Finally, after 27 months, Sylvania Township has scheduled the demolition of the structure located at 7510 Wind River on the corner of King Road. Demolition crews are expected to begin work at approximately 8 a.m. on Thursday, January 29, 2009.
This has been a long and unusual process. Most of the time, the property owner wants to repair/replace fire-damaged property and we work with them as needed to help make that happen. But in this case we had a non-resident owner, a purported interested party who was serving time in federal prison, a mortgage company that had declared bankruptcy, an insurance company that suspected arson and refused to pay out on the claim, and a federal sealed-lien against the property.
Our actions to get to this point included trying to work with the insurance company and owner; a trustee hearing; a court hearing; and finally a bidding process once we received court approval for removal of the structure. While the process was lengthy, I'd like to think that anytime the government destroys the private property of someone, the process is purposefully difficult - one of our greatest rights as citizens is the right of private property, and it should not be easily violated by the government. While I am happy with the end result - removing a blighted structure from our community - it would have been nice if the house could have been repaired before the weather ravaged irreparable damage so that the neighborhood and community could benefit.
I expect to be on hand tomorrow, to witness the end of this long process. A final thank you to the neighbors who were diligent in voicing their concerns yet understanding as to the procedural steps that we had to take.
DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Sylvania Township Update - December 2008
Topics have been piling up in the last 2 months. The end of the year has been so busy, and I want to get some of this information out before year end, so here is an update on roads, fire, my thoughts on government bail outs and Life Squad billing, and Wind River.
Watch The Roads This Winter
Be careful on the roads this winter. Information has come to me that the county has cut back on its plowing/salting of county roads this year due to the high expense of salt and a corresponding salt shortage as well as budget concerns regarding the cost of overtime. Numerous factors contributed to a salt shortage this year; the county has 25% less salt than the last 5 year average of salt use for this season's winter weather. This has resulted in a decision to decrease salt application by 50%.
Budget concerns have also prompted the county to cut in half the manpower used in salting and plowing roads during the overnight hours.
At the township, our budget allows for continued use of overtime when the weather dictates the need, but we are conserving salt resources and have reduced application rates by 1/3 in order to make sure we have enough salt to last the season.
Remember - the township maintains neighborhood/subdivision roads, while the county maintains the major thoroughfares such as McCord, Sylvania, King, Whiteford, etc.
I don't know if the Ohio Department of Taxation has changed their policy regarding salting/plowing Central Ave. and 23/475 this season. But either way, be cautious on the roads this season. They may not be as clear of ice and hazardous snow as we are used to.
Budget concerns have also prompted the county to cut in half the manpower used in salting and plowing roads during the overnight hours.
At the township, our budget allows for continued use of overtime when the weather dictates the need, but we are conserving salt resources and have reduced application rates by 1/3 in order to make sure we have enough salt to last the season.
Remember - the township maintains neighborhood/subdivision roads, while the county maintains the major thoroughfares such as McCord, Sylvania, King, Whiteford, etc.
I don't know if the Ohio Department of Taxation has changed their policy regarding salting/plowing Central Ave. and 23/475 this season. But either way, be cautious on the roads this season. They may not be as clear of ice and hazardous snow as we are used to.
Fire Station 3 To Be Relocated
The Trustees discuss progress on the fire levy at almost every meeting, but sometimes the details don't make it to the community in general. Our most recent step in implementing the fire levy plans is approval to purchase land at 5046 and 5056 Haddon Road which is at the corner of Whiteford and Haddon, just north of Monroe Street. This property encompasses just over an acre and was purchased for $100,000.
While our levy proposal did not include costs for the purchase of land, we are comfortable with this purchase price and with the remainder value of the current fire station location at the corner of Whiteford and Monroe.
As far as plans for the other fire stations, those are moving forward as well. Station 4 will be undergoing renovations over the winter which will move department headquarters from Station 1 (downtown Sylvania) to the station on Sylvania Avenue. We awarded contracts for the general construction, HVAC, plumbing and electrical at this week's meeting, contracts which came in under budget by about 8% for this portion of the building plan.
We are still considering new locations for Station 2 (Central/475). Finding property that is available, affordable, and that meet our needs with regard to location and size has been more challenging for Station 2 given the heavy traffic and land prices in the Central Avenue area. We are considering several options and hope to have property under contract before the end of the year.
With regard to Station 1 in downtown Sylvania, we are working with the city to relocate this facility. While a location was initially identified earlier this year, it was later eliminated due to logistical concerns. We have not received any other proposals regarding new locations for Station 1 from the city since then. Since Station 1 was scheduled to be the last to be rebuilt (in 2010), we still have time to consider a new location. If a new location cannot be identified (and there are similar concerns with regard to availability, affordability, and location), we have already confirmed that a new station can be built at the site of the current Station 1.
