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.

Where does this leave the CIC's $10,000 contribution and OneSylvania? I don't know. I have notified the president of the CIC and the treasurer of OneSylvania of the opinion. Beyond that, I'm not sure how this issue should be addressed at this point in the campaign.

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.)

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?

DeeDee Liedel
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:
  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.

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.

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.

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.
Thank you for joining me in this township update. I encourage you to forward it on to other township residents and businesses.

Sincerely,

DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee