Ohioans who live in townships. Why fix what isn't broken?
Sylvania Township Trustee
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Sylvania Township Trustees Suspend Police Officer
Under the provisions of Ohio Revised Code §505.491, the Sylvania Township Board of Trustees took action to suspend a police officer for three days, without pay. This was a decision which was made after all proper steps were taken, including the filing of charges on October 7, 2008 against Officer Ron Dicus followed by a hearing held during our regular township trustee meeting October 21, 2008. While having a disciplinary hearing during a public meeting may seem inappropriate, it is in fact required under the Ohio Revised Code unless waived by the police officer.
This discipline process was started because an officer refused to follow a direct and lawful order. After 11 days elapsed and the officer remained in violation of the order, he was notified that he was insubordinate and the discipline process was started. The officer was given the opportunity to waive the public hearing in front of the trustees by having the Chief of Police hear the discipline charges but the officer chose not to.
Insubordination, the failure to follow a direct order, is a serious offense in a police department. The safety of our residents, visitors and employees depend upon police officers following orders. Our officers need to know without a doubt that their fellow officer will follow lawful orders given to them. We cannot have individual officers determining which orders they choose to follow and which orders they will ignore.
If an officer disagrees with an order, for example if they believe it is in violation of the union contract, proper procedure would be to follow the order and then file a grievance and allow the grievance procedure to work in determining if it was a lawful order under the contract. But this did not happen in this case, the officer chose instead to ignore the order until discipline procedures were started.
Given the totality of the situation, I believe the township trustees had to act unanimously in disciplining Officer Dicus for insubordination when he failed to follow a direct order. We cannot have the uncertainty that would be created if our police officers do not know which order a fellow officer will follow; their very lives could depend on having confidence that orders will be followed.
Now I come to the part which will trigger questions: the order Officer Dicus was given and failed to follow was to trim his mustache. The obvious question is "should he really be suspended just because he didn't trim his mustache?" While that may be an obvious question, it is not the issue. Bottom line is that the officer failed to follow an order. Period. As was laid out at the hearing, the Sylvania Township Police Department has a policy on personal appearance and grooming, including the appropriate grooming of mustaches. Officer Dicus received and acknowledged the policy yet he chose to ignore the direct order. He never raised concerns or objections to the policy prior to his discipline.
As mentioned earlier, the officer could have waived his right to a hearing before the trustees, as other police officers at the township have done when discipline was necessary in other cases. But I believe this was a calculated decision by the union to not waive the trustee hearing, and set up a situation which had the potential to make the trustees either 1) cave in light of the potential bad publicity of disciplining a police officer over a mustache or 2) look bad for being so petty as to discipline a police officer over a mustache.
Ohio law requires that trustees hold a hearing in order to discipline a police officer with time off. If the trustees do not follow through on such hearings and subsequent discipline (i.e., we cave), we would potentially be in the position of never being able to discipline a police officer. If we fail to support our Chief of Police in implementing and enforcing policies that we have directed and supported him in developing in order to improve and enhance our police department, we would be creating chaos and encouraging an atmosphere which would jeopardize the safety and protection of our residents, visitors and employees. That is not something that I am willing to do.
Some might say it was wrong to discipline a police officer over a mustache. But this was not just a mustache - this was willful disregard of a direct lawful order. I will not encourage an atmosphere in our police department where our Chief is powerless and the union is running the department. Officer Dicus was given a lawful order and he chose not to follow it. That is insubordination and the trustees acted appropriately.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Sylvania Township Update
Sorry, gang, this is a long update. There is a lot to talk about including the merger, taxes, the police department, and other issues.
Merger Commission Not Supported by Trustees
On October 1, 2008, the township trustees held a public forum so that we could hear from you, our constituents, what they felt about the proposed merger commission. We gave ample opportunity for everyone there to speak, listening to both those who were in favor of continued study and those who were opposed to any further talk of merging the township and city.
Some in favor of the merger encouraged the trustees not to politicize this issue, asked us not to become involved, and told us we should not try to influence the discussion. I found this extremely disturbing because several city councilmen have either become directly involved or have stated that the city has a vested interest in this process. Why should elected officials from the city be involved but not the township? Numerous township residents asked the township trustees to become involved, to oppose the merger, and to even provide funding for an opposition group. Both city and township residents are our constituents, so where should my focus lie? Hands off or vocally opposed?
On one hand, I respect those who believe this is a valuable process and potentially beneficially to our community. Some have put hours of time in to OneSylvania, and I appreciate the time they are willing to commit to Sylvania. However, I can't help but be firm in my opinion that this is not the right thing for the township to do for a variety of reasons. And after our public forum, I am convinced that I not only have a right to speak out about this issue, but residents are expecting me to speak out on this issue.
Today, the Sylvania Township Board of Trustees took unanimous action not to support the merger commission. We based this decision on two issues.
First, the merger commission as it will be voted on by the residents is not balanced. Under Ohio Revised Code §709.45(A), the merger commission is required to have 5 members from the city and 5 members from the unincorporated township. Unfortunately, one of the township commissioners was annexed in to the city and is no longer a valid elector for the township - but remains on the township ballot. The township requested that the issue be removed from the ballot, but the protest was denied. How, who or when this commissioner would be replaced is unclear despite our efforts to seek advice from the Secretary of State and Attorney General.
Second, we heard loud and clear the view of the vast majority of residents who attended our public hearing. What we heard was:
Some in favor of the merger encouraged the trustees not to politicize this issue, asked us not to become involved, and told us we should not try to influence the discussion. I found this extremely disturbing because several city councilmen have either become directly involved or have stated that the city has a vested interest in this process. Why should elected officials from the city be involved but not the township? Numerous township residents asked the township trustees to become involved, to oppose the merger, and to even provide funding for an opposition group. Both city and township residents are our constituents, so where should my focus lie? Hands off or vocally opposed?
On one hand, I respect those who believe this is a valuable process and potentially beneficially to our community. Some have put hours of time in to OneSylvania, and I appreciate the time they are willing to commit to Sylvania. However, I can't help but be firm in my opinion that this is not the right thing for the township to do for a variety of reasons. And after our public forum, I am convinced that I not only have a right to speak out about this issue, but residents are expecting me to speak out on this issue.
Today, the Sylvania Township Board of Trustees took unanimous action not to support the merger commission. We based this decision on two issues.
First, the merger commission as it will be voted on by the residents is not balanced. Under Ohio Revised Code §709.45(A), the merger commission is required to have 5 members from the city and 5 members from the unincorporated township. Unfortunately, one of the township commissioners was annexed in to the city and is no longer a valid elector for the township - but remains on the township ballot. The township requested that the issue be removed from the ballot, but the protest was denied. How, who or when this commissioner would be replaced is unclear despite our efforts to seek advice from the Secretary of State and Attorney General.
Second, we heard loud and clear the view of the vast majority of residents who attended our public hearing. What we heard was:
- There was a lack of interest in any further exploration of merging the city and the township;
- Residents expressed their favor for and love of the qualities of life unique to township living;
- Residents expressed their skepticism of promises to reduce residents' local tax burden;
- Rejection of a tax structure where some township residents and businesses would bear a heavier tax burden in order to finance a tax cut for other residents, including city residents; and
- Residents expressed satisfaction with the responsive and cost-effective nature of township government.
Tax Holiday Expanded but Still Not Enough
The good news first: we have expanded the tax holiday that I lobbied for last year. We chose not to collect approximately $700,000 in property taxes for the police department this year, 2008. As we begin the budgeting process for 2009, we voted not to collect $1,050,000 in property taxes for the police department, expanding the tax holiday to township residents.
Despite reducing revenue by over $1 million, initial projections indicate that the 2004 police levy will last another 3 years. If we had not declared a tax holiday, the police levies would last an additional 10-15 years, making taxpayers today pay for services that will not be rendered for almost 15 years. That is not logical and is why I supported the decision to roll back taxes on our residents.
While this increased tax holiday is great, I don't believe it is enough. For the last three years I have been asking that we develop and implement an investment policy, a cash reserves policy, long-term plans for the general fund, and capital improvement plans for all departments. While we have not focued on these long-term financial issues, our cash balance continues to increase - we are spending less money then we collect. While at first glance this is great, the reality is that we are taking money from the pockets of our residents and businesses and we don't know if we need it or how it will be spent.
