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

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.

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

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

Thanks for joining me on my latest update ...

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.

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.