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:

1. There was a lack of interest in any further exploration of merging the city and the township;
   
2. Residents expressed their favor for and love of the qualities of life unique to township living;
3. Residents expressed their skepticism of promises to reduce residents' local tax burden;
   
4. 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
   
5. Residents expressed satisfaction with the responsive and cost-effective nature of township government.

There are more reasons beyond the above why I oppose the merger, but there are some other topics that I want to update you on today, so I will be sure to discuss those other reasons at a later date but certainly before the election.