I asked that my fellow trustees consider choosing not to collect the 0.5 mill inside levy which collects about $700,000, funds a small portion of our general fund and is assessed against all township and city property owners. I made this request because I object to the township continuing to collect money with no real plans on how to spend it. I firmly believe that if government has money, they will figure out a way to spend it; that doesn't mean we need it.
There was not support for the general fund tax holiday from my fellow trustees. Part of the reason for that is the timing - we have to certify amounts to the auditor's office before we really start the budgeting process, so I'll admit that it's hard to know at this point whether or not we really need that $700,000. But I still hate the thought that we continue to collect all monies available to us while our cash balance improves.
I did secure from my fellow trustees commitments - on the record - to make sure we work to get the policies in place, the plans developed, the processes in order so that next year when we can give serious consideration to the general fund tax holiday. I will hold them to that commitment.
Despite reducing revenue by over $1 million, initial projections indicate that the 2004 police levy will last another 3 years. If we had not declared a tax holiday, the police levies would last an additional 10-15 years, making taxpayers today pay for services that will not be rendered for almost 15 years. That is not logical and is why I supported the decision to roll back taxes on our residents.
While this increased tax holiday is great, I don't believe it is enough. For the last three years I have been asking that we develop and implement an investment policy, a cash reserves policy, long-term plans for the general fund, and capital improvement plans for all departments. While we have not focued on these long-term financial issues, our cash balance continues to increase - we are spending less money then we collect. While at first glance this is great, the reality is that we are taking money from the pockets of our residents and businesses and we don't know if we need it or how it will be spent.
I asked that my fellow trustees consider choosing not to collect the 0.5 mill inside levy which collects about $700,000, funds a small portion of our general fund and is assessed against all township and city property owners. I made this request because I object to the township continuing to collect money with no real plans on how to spend it. I firmly believe that if government has money, they will figure out a way to spend it; that doesn't mean we need it.
There was not support for the general fund tax holiday from my fellow trustees. Part of the reason for that is the timing - we have to certify amounts to the auditor's office before we really start the budgeting process, so I'll admit that it's hard to know at this point whether or not we really need that $700,000. But I still hate the thought that we continue to collect all monies available to us while our cash balance improves.
I did secure from my fellow trustees commitments - on the record - to make sure we work to get the policies in place, the plans developed, the processes in order so that next year when we can give serious consideration to the general fund tax holiday. I will hold them to that commitment.
7510 Wind River Drive - UPDATE
Just a quick update on the status of the house on Wind River Drive. On behalf of the trustees, I attended the hearing on September 25 on the appeal of our decision to have the structure removed because it was not secured, not safe and structurally defective. The owner's attorney provided testimony from one expert witness as did we. The judge took the case under advisement and will be making a decision, hopefully relatively soon. As this is still pending litigation, I will refrain from further comment and will update you as soon as we have a ruling.
Police Union Negotiations
It's been a bit of a rough year, as our police department unions have been working without a contract since October 1, 2007. Despite this internal unrest, our police personnel have continued to serve the residents, businesses and guests of Sylvania Township to their highest ability and I appreciate and respect their dedication to our community.
During the past year, we have been diligently negotiating with all three police unions, but the process has been long as there were numerous issues that we had to address in order to increase the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the police department, while maintaining the quality service that our community expects.
Certainly, working without a contract is not necessarily conducive to productive labor-management relationships. It was not a situation that I was pleased with, but clearly we have to have a union contract structure that allows us to make the management decisions necessary to operate the police department in the best interests of the public.
But the final outcome of the union negotiations resulted in 3.0-3.5% raises for each of the next two years (plus one year retroactive); in addition, there was a $1500 signing bonus. In exchange, we have the right to implement a more cost effective health insurance plan (an 80-20 plan as compared to our current 100%/fully-insured plan) with employee contributions of 10% (up from about 2.5%) and more management flexibility in manning levels and shift supervision. We were denied our requests to set up more flexible shifts and to change the disciplinary process to a structure that would be more respectful of individual personnel.
I don't view contract negotiations as a win-win type of things; we all lose something. But hopefully now that the process is over, we can get past the unfortunate consequence of being on opposite sides of the bargaining table and focus all of our energies on providing efficient and effective safety services.
During the past year, we have been diligently negotiating with all three police unions, but the process has been long as there were numerous issues that we had to address in order to increase the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the police department, while maintaining the quality service that our community expects.
