Hanley & Liedel Pledge: No New Taxes!

As a community and country, we are experiencing an economic downturn that we have not seen in more than a generation. Families and businesses are having to make do with less - business revenue and personal income are down, and we have less discretionary money to spend. Meanwhile, the price of everyday items such as gas, groceries, utilities and the like are at least holding steady if not increasing.

The Sylvania community is nearing one of the highest taxed communities in Lucas County. While taxes are necessary to support quality services such as: the school system, senior center, safety services, infrastructure, recreation and park systems - it is equally imperative that Government Leaders provide quality service at a reasonable cost and successfully plan and save for future services, so as not to create an undue tax burden for its citizens.

Over the last few years we have improved service efficiencies, implemented cost saving and spending control measures throughout the township. As a result our reserves have increased over $6 million in the last three years and the Township was awarded the highest financial bond rating in Lucas County placing us in the top 10% in the State! Our annual budget process now includes a rolling five-year projection, enabling us to see year-to-year the status of necessary funding to maintain township services. With this level of 'savings' we can commit to maintaining excellent services in Sylvania Township while not increasing your taxes.

We are committed to helping you make it through this economic downturn - we will not raise taxes in the next four years. Your family has to live within its means, our families have to live within our means, it's about time government does the same.

While others may say they are against tax increases and may even promise not to raise taxes, look at what has been said and how people have voted. It is easy to make a promise based on someone else's hard work. But it is Pam and I who have actually followed through on fiscal restraint and lowering taxes, putting the township in the position of being able to not raise taxes for at least four years (and maybe longer).

(Disclaimer: I will note that the pledge of no new taxes does not apply to special assessments when petitioned for by a segment of residents for things such as street lighting, etc.)

General Fund: 23% Increase

General Fund: The General Fund provides funding for any township services not covered by fire, police and roads such as our accounting department and zoning. Spending in the General Fund has increased almost 23%. (For my calculations, I did not consider loans to the Fire Department 'spending' from the general fund, as that would be double-counting money that was spent by the Fire Department). The Trustees approved this spending increase for several reasons.

First, we have stepped up enforcement in the Zoning Department, including adding one full-time employee and a Certified Planner to help address some of the zoning and planning issues the Township faces. We have also hired a full-time Budget Director. Sylvania Township is an entity with a $24 million budget and a $10 million capital plan and employs over 150 people. We need someone who can oversee our budget and investments on a daily basis, as well as help each department with long-term planning. We are no longer reactionary in our fiscal policy, we are proactive and that benefits every department in the Township.

Finally, the general fund has taken on the expense of leaf and brush pickups. In the past, these were expenses of the Road Department but state law clearly directs that these services can only be provided in townships if the money comes out of the general fund, not money dedicated to maintaining and improving roads. So while this is an increase in spending for the General Fund, it was money that was already being spent but was accounted for in another fund.

Also, a $500,000 loan from the Road Department to the General Fund was repaid, which increased spending in the General Fund. This loan was made several years ago (before I became a trustee) in order to keep the Fire Department afloat. While this money was not intended to be paid back when it was borrowed, we felt it was appropriate since the Road Department is funded off of revenue from the unincorporated township while the Fire Department provides services to the unincorporated areas and the City of Sylvania.

There are six days left before the November 3rd election, and it is important to get my message out to residents of Sylvania, so that we can remain a Quality Community You Can Afford to Live In.

Sincerely,

DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee

Fire Department Update

This installment of my Township Update will focus on the Fire Department, which has been extremely busy the last 18 months fulfilling the promises of the 2008 1.25 Mill Fire Levy. But first, a brief announcement about the Police Department:

The primary goal of zoning is to preserve the value of your property whether that is your home, your business or your investment property. With the slump in the commercial and residential housing market, it is more important than ever that our Zoning Resolution is being complied with; that we implement design and landscaping standards so that quality construction is brought to our community; and that we work with homeowners who are facing difficulties.

DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee

DeeDee Liedel Announces Re-Election Campaign

Today I filed petitions for re-election as Sylvania Township Trustee so I am officially kicking off my campaign with a Sylvania Township Update.