While our levy proposal did not include costs for the purchase of land, we are comfortable with this purchase price and with the remainder value of the current fire station location at the corner of Whiteford and Monroe.
As far as plans for the other fire stations, those are moving forward as well. Station 4 will be undergoing renovations over the winter which will move department headquarters from Station 1 (downtown Sylvania) to the station on Sylvania Avenue. We awarded contracts for the general construction, HVAC, plumbing and electrical at this week's meeting, contracts which came in under budget by about 8% for this portion of the building plan.
We are still considering new locations for Station 2 (Central/475). Finding property that is available, affordable, and that meet our needs with regard to location and size has been more challenging for Station 2 given the heavy traffic and land prices in the Central Avenue area. We are considering several options and hope to have property under contract before the end of the year.
With regard to Station 1 in downtown Sylvania, we are working with the city to relocate this facility. While a location was initially identified earlier this year, it was later eliminated due to logistical concerns. We have not received any other proposals regarding new locations for Station 1 from the city since then. Since Station 1 was scheduled to be the last to be rebuilt (in 2010), we still have time to consider a new location. If a new location cannot be identified (and there are similar concerns with regard to availability, affordability, and location), we have already confirmed that a new station can be built at the site of the current Station 1.
Government Bail Outs
While Congress contemplates various request for 'bail-outs' from the banking and automotive industries, significant requests from government entities have surfaced, including pleas from states, counties, cities, and school districts. (I have not heard of a township asking for money, but maybe I missed it).
Most of the requests are being made for 'infrastructure' or 'capital' projects that the jurisdictions 'need', projects that will 'put hundreds of people to work.' But I have to question why all of a sudden these projects need to be done now? In reality, these governments have been putting off these infrastructure projects for years in favor of funding special programs and pet projects because those get more media attention and good press for elected officials who want to be re-elected or move on to higher office. Spending such as this tends to feel more immediate impact on the community, while ignoring the much greater impact that failing infrastructure has on the viability and sustainability of a region.
I look back at the township and the status of some infrastructure projects when I took office in 2006. In 2004, the township paved 0.99 mile of roadway; in 2003 no roadway was repaved. Given that we need to repave 6.5 miles +/- in order to maintain a 20 year repaving schedule, these two years put us drastically behind. And why did this happen? Because the administration and elected officials chose to focus resources on feel-good stuff like brush pick-up and weekly leaf pick-up. They also raided the road department budget to operate the fire department.
But my point is that the township was not allocating proper resources to the road department so that they could maintain our infrastructure. Failure to maintain and repair our roads, storm drains, and other infrastructure is a costly decision, because the longer you put off infrastructure projects, the more costly they are to do. For the last three years, the trustees have unanimously agreed that we needed to refocus our attention on the township's infrastructure and structured the budget accordingly. Earlier this year, the trustees were criticized by some for not doing additional brush pickup throughout the summer storms. But our road department was involved in extensive road resurfacing projects and the cleanup of both Schlicker and Smith Ditches to prevent flooding. Despite the criticism, I believe we made the right choice to focus on infrastructure projects as opposed to aesthetic projects such as brush pickup.
Other governments have been doing (and continue to do) what the township used to do - putting resources in non-mandatory services that sound good, look good, and feel good, but in reality take needed resources away from maintaining the equipment and facilities that are needed to support keeping our roads, bridges, buildings, water, sewer and other systems in good condition. By asking for funds from the federal government, these governments are asking others to pay for their poor decisions and mixed-up priorities, while communities like Sylvania township are making those hard decisions on our own and paying for them out of our own pocket.
I am not in favor of the federal government bailing out state, local and regional government's failure to properly allocate enough resources and revenue to infrastructure projects. The voters of these communities elected their public officials; let those same voters figure out how and who should address their infrastructure needs. It is not the job of the federal government to bail these governments out, at the expense of all taxpayers.
Most of the requests are being made for 'infrastructure' or 'capital' projects that the jurisdictions 'need', projects that will 'put hundreds of people to work.' But I have to question why all of a sudden these projects need to be done now? In reality, these governments have been putting off these infrastructure projects for years in favor of funding special programs and pet projects because those get more media attention and good press for elected officials who want to be re-elected or move on to higher office. Spending such as this tends to feel more immediate impact on the community, while ignoring the much greater impact that failing infrastructure has on the viability and sustainability of a region.
I look back at the township and the status of some infrastructure projects when I took office in 2006. In 2004, the township paved 0.99 mile of roadway; in 2003 no roadway was repaved. Given that we need to repave 6.5 miles +/- in order to maintain a 20 year repaving schedule, these two years put us drastically behind. And why did this happen? Because the administration and elected officials chose to focus resources on feel-good stuff like brush pick-up and weekly leaf pick-up. They also raided the road department budget to operate the fire department.