Certainly, working without a contract is not necessarily conducive to productive labor-management relationships. It was not a situation that I was pleased with, but clearly we have to have a union contract structure that allows us to make the management decisions necessary to operate the police department in the best interests of the public.
But the final outcome of the union negotiations resulted in 3.0-3.5% raises for each of the next two years (plus one year retroactive); in addition, there was a $1500 signing bonus. In exchange, we have the right to implement a more cost effective health insurance plan (an 80-20 plan as compared to our current 100%/fully-insured plan) with employee contributions of 10% (up from about 2.5%) and more management flexibility in manning levels and shift supervision. We were denied our requests to set up more flexible shifts and to change the disciplinary process to a structure that would be more respectful of individual personnel.
I don't view contract negotiations as a win-win type of things; we all lose something. But hopefully now that the process is over, we can get past the unfortunate consequence of being on opposite sides of the bargaining table and focus all of our energies on providing efficient and effective safety services.
Township Under Audit
It is time for our bi-annual audit - every two years we undergo an audit which is intended to make sure that our financial reports accurately represent the financial position of the township. The last time we were audited covered the 2004 and 2005 calendar years; state auditors are now looking at 2006 and 2007.
Our last audit was a bit problematic. Going back to 2000, auditors had instructed township staff to make certain adjustments to properly reflect which funds received money but these adjustments had not been made. So 6 years worth of adjustments had to be made at one time which created some additional problems.
In the past year since our last audit was concluded, I have had numerous conversations with our staff regarding making sure this year we would get a clean audit report. I was assured that the prior problems had been corrected and things were fine. Unfortunately, now I am hearing that the same problems that had to be corrected in prior years are still happening.
Clearly, this does not make me happy. I am not of the mind to micro-manage our staff, as I consider them professionals capable of performing their assigned duties with efficiency and experience. But somewhere along the line, issues have not been addressed and we are not functioning as we should be 100% of the time.
The addition to our staff of Jim Beck as our Director of Accounting and Budgeting will allow the township to address this problem, along with helping us down the road of making long-term plans, setting investment and accounting policies, and making sure we are able to monitor daily and weekly expenditures to keep expenditures in line with budgets.
While I struggled a little with the expense of having a full-time Director of Accounting and Budgeting, the reality is that we have a budget in excess of $22 million, a cash balance exceeding $15 million, and we're embarking on a $10 million capital plan including needing to become rated for bonding purposes. Those factors dictate we put adequate resources toward preserving, monitoring and planning the township's cash resources.
Our last audit was a bit problematic. Going back to 2000, auditors had instructed township staff to make certain adjustments to properly reflect which funds received money but these adjustments had not been made. So 6 years worth of adjustments had to be made at one time which created some additional problems.
In the past year since our last audit was concluded, I have had numerous conversations with our staff regarding making sure this year we would get a clean audit report. I was assured that the prior problems had been corrected and things were fine. Unfortunately, now I am hearing that the same problems that had to be corrected in prior years are still happening.
Clearly, this does not make me happy. I am not of the mind to micro-manage our staff, as I consider them professionals capable of performing their assigned duties with efficiency and experience. But somewhere along the line, issues have not been addressed and we are not functioning as we should be 100% of the time.
The addition to our staff of Jim Beck as our Director of Accounting and Budgeting will allow the township to address this problem, along with helping us down the road of making long-term plans, setting investment and accounting policies, and making sure we are able to monitor daily and weekly expenditures to keep expenditures in line with budgets.
While I struggled a little with the expense of having a full-time Director of Accounting and Budgeting, the reality is that we have a budget in excess of $22 million, a cash balance exceeding $15 million, and we're embarking on a $10 million capital plan including needing to become rated for bonding purposes. Those factors dictate we put adequate resources toward preserving, monitoring and planning the township's cash resources.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Merger Petition Protested by Township Trustees
For decades, our community has played with the topic of merging the city and township. Unfortunately, this issue is greatly polarizing among our residents - some believe it is an issue that should be explored; others are adamantly opposed to any idea of merging the two governments. Today, Sylvania Township was forced to take action to protect the integrity of the legal process of merger, and thus stepped squarely in to the middle of this issue.