Over the last several years, the focus of discussions has mostly revolved around the Fire Department. While the Fire Department is vital to our community, so are other services provided by the township including our Police Department. For the most part, the Police Department operates with little controversy and within its budget. But I wanted to take the time to talk about the changes and improvements that have taken place in the Police Department over the last few years.

Thank you for joining me in kicking-off my re-election campaign. Over the next three months, I will be talking about other changes and improvements we have made at Sylvania Township. I hope you will tell your friends and family and encourage them to support me on November 3rd.

DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee

A Last Resort - Eminent Domain

One of the great freedoms of our country is the freedom to own property. This right is enumerated in the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution, where it states that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. The right of private property is one that I hold dear and value as it is the foundation of our society and economy. In action today as a township trustee, I voted to authorize our legal counsel to start eminent domain proceedings against private property owners. I do not take this action lightly; it was a difficult decision but ultimately it was necessary in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the Sylvania community.


For the last six months, the Sylvania Township Trustees have worked diligently to secure and prepare a new location for Fire Station #3, currently located at Monroe and Whiteford. The last remaining roadblock to construction of this new facility is the ability to hook in to the county sanitary sewer system. To do this, we need access, commonly called an easement, across a neighboring property in order to reach the sanitary sewer.


Unfortunately, owners of several neighboring properties are adamant in their refusal to grant us such access citing speculative development value of their properties. Their demand to create an easement around not only the buildings that currently stand on the properties, but innumerable potential building locations as well, is simply impossible to do.


The reality is that Sylvania needs a fire station now; we cannot wait until speculative development of the property happens. Voters passed a fire levy in March 2008 which authorized the construction of three new fire stations. Sylvania Township has an obligation to our community to do exactly that. In order to build a new Station #3, we need sanitary sewer access. The adamant refusal of all adjacent property owners has lead to only one conclusion - Sylvania Township must take action to secure private property for public use.


I reject the use of eminent domain for private development projects, and reject the notion that such private projects have a public purpose simply because they increase the tax revenues of the government. But in a seeming paradox, we are being asked not to take property because of the potential future benefit to current owners, thus disregarding the current benefit and necessity to our community of safety services. I will not use the government's eminent domain authority to benefit private individuals, but I also will not allow the potential benefit of one to take priority over the needs of the entire Sylvania community.

Centennial Terrace - Grand Re-Opening

I had the pleasure of attending a Grand Re-Opening Preview Party of the newly refurbished Centennial Terrace last week. The remodeling was done after voter approval of a capital levy proceeds of which were used to update Centennial Terrace, Pacesetter Park, and other Sylvania Area Joint Recreation District (SAJRD) venues. Needless to say, the property looks wonderful - it preserves the look and feel of Centennial Terrace while updating the facility to today's needs and demands.

It was a little over two years ago when I initially became aware of preliminary plans to sell the parking area of Centennial Terrace to a developer in order to garner the money needed to refurbish Centennial Terrace. I was vocally against this proposal as Centennial Terrace has been an entertainment center of our community for over 70 years. While I understand the reticence of the SAJRD board to ask for additional tax dollars from our property owners, in this case it was a question that at least needed to be asked as opposed to considering the sale of park property to a commercial developer without reviewing the alternatives.

From what I have seen, the SAJRD board has managed the levy monies voted to them well. I applaud their hard work and dedication to making Sylvania a community to grow, work and play. For those who have not had a chance to see the new facility, I would urge you to visit sometime this summer - the July 3rd Fire Works celebration is right around the corner.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Clearly our decision to increase Mr. Thomas's compensation is well within reasonable ranges of that profession. And for that sum we receive in exchange qualified, professional, and experienced management. By and large we have very little turn over at the township, partially due to the fact that we pay competitive wages in all departments, for both union and non-union labor. Certainly, we could replace any township employee as no one is irreplaceable, and that includes Mr. Thomas. But it would be extremely short sighted if we were to lose Mr. Thomas due to inadequate benefits to turn around and either have to accept a less-qualified replacement or pay the higher going market rates for a qualified candidate while losing valuable time and progress as the learning curve has to be tackled by a new administrator.

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.

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.