But my point is that the township was not allocating proper resources to the road department so that they could maintain our infrastructure. Failure to maintain and repair our roads, storm drains, and other infrastructure is a costly decision, because the longer you put off infrastructure projects, the more costly they are to do. For the last three years, the trustees have unanimously agreed that we needed to refocus our attention on the township's infrastructure and structured the budget accordingly. Earlier this year, the trustees were criticized by some for not doing additional brush pickup throughout the summer storms. But our road department was involved in extensive road resurfacing projects and the cleanup of both Schlicker and Smith Ditches to prevent flooding. Despite the criticism, I believe we made the right choice to focus on infrastructure projects as opposed to aesthetic projects such as brush pickup.
Other governments have been doing (and continue to do) what the township used to do - putting resources in non-mandatory services that sound good, look good, and feel good, but in reality take needed resources away from maintaining the equipment and facilities that are needed to support keeping our roads, bridges, buildings, water, sewer and other systems in good condition. By asking for funds from the federal government, these governments are asking others to pay for their poor decisions and mixed-up priorities, while communities like Sylvania township are making those hard decisions on our own and paying for them out of our own pocket.
I am not in favor of the federal government bailing out state, local and regional government's failure to properly allocate enough resources and revenue to infrastructure projects. The voters of these communities elected their public officials; let those same voters figure out how and who should address their infrastructure needs. It is not the job of the federal government to bail these governments out, at the expense of all taxpayers.
Fire Union Negotiations
We are currently in the process of negotiating a new contract with the fire union. We have quickly moved from negotiations to fact finding (a mediated process) because there did not seem to be any true intent by the union representatives to negotiate with the township. Typically we agree not to discuss the issues being negotiated during the process by signing an agreement setting out the ground rules. But IAFF Local 2243 declined to sign on to the ground rules this time. So I am free to talk about our negotiations.
Union negotiations are always a give-and-take process; we ask for stuff, they ask for stuff, both sides compromise and find something in the middle. As I said with the police negotiation, this is not a win-win situation; everyone thinks they lost something. Which probably mean we have a decent compromise.
But in the case of the fire department, I was truly astonished by the extent of their initial demands. I won't go into line-by-line detail, but will outline two items. First, from a straight financial standpoint, the requests are astronomical to the extent that the 1.25 mill levy that was passed earlier this year will not even begin to pay for the monetary demands. In fact, their demands would have the department in the red by over $8 million in the next three years, a situation that would require a 2.3 mill levy be passed next year just to keep them solvent for three years.
Even the seemingly non-financial issues their proposal calls for can lead to significant cost increases to the township. The union has requested that the firefighters be restricted to performing only 'traditional' firefighting or emergency medical care. When asked, the union declined to define the phrase 'traditional', but I think it would be easy to interpret this to mean they don't want to mow the lawns, shovel the sidewalks, or maintain and clean the living areas, etc. Now, some will say "but you don't make police officers do that stuff" which is true. But when we pay a police officer 8 hours to work, they are performing police duties for those 8 hours. When we pay a firefighter for a 24 hour shift, we are in essence paying them to be available, because (thankfully) they are not actually performing firefighting or EMS duties for the whole 24 hours. So while we are paying them to be available, they are eating, and sleeping, and working out. I don't think it is unreasonable that they do other stuff like sweeping floors, mowing lawn, and doing dishes while waiting for a call to come in. If they don't clean and maintain the fire stations, we'll be forced to hire someone to do this work for them.
Certainly, the township asked for numerous items as this process began a few weeks ago. Most important, we asked for contract restructuring that will allow us to implement the plans as put forth by the Fire Chief during the levy campaign. Without these changes, the fire levy will not last the 5 years projected.
So while we are taking steps to make sure the fire levy fulfills the pledges made to our community, the fire union is looking for more money ... to the tune of twice what the voters of Sylvania already agreed to this year. In fact, it is even more money than the operating levy which was turned down 4-to-1 back in 2005.
We'll keep working to negotiate a union contract that is financially sustainable and provides a department structure that allows us to implement the fire levy plans. It may take a while, but it's our obligation to the community who relied upon the chief's plan in voting for the fire levy.
Union negotiations are always a give-and-take process; we ask for stuff, they ask for stuff, both sides compromise and find something in the middle. As I said with the police negotiation, this is not a win-win situation; everyone thinks they lost something. Which probably mean we have a decent compromise.
But in the case of the fire department, I was truly astonished by the extent of their initial demands. I won't go into line-by-line detail, but will outline two items. First, from a straight financial standpoint, the requests are astronomical to the extent that the 1.25 mill levy that was passed earlier this year will not even begin to pay for the monetary demands. In fact, their demands would have the department in the red by over $8 million in the next three years, a situation that would require a 2.3 mill levy be passed next year just to keep them solvent for three years.