Over the past year, volunteers have circulated petitions in the township and city collecting signatures in order to place the issue of forming a merger commission on the November ballot. These volunteers spent countless hours working on an issue that they are passionate about, and I respect them for that. The petition includes five specifically named township electors and five specifically named city electors. These electors are often referred to as merger commissioners and, if a commission is formed, are charged with drawing up the statement of conditions for merger (i.e., how we would become one entity). The merger petition was filed with the Board of Elections and was certified to the ballot in August.
Unfortunately, separate action by a small group of township residents including one of the township merger commissioners has put in jeopardy the effort to allow residents to vote on the merger commission this November. On September 3, 2008, the City of Sylvania accepted a request to annex property at the corner of King and Brint known as Country Commons Walk, an annexation effort that was started in November 2007 by the residents of that subdivision.
When the city accepted the annexation request, it annexed in to the city the residence of one of the township's merger commissioners who had signed the annexation petition in November 2007. For at least eight months while One Sylvania was gathering signatures, they were aware that one of their township commissioners had requested to be annexed in to the city. Despite encouragement early on to replace this commissioner with another township resident, a step that would admittedly have made them start over with the petition drive, One Sylvania chose not to do so and continued to collect signatures.
Now that the annexation has been approved by the city, only four of the 10 merger commissioners slated to be voted on are township residents, which does not meet the minimum requirements of Ohio Revised Code ("ORC") § 709.45. Thus the integrity of the merger process has been compromised.
I know that some are going to criticize the township for spending taxpayer money on for this protest. But I believe that as township trustees we have an obligation to our constituents - township and city residents - to raise questions if the legal process for such an important community issue has not been followed and in fact may place township residents at a disadvantage if merger discussions proceed. Statements by merger proponents that "they believe" we can appoint a replacement for this commission but that the law is ambiguous is not reassuring that we will be facing a balanced merger commission if the issue passes in November.
But 2,500 voters signed the merger petitions, so doesn't that mean we are ignoring the will of voters by taking this action? What really undermines the will of the voter is misrepresenting that the township had equal representation among the named merger commissioners when One Sylvania knew one of the commissioners was likely to be annexed in to the city prior to the November election and in fact work edwith members of Sylvania City Council to ensure that the annexation would take place after the merger petitions were filed.
It is not the Township Trustees who are prohibiting the residents from making an informed decision with regard to a merger. It was One Sylvania that I believe failed to meet the legal requirements of the law and has placed the township trustees in the position of having to protect the integrity of the merger process as well as the representation of the voters of the unincorporated township. We should not allow the law to be subverted by a rush to the polls despite clearly failing to meet the requirements of the Ohio Revised Code.
Sincerely,
DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Important Upcoming Dates for Township Residents
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD LARGE ITEM PICK UP
The Annual Household Large Item Pick Up for Township residents will begin on Monday, September 8, 2008.
Crews will provide one (1) pass through the community. To avoid being missed, the Public Works Manager requires all items placed at the curb or edge of the road by SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 7. This service is available to Township residents only and all are invited to take advantage of this program.
COLLECTIBLE ITEMS: washers, dryers, stoves, dishwashers, furniture, bundled books and magazines, empty 55 gallon drums, toys, bikes, empty containers, carpeting, mattresses and bed springs, and small loose material that is placed in some type of container other than plastic bags. Brush will be picked up, please place in an organized pile along the roadway, but not in the road.
ITEMS WHICH WILL NOT BE PICKED UP: Refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, liquid of any kind, earth, auto parts, batteries, fuel oil tanks, tires, vehicles, construction or building materials, leaves, grass, garden refuse, garbage bags, iron or steel pipe, tree stumps, boats, manufactured waste, garage doors, and newspapers.
BRUSH PICK UP
Sylvania Township Road Department offers a semi-annual Brush Pickup for Township residents, in April and September. The next scheduled Brush pickup is Monday, September 8, 2008, BRUSH ONLY, no grass clipping, leaves or other solid waste. Do not place brush piles in the roadway or gutter area. This is considered unlawful and creates a liability to the property owner. If additional help is required, call a landscape / waste hauling company.
We also provide a “Free Drop Off” facility, Clean Wood Recycling, 6505 West Bancroft Street, between I-475 and McCord Road, for all Township residents, zip code information is required. Hours of operation change throughout the year.
LEAF PICKUP SCHEDULE UPDATE
The Township starts Leaf Pick Up in mid October and continues through mid December, performed on a patrol basis. One cycle through the Township requires 3 weeks, then crews start over again performing additional cycles. Depending on weather conditions, our goal is to perform at least three (3) pickup cycles. Leaves should be placed at the curb side or along the edge of the street and free of brush and garden waste. PLEASE DO NOT PLACE LEAVES IN THE STREET OR IN PLASTIC BAGS!
Inclement weather and temporary equipment failure creates difficulty to predict the location of crews at any specific time.
Just compensation
A recent Toledo Blade article took umbrage with the raises that we gave some of our administrative staff recently, particular our administrator, Mr. Thomas. While I wince at having an employee's salary subject to such open analysis because a person's income is generally a personal and private topic not subject to public scrutiny, the reality is that all of our employees are fully aware that this information is public record and is turned over to anyone who asks. That being said, I have no problem discussing my part in the decision to award these raises.
First, let's get some facts straight that the Blade did not: prior to July 1, 2008, Mr. Thomas received $105,000 annual salary plus $450 per month in a car allowance, for a total W-2 compensation package of $110,400. During our recent annual review for Mr. Thomas, we rolled his car allowance in to his salary and increased the total package to $125,000. Thus, he received a 13% raise, not 19% that the Blade reported.
The Blade takes great pains to point out several townships that pay less than we do, as well as noting that a couple of large townships do not have an administrator. One of those townships without an administrator, Marion Township in Marion County, actually has only 20% of its population (fewer than 10,000 people) in the unincorporated part of the township; the rest is located within the city of Marion which has its own separate government just as the City of Sylvania does. The other, Beavercreek Township, has only 3,000 out of a total population of 41,000 in the unincorporated portion of the township. These are hardly valid comparisons to Sylvania which has over 25,000 residents outside the City of Sylvania, but they certainly where useful in making it look like we are paying our administrator too much.
But beyond those two example, according to the Center for Public Management and Regional Affairs at Miami University (link: http://data.cpmra.muohio.edu/salary/2007Data/07data.htm), the following are administrator salaries from some of the larger townships in Ohio for 2006 and 2007:
- Colerain - $118,955 (Largest Township)
- West Chester - $121,900 (3rd Largest Township)
- Washington - $108,530 (4th Largest Township)
- Anderson - $117,157 (9th Largest Township)
- Union - $125,000 (11th Largest Township)
- Deerfield - $109,507 (32nd Largest Township)
- Harrison - $115,000 (33rd Largest Township)
Not included in the above numbers may be additional perks such as a car allowance, additional retirement allocations, or factors such as experience and education of the administrator. Also, I am not familiar with what services these townships provide; not all townships have their own police, fire, etc., while others have recreation, parks and the like.
Mr. Thomas has brought to the township a new level of professionalism, management, and oversight, providing valuable guidance and strategic direction to the trustees. No longer are our labor contracts negotiated without the assistance of an attorney; no longer do we simply sign off on any building permit or development proposal that is brought in to our zoning department; no longer do we simply add 3% to last year's budget and ignore the budget until next year; no longer do we ignore the budget impact of labor negotiations.
Should we become one city?
As you may have heard in local media, petitions have been filed and accepted by the Lucas County Board of Elections in order to put a proposed merger commission on the November ballot. What exactly does this mean?
Proponents of the merger commission are quick to tell me that 'this is not a merger, this is not a tax'. In other words, what we will be voting on in November will be whether or not the community wishes to further discuss the idea of a merger between Sylvania Township and the City of Sylvania; we are not voting on an actual merger or income tax. If the merger commission is approved by a majority in both the township and the city, the commission will then be in charge making a proposal of how the two governments could merge including how the government would be funded. The time line for this process is quite long, and could take several years if this merger commission is approved.
While this may just be a discussion of if and how we would want to merge, the argument that we would not be voting on a tax is a bit specious. First, all of the studies that have been done that 'support' a merger include the incorporation of an income tax. In fact, it is the income tax which they point to which will allow the new potential city to reduce our property taxes. In addition it is within Ohio law itself that says any municipality may impose an income tax of up to 1% without voter approval. So even if the proposed structure doesn't include an income tax, the new city can impose one at its option without going to the voters as is typical of any tax increase.