Even the seemingly non-financial issues their proposal calls for can lead to significant cost increases to the township. The union has requested that the firefighters be restricted to performing only 'traditional' firefighting or emergency medical care. When asked, the union declined to define the phrase 'traditional', but I think it would be easy to interpret this to mean they don't want to mow the lawns, shovel the sidewalks, or maintain and clean the living areas, etc. Now, some will say "but you don't make police officers do that stuff" which is true. But when we pay a police officer 8 hours to work, they are performing police duties for those 8 hours. When we pay a firefighter for a 24 hour shift, we are in essence paying them to be available, because (thankfully) they are not actually performing firefighting or EMS duties for the whole 24 hours. So while we are paying them to be available, they are eating, and sleeping, and working out. I don't think it is unreasonable that they do other stuff like sweeping floors, mowing lawn, and doing dishes while waiting for a call to come in. If they don't clean and maintain the fire stations, we'll be forced to hire someone to do this work for them.
Certainly, the township asked for numerous items as this process began a few weeks ago. Most important, we asked for contract restructuring that will allow us to implement the plans as put forth by the Fire Chief during the levy campaign. Without these changes, the fire levy will not last the 5 years projected.
So while we are taking steps to make sure the fire levy fulfills the pledges made to our community, the fire union is looking for more money ... to the tune of twice what the voters of Sylvania already agreed to this year. In fact, it is even more money than the operating levy which was turned down 4-to-1 back in 2005.
We'll keep working to negotiate a union contract that is financially sustainable and provides a department structure that allows us to implement the fire levy plans. It may take a while, but it's our obligation to the community who relied upon the chief's plan in voting for the fire levy.
Life Squad Billing
Last month, the Lucas County Commissioners voted to begin billing for the use of Life Squads, the advanced life support ambulances that are paid for through sales tax revenue. The Sylvania Township Fire Department mans a Life Squad, and we respond to Life Squad calls dispatched throughout Lucas County, though the majority of time it remains in the Sylvania area with occasional runs in outlying areas to the west, Springfield Township, Toledo and Ottawa Hills. I adamantly oppose soft-billing of Life Squad services for several reasons.
The decision to begin billing is based in part on a supposed need for increased revenue for the EMS system. The EMS system is supported by a sales tax that was passed specifically for this purpose a couple of decades ago. Officials say this is not enough to continue to support the system as it currently exists, and that soft-billing is just a band-aid. But this 'band-aid' has been 6 years in the making - yes they have slowly been working up to nailing the taxpayers with soft-billing for 6 years, and yet it is only a temporary fix. Instead of taking 6 years to provide a temporary fix, why didn't they seek a permanent solution?
Let's talk about what soft-billing is and how it negatively affects you. Soft-billing is the practice of billing insurance companies for use of the Life Squad by county residents. Any billed amount not paid by the insurance company is not pursued. For those who end up utilizing the Life Squad who do not live in Lucas County, the insurance company is also billed, but if they don't pay the entire bill, the user will be pursued for the remainder, up to and including collection action. For those who work or shop in Lucas County and directly or indirectly pay income, sales and real estate tax, that doesn't matter, they will still be hard billed for services. One excuse for doing soft-billing is that it 'doesn't cost' anyone anything. Wrong. It costs your insurance company, and your insurance company sets your rates based on how much is paid out on behalf of your group. So soft-billing will negatively affect insurance rates, though admittedly it may only be a minor amount (because the cost is spread out among so many insureds).
Sylvania Township receives approximately $660,000 from the county for manning Life Squad 6. Unfortunately, it costs closer to $1 million to operate it 24/7. We have happily subsidized this cost, as have the other four jurisdiction that operate Life Squads, because it provides a valued service to our community, not just Sylvania but the county as a whole. But in deciding to begin soft-billing, there is no agreement or firm intention to increase the amount of money the township will receive. So, while the County will be profiting off of the efforts of our firefighters, we continue to subsidize this service at great expense.
Another problem that I have with the soft-billing is the reasons they give for soft-billing, such as increased run volumes and more complex medical protocols which strain the system. Yet there is no data to support these claims. And the guestimate of $2-3 million in revenue from soft-billing is literally just that - a guestimate. There has been no study or review of run data done to arrive at that figure. They could be off by millions, they have no idea.
Finally, Lucas County EMS implements and directs new medical protocols be used in the treatment of patients without any follow-up study or review of medical data to determine if the new/added medical treatments being used are successful in preserving life. These new protocols take added personnel to implement and therefore are very expensive to the township to support and implement. If they are successful - GREAT! It is well worth the added cost. But we don't know if they are successful because there is no follow-up study being done. And again, we are being compensated at a rate that does not even cover manning the Life Squad with two Paramedics. These protocols can take three or more personnel to successfully implement.
For four years we have been reimbursed at the same rate for the Life Squad, approximately $660,000. Yet our costs are increasing (wages, benefits, insurance, fuel, etc.) every year. Add on top of that the increase demand on our personnel. Sylvania Township is being asked to provide more and more, while we are paid the same. Meanwhile, Lucas County will now begin to profit from the work of our employees (as well as the other jurisdictions' employees) with no guarantee on where that soft-billing revenue will go. There is some intent that a portion of it will go to purchase new Life Squad units, but that is not in writing. There has been some talk apparently that revenue will be shared with other jurisdictions that do not staff Life Squads, in order to supplement their fire and rescue services. But no guarantees, no promises, no commitments, just a decision to begin soft-billing.
I am opposed to the county implementing a plan to soft-bill for Life Squad services until a study has been completed which reviews all options for funding and providing emergency medical services and advanced life support transportation to those in both our community and throughout the township.
The decision to begin billing is based in part on a supposed need for increased revenue for the EMS system. The EMS system is supported by a sales tax that was passed specifically for this purpose a couple of decades ago. Officials say this is not enough to continue to support the system as it currently exists, and that soft-billing is just a band-aid. But this 'band-aid' has been 6 years in the making - yes they have slowly been working up to nailing the taxpayers with soft-billing for 6 years, and yet it is only a temporary fix. Instead of taking 6 years to provide a temporary fix, why didn't they seek a permanent solution?
Let's talk about what soft-billing is and how it negatively affects you. Soft-billing is the practice of billing insurance companies for use of the Life Squad by county residents. Any billed amount not paid by the insurance company is not pursued. For those who end up utilizing the Life Squad who do not live in Lucas County, the insurance company is also billed, but if they don't pay the entire bill, the user will be pursued for the remainder, up to and including collection action. For those who work or shop in Lucas County and directly or indirectly pay income, sales and real estate tax, that doesn't matter, they will still be hard billed for services. One excuse for doing soft-billing is that it 'doesn't cost' anyone anything. Wrong. It costs your insurance company, and your insurance company sets your rates based on how much is paid out on behalf of your group. So soft-billing will negatively affect insurance rates, though admittedly it may only be a minor amount (because the cost is spread out among so many insureds).
Sylvania Township receives approximately $660,000 from the county for manning Life Squad 6. Unfortunately, it costs closer to $1 million to operate it 24/7. We have happily subsidized this cost, as have the other four jurisdiction that operate Life Squads, because it provides a valued service to our community, not just Sylvania but the county as a whole. But in deciding to begin soft-billing, there is no agreement or firm intention to increase the amount of money the township will receive. So, while the County will be profiting off of the efforts of our firefighters, we continue to subsidize this service at great expense.
Another problem that I have with the soft-billing is the reasons they give for soft-billing, such as increased run volumes and more complex medical protocols which strain the system. Yet there is no data to support these claims. And the guestimate of $2-3 million in revenue from soft-billing is literally just that - a guestimate. There has been no study or review of run data done to arrive at that figure. They could be off by millions, they have no idea.
Finally, Lucas County EMS implements and directs new medical protocols be used in the treatment of patients without any follow-up study or review of medical data to determine if the new/added medical treatments being used are successful in preserving life. These new protocols take added personnel to implement and therefore are very expensive to the township to support and implement. If they are successful - GREAT! It is well worth the added cost. But we don't know if they are successful because there is no follow-up study being done. And again, we are being compensated at a rate that does not even cover manning the Life Squad with two Paramedics. These protocols can take three or more personnel to successfully implement.
For four years we have been reimbursed at the same rate for the Life Squad, approximately $660,000. Yet our costs are increasing (wages, benefits, insurance, fuel, etc.) every year. Add on top of that the increase demand on our personnel. Sylvania Township is being asked to provide more and more, while we are paid the same. Meanwhile, Lucas County will now begin to profit from the work of our employees (as well as the other jurisdictions' employees) with no guarantee on where that soft-billing revenue will go. There is some intent that a portion of it will go to purchase new Life Squad units, but that is not in writing. There has been some talk apparently that revenue will be shared with other jurisdictions that do not staff Life Squads, in order to supplement their fire and rescue services. But no guarantees, no promises, no commitments, just a decision to begin soft-billing.
I am opposed to the county implementing a plan to soft-bill for Life Squad services until a study has been completed which reviews all options for funding and providing emergency medical services and advanced life support transportation to those in both our community and throughout the township.
Wind River Update - Approval to Demolish
After years of trying to work with the owners of 7510 Wind River Drive, and failing to make any progress, the township finally has judicial authority to remove the structure that was destroyed in a fire over two years ago. Judge Jennings confirmed the resolution that we passed in July, authorizing our Zoning Manager to deal with the hazard which exists due to the burned-out structure and a failed attempt to renovate.