Many have asked what am I, as a township trustee, going to do to oppose the merger. First, be clear that this is a citizen movement - neither the township nor the city have taken an active or official role in this process, though individual elected officials may have been involved. It is for the citizens to decide at this point.
For me personally, I am not convinced that becoming part of a city is the right thing for Sylvania Township. There are advantages to living in a township that will disappear if we become a city. At the same time, there are limitations to the township form of government that cities do not struggle with. So far, I think the benefits of living in a township outweigh the negatives.
But according to a recent email from Pam Haynam on the subject of merger: "It is a unique opportunity for Sylvania to decide its future." I certainly hope that if the township declines the merger commission, the vote will indeed be interpreted as a decision about the township's future and not simply disregarded as indecision or lack of understanding.
7510 Wind River Drive - UPDATE (AGAIN)
Sylvania Township has been served with an appeal by the owners of the property at 7510 Wind River Drive against our order to have the structure removed. The appeal has been assigned to Judge Linda Jennings of the Lucas County Common Pleas Court. At this point, I am not sure what the next step for the Township is. This is a process which we have never undertaken before, so we are proceeding as quickly as possible but within our legal authority.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
July 2008 - Township Update
The township has been busy in the last month, and I have a lot of news in this month's issue of Talk of the Township.
7510 Wind River Drive - UPDATE
As previously announced, today the Sylvania Township Trustees held a hearing regarding the property located at 7510 Wind River Drive in Sylvania Township. This was a quasi-judicial hearing based upon section 505.86 of the Ohio Revised Code, which authorizes the Trustees to order removal of any building located within the unincorporated territory of the Township which has been declared insecure, unsafe or structurally defective by any fire department, county building department or declared unfit for human habitation by the county board of health.
Today at that hearing, we heard testimony from John Walters, Chief Building Inspector for Lucas County, Nathan Fries, Registered Sanitarian for the Toledo/Lucas County Health Department, Deputy Chief Tom Eisel of the Sylvania Township Fire Department and Jim McGowan, a local builder/developer who had no pecuniary interest in this property. We also heard testimony from area residents as well as several people who stated they had an interest in this property and were performing work at the premises.
Repeatedly, the testimony that we heard was that this property was not safe, it was not secure, and it was structurally defective, all a result of the fire which occurred in November 2006, and the fact that the house remained open to the elements since the fire. Damage included water-soaked wood, standing water in the basement, and mold and mildew due to being open to the elements. Testimony regarding the ability to renovate the property included the statement that anything above the foundation was unsalvageable.
Given the testimony presented to me and the other trustees by experts in their field related to the housing and building industry, the trustees unanimously passed a resolution calling for the removal of the structure located at 7510 Wind River Drive in Sylvania Township. The resolution was declared an emergency, dispensing with the second reading, and takes effect immediately in order to preserve the public peace, health, safety and welfare of Sylvania Township.
We have authorized our Planning and Zoning Manager, Mr. Tim DeWitt, beginning thirty (30) days after service of the Resolution upon the owner and all lienholders of the property, to remove and secure the building and all appurtenances located on the property.
This has not been a quick process, and I want to thank all of the residents who have expressed concern regarding this property yet have been patient in allowing the township to work through the processes necessary to deal with troubled properties in our community.
Junk Cars - Townships Granted More Authority
A new portion of the Ohio Revised Code, section 505.871, became effective earlier this year which grants townships additional power in which to deal with junk motor vehicles. Prior to this new law, townships were really restricted on what we could do to address junk cars left in driveways and yards. Only junk cars that were deemed a 'nuisance' could be removed from the property.
With the new law, we can legally remove a junk vehicle from a property after proper notice. "Junk motor vehicle" is specifically defined as a "vehicle that is three model years or older, is apparently inoperable and is extensively damaged, including, but not limited to, any of the following: missing wheels, tired, engines or transmissions." There is no dollar limit or value. Court involvement is not required prior to removing a junk motor vehicle.
This is a great new tool that can (and will) be used to help us help our community maintain a quality of life and high property values by addressing junk vehicle issues in a more effective and efficient manner. I welcome this added authority and we are working to implement the necessary legislation so that we can utilize this authority and improve the quality of life in Sylvania Township.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