We are moving forward, obtaining bids for demolition. I am pushing to have this completed before Christmas, but sometimes the wheels of government don't move that fast (no matter how much I bug them.) To those interested, I will post here when we have a date scheduled for demolition. Neighbors are invited to come watch.
That wraps up a lengthy township update for 2008. Although we approved our 2009 budget at our last meeting, I will save detailed discussion of what is in the budget for a post early next year.
DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee
We are moving forward, obtaining bids for demolition. I am pushing to have this completed before Christmas, but sometimes the wheels of government don't move that fast (no matter how much I bug them.) To those interested, I will post here when we have a date scheduled for demolition. Neighbors are invited to come watch.
That wraps up a lengthy township update for 2008. Although we approved our 2009 budget at our last meeting, I will save detailed discussion of what is in the budget for a post early next year.
Sincerely,
DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Comments enabled
I have had several requests to enable comments on my blog. I have hesitated until now for several reasons. I have no problem with discussing rationally some of the issues which face the township and decisions I have made that some people disagree with. But only if everyone can remain civil and rational. Up until now, I wasn't sure that was possible. But I'm willing to give it a try, so commenting has been turned on. We'll see how it goes.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Another Sylvania Township Police Officer Suspended
It was only two weeks ago that we had our first public disciplinary hearing in almost 2 decades, yet we held another hearing at our meeting Wednesday evening. This time the charges were much more serious and were dealt with accordingly.
Remember, it is a part of the Ohio Revised Code as well as the union contract that police department employees have the right to a disciplinary hearing before the trustees for charges which may result in time-off.
In this particular case, the officer - Sergeant Robert Colwell - attempted to waive the trustees hearing after we had already filed charges. In fact, Sgt. Colwell wanted to waive the trustee hearing only after seeing the results of our last disciplinary hearing. After having received an email from Sgt. Colwell's attorney late on Nov. 4 again stating that they wanted to waive the trustees hearing, we discussed the request in executive session at our meeting on the evening of November 5. Unfortunately, Mr. Colwell declined to attend the hearing nor did he send his attorney to represent him. As a result, we proceeded with the hearing.
Sgt. Colwell was charged with several serious offenses. We carefully listened to the testimony of four witnesses and had the opportunity to ask our own questions. Ultimately, we found Sgt. Colwell in violation of several department policies as follows:
1. Sgt. Colwell had two unsecured firearms in an area of the Sylvania Township Police Department which is accessible by visitors, witnesses, suspects, victims, and other non-department persons. The weapons were left unsecured in Sgt. Colwell's former office after he was transferred to another department from the Detective Bureau. How long they were unsecured before his transfer, we don't know. This was clearly in violation of the department's policy on Weapon Security.
2. Sgt. Colwell failed to properly process evidence; he did not log it into and out of the property room as actions necessitated. As a government entity, we must be careful to account to each piece of property which comes in to our control. This is an obligation that we owe not only to the public in general, but victims and accused in order to ensure justice in criminal situations. Again, the department has a clear policy on handling of evidence which in this case was violated by Sgt. Colwell.
3. Also in regard to evidence, Sgt. Colwell failed to properly log a laptop computer into the property room and left the laptop in his former office, untagged and unsecured for over one year. This action breached the evidentiary chain of custody for the laptop, rendering any evidence that may have been contained on the laptop vulnerable to tampering and thus challenge if criminal charges were brought regarding evidence contained on the laptop. Sgt. Colwell has a clear duty to follow proper procedures so that evidentiary issues are clear and evidence is not compromised.
4. Finally, as a detective, Sgt. Colwell was charged with properly maintaining and filing reports regarding cases that he investigated. When Sgt. Colwell was transferred to another department, he failed to correctly report the disposition of several cases involving identity theft and forgery. This is in violation of the township's policy on Departmental Reports.
In summary, the trustees unanimously authorized a 15-day suspension (without pay) and a written reprimand. The offenses Sgt. Colwell was charged with were serious and are at the heart of the integrity of our police department and how it is viewed not only by our residents and businesses but the criminal justice system itself.
To respond to accusations that this was retaliation against union activity, let me say that we did not act in retaliation for any specific or general union involvement. I expect every employee to conduct themselves in a manner that is in compliance with township policy and Ohio law. Union activity does not elevate an employee above rules and regulations. The safety and security of our residents is of utmost importance; failing to follow policy and procedures that are necessary for a properly functioning police department cannot be tolerated.
I would love for these disciplinary hearings to be handled internally, without the public hearings. The township attempted to change the union contract language to that affect during our recent negotiations. The union disagreed, and ultimately the conciliator agreed with the union. So we will continue to have these hearings as long as employees wish to selectively bring discipline matters to the board.
DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Attorney General Opinion Received on Merger Questions
Several weeks ago, the Township Trustees requested an opinion from the Ohio Attorney General's office to address several issues that we felt were unclear with regard to the merger commission. Today, we received Opinion No. 2008-035. Below is a direct copy of their conclusions:
Volume #77, Report #208, Article #12--Monday, October 27, 2008
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION
No. 2008-035. Requested by Sylvania Township Law Director Truman A. Greenwood. SYLLABUS:
1. If a person is named as a candidate for township representative in a petition for a merger study commission that is submitted to the electors under R.C. 709.45 and, prior to the election, the candidate ceases to be a resident of the unincorporated area of the township, the candidate lacks the residency qualification required to serve in the position of township member of the merger study commission if the creation of the commission is approved by the electors. The board of township trustees has no authority to appoint a replacement candidate prior to the election, but if the creation of a commission is approved by the electors, the election of a township candidate who does not reside in the unincorporated area of the township will automatically create a vacancy on the commission to be filled by the board of township trustees under R.C. 709.46(B).
2. A community improvement corporation that is established under R.C. Chapter 1724 and receives financial support from a municipal corporation and a township does not have authority to contribute funds or other resources to an entity established to support or oppose a ballot issue relating to the proposed merger of the municipal corporation and township.
So, we now know how Mr. Steinman, the commissioner who has been annexed from the township to the city, will be replaced if the commission is approved by voters of the city and township. That helps clarify this process going forward. While many people thought this would be the process for replacement, the law was not clear as to these specific circumstances, so I am glad we asked the opinion and now have clear direction.
For a bit of background on item 2 above, there was a lot of concern among residents and my fellow trustees about the Sylvania Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) making significant contributions to OneSylvania. The CIC is funded in part by membership fees of the city, township and Sylvania schools. While the CIC has been a neutral facilitator and financial supporter during the last few years of 'studying' the potential tax affects and efficiencies of a merger, I raised objections when OneSylvania came to the CIC and requested funding for the campaign itself. But my objections were overruled by a majority of the executive committee and board. Okay, actually, everyone but me supported giving OneSylvania up to $15,000 for the campaign.
Now we have an Attorney General opinion which clearly states that this campaign contribution was not an authorized expenditure of the CIC. The reasoning is pretty logical, in my opinion. Townships are restricted in where and how we can make expenditures; we can only spend money where we have clear authority to do so. We can only contribute money to a CIC to defray the administrative expenses of the CIC. Townships do not have the authority to expend funds to support or oppose a ballot issue pertaining to a merger, and we are not allowed to use the CIC as our agent for this purpose. The AG Opinion concluded that because township funds are commingled with other funds of the CIC, the CIC is unable to use any of its funds for this purpose.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Almost forgot ...
My apologies - I really try to remember everything before I hit 'send', but in this case a long weekend combined with my desire to publish my merger thoughts tonight prompted me to forget a very important addition to my comments on the proposed merger.
I wanted to let everyone know of a website for a group who is opposed to the merger: Stop Sylvania Merger.
Check out both sites, OneSylvania and Stop Sylvania Merger. Get your questions answered about the merger commission so that you understand the issue that is facing our community.
(I also just added the rest of the links that I include in my email newsletter so that you can visit them directly from my blog.)
DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee
Opposition to Merger Detailed
I said in my last regular post that I would talk more about why I am opposed to the proposed merger commission. I'll take this chance to explain in more detail and depth why I am opposed to continued 'study' of merging the township and city. Some of what I have to say is based on fact and the law, while some is simply my opinion and perception of what I would expect of a merger and its process. This post has turned in to be quite long, so I'll do a summary list and the longer explanations will be below (you may have to click on 'older posts' to get to all of the explanations):
1. Just having the merger commission on the ballot is costing taxpayer dollars.
2. I'm opposed to giving the Merger Commission a blank check to spend taxpayer dollars on more 'study'.
3. No consideration has been given regarding the negative effects of businesses and residents leaving community.
4. Government will spend as much money as we can get our hands on; that doesn't mean we need more in the form of an income tax.
5. Township residents and businesses already pay our 'fair share' of taxes, even without an income tax.
6. Township residents will end up paying a significant portion of debt the city has incurred over the last 20+ years.
7. The new city will assume debt incurred by Lucas County to maintain and repair county roads located in the township.
8. The new city will assume the cost of repairing, plowing and maintaining 110+ miles of heavy-trafficked roads, plus 15 bridges, and expense that could run into the millions annually.
9. The potential to be subjected to an income tax without a vote exists with a city; in a township that is not possible.
10. Pledges that the tax burden of retirees will not increase is not true.
1. What will this vote cost?
Some residents have asked if just taking this to a vote will cost the taxpayers. OneSylvania has responded no, there is no cost just to vote on this issue; I have to disagree. According to the Lucas County Board of Elections, the township will be assessed what is called a 'chargeback', or a fee for the Board of Elections to administer votes in the township. So just voting on this will cost you money.
2. A Blank Check:
Would you approve a situation where the government was handing over to some entity a blank check? This merger vote would do exactly that. Under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) §709.46(C), "The costs of the commission shall be divided among the participating political subdivisions in proportion to the population that each participating political subdivision bears to the total population of the territory proposed to be merged."
There are no restrictions to how much money the merger commission can spend; we have no ability to limit it, make sure that it is being spent wisely, or set reasonable guidelines. The merger commission has free rein to hire attorneys, accountants, engineers, planners, consultants, etc. You name it, they can do it. How much will this cost? I have no idea, but the township will bear the majority of that burden. Interesting, it is township residents and businesses that will bear the brunt of the tax increase, and it is the township property owners that will bear the brunt of studying how to make the township residents and businesses pay more taxes. I don't like the way that works.
3. How many will leave?
Many proponents of a merger have said that the study done by the University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center (UAC) in 2007 was very 'comprehensive'. Well, it was a comprehensive look at where money could come from and where it would be spent (although I didn't necessarily agree with the assumptions and conclusions that were made). But it didn't even touch on some very important issues, one of which is analyzing how many residents or businesses may leave if the township becomes part of a city or if there is even a study. Certainly some of our large businesses have invested too much capital to up and move, but there are many, many more small businesses that are mobile and can easily be moved.
So while the UAC study projects an additional $12 million in income, will that figure hold out if there is a mass exodus of township businesses and residents? And what will happen to our property values as people flee the income tax? Values have already declined considerably due to the mortgage meltdown and economic slowdown.
Finally, what will happen to economic development in the next few years if the merger commission is formed? Would you move or start a business in a community where you don't know what form of government there will be in a few years, or who will be running it? While the Sylvania Community Improvement Corporation says this merger idea is all about providing a sound tax base to support the schools, I think we would see some very stagnate development trends for 3-5 years if this process continues.
4. Taxing Non-Residents:
According to the UAC study, imposing an income tax on those who live and work in the township would increase tax revenue by $12 million. Mind you, this is really nothing more than a wild guess, because they acknowledge that certain information is not available to determine the accuracy of the income tax impact on the township. But the study specifically says "This shift would transfer costs of city services from property owners, primarily residents, to employed persons, primarily nonresidents, and decrease reliance on a static financing source." The UAC study estimates that 80% of the people who work in Sylvania Township live outside our community, in Toledo, other parts of Lucas County or Michigan.
There are two arguments to taxing non-residents. The first argument is that these workers don't pay for the services that they use while working in our community. They use our roads, our police, our fire, etc., but they aren't paying for it. So why shouldn't we make them pay for those services via an income tax. This argument ignores the fact that their employers pay property tax, which in turn supports our services. Not only is commercial property typically assessed at a higher value than residential property, but commercial property tax rates are higher than residential rates under Ohio law. So, we are being paid to provide services to these 'visitors' to our community, visitors who provide valuable services, goods and knowledge that help our community thrive and grow.
The other argument in favor of imposing an income tax on non-residents is really almost offensive: "They don't vote for us, so why shouldn't we tax them?" Wow, what a statement. And yes, I have heard that exact statement verbalized by more than one city elected official and merger proponent. So, should we tax people just because we can and they can't stop us? I don't think so. Do we really need more money to operate our township government and services? I don't think so. Quite honestly, governments will spend as much money as they can get their hands on. We don't need more just because we can get it. Unless government is constrained in the amount of money it has available, we will find reason after reason to spend what we have.
Bottom line, Government should not tax beyond what is needed to provide services. I don't think we should tax non-residents just because we can or because there is no political fall-out from imposing such a tax.
5. Paying Our 'Fair' Share:
Now, if taxing people because they don't vote for you isn't bad enough, the next justification for considering imposing an income tax on township residents is worse. On several occasions when I have been talking to pro-merger people (making logical points as to why a merger is not a good idea) the ultimate response that I get is "it's not fair that township residents don't pay an income tax." Fair? It's not fair that we don't pay an income tax? I just really don't understand the logic of that. Who gets to decide what is fair? Is it 'fair' for city residents to decide what is 'fair' for the township residents?
I really don't even know how to respond to this assertion. Township residents pay the level of taxes that we need to in order to continue to provide police, fire, schools, parks, recreation, etc., to our community, on a level that we feel is necessary and appropriate. If that can be done in a way that excludes the necessity of an income tax, than that is the choice of township residents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
