Earlier today, at a meeting of the trustees, I voted to place two levies on the November ballot.

One levy, a 0.5 mill 20 year bond levy, will address some of the sever deficiencies of our fire stations, rebuilding 3 stations at their current locations and remodeling the fourth. This request is less than half of the request made in May 2005. We contemplate building stations that can meet our needs for the next 30-40 years, able to house twice the staff we currently have, yet still 40% smaller than what was considered over 2 years ago.

Can we operate without new buildings? Yes, but the costs of maintenance, utilities and major repairs will place an ever increasing burden on our operating budget. The stations have been ignored for years, with regular maintenance and repairs being deferred. I believe this request is reasonable and efficient, not extravagant or excessive. Yet if the voters again reject a capital request, I will respect their decision and work with what the voters are willing to give the township.

The second levy which was placed on the November ballot was a 0.5 mill, 5 year operating levy. This was a levy that I supported, but to help you put it in to perspective, i.e., to explain why I did support this levy, the following is the statement that I made at this morning's meeting:

I have been thinking long and hard, trying to put a structure on the future steps of the township. Although we have been working with a new budgeting process for the last 10 months, there are still things that happen, suggestions that are made, that prompt me to think of a new way to look at things. Sometimes it would be nice if the taxing and budgeting process was more fluid, but there comes a time when we have to make a decision and move on from there.

Something Carol said at the last meeting, while looking at her spreadsheet prompted me to think about the overall funding of the township. As I have stated before, the township’s cash position is improving every month. The cost saving measures we have put in to place are working, the diligence we have shown to pursue uncollected revenue is helping, and overall, the township is on good financial footing.

But, we still have the fire department being under funded based on sound accounting principals. While smoke and mirrors could be used to correct the cash shortfalls in the fire department, it is not fair to the residents and taxpayers to hide the true cost of providing fire services. I am willing to compromise on my position of not putting a levy on the ballot in order to finally put the fire department on proper accounting principals.

I will be offering a Resolution in a moment that will attempt to place on the November ballot a 0.5 mill, 5 year levy for fire operations. I have long thought that placing a term-limited levy on the ballot is not logical, as the need for money never goes away unless services are cut. But by placing a 5 year levy on the ballot, residents will again have the choice in five year to determine what level of service they wish. Instead of promising not to come back for so long if a continuous levy passes, I am forcing the township to come back in 5 years if this proposal passes.

With my proposed fire operation levy in mind, but at a later date, I will be assessing the funding levels of other departments in the township, to determine the true level of need for each department in the township. I am encouraging the other trustees to do the same. While I am proposing that we increase funding to the fire department, I also anticipate that we can decrease funding of other departments, resulting in little or no net tax increase to our residents. I have already begun to review other department budgets, and believe this is realistic and achievable; else I would not be compromising to support a 0.5 mill fire levy.

My intent will be to bring all departments into a five-year funding horizon, so that in five years, if additional levies are needed to run any department in the township, those requests are made at the same time the fire levy will need to be renewed or replaced. My goal: to place all levies necessary to continue to operate the township on one ballot, every five years, so there is no “taking turns” between departments when funding is needed, there is no attempt to manipulate the voters in disguising how much our government costs, there is only an honest request for what the township needs to continue to provide excellent services to our residents and businesses.

To help in this five-year funding cycle, our administrator has begun the process of establishing objectives and goals in our budgeting process. By extending our visioning horizon, it can be integrated into our funding horizon, and provide a long-range plan as opposed to looking at budgets on a year-by-year basis.

People do have a right to be involved, but they also have a right to know exactly what it is going to cost to provide township services and they also have the right to be listened to when they say no. It is unfair to attempt levy after levy after levy, when the voters say no. I am hoping that the process that I am initiating today will provide continuity and consistency with township funding.

I firmly believe that if the township wisely, efficiently and prudently expends the funds entrusted to it by the voters, that future tax levies will be supported and passed. As the past has shown, wasteful spending will leave our residents angry, suspicious, and rejecting of new requests. By placing all departments on a five year funding horizon, we are committing to our residents that funds will only be asked for every five years, that the money we receive will be used cautiously, effectively, and within the reasonable bounds of providing services to our community. Knowing that voters will reject any request prior to the five year goal will encourage careful spending in all departments.

I know that what I am proposing is counter to the culture systemic within many governments of asking for whatever we can get. But I think it is fair-minded and appropriate, providing a more transparent and open government for the residents of Sylvania Township.

With that in mind, I offer Resolution No. 07-202.

And with that, there will be two 0.5 mill levies on the November ballot, one for buildings/equipments and one for operations. I believe that the levy for operations is sufficient to continue our excellent fire and EMS service to the Sylvania community, putting the department on a pattern of efficiency and stability. The levy will generate $740,000 additional dollars for the fire department which will allow us to implement sound accounting principles and maintain excellent service. I can't support asking for more, because I believe more is not needed. As the township has shown in the past, give them more money and they will simply spend it. I'm not asking for more because it will only be wasted instead of being spent prudently, efficiently and wisely. It is now up to the voters. (For anyone who saw this before I corrected a typo - it was a typo, and not what I intended to say. Note to self - proof read twice.)

Volume #2, July 2007

Welcome to another installment in my quest to keep you informed on what is going on at the township. Today I will tell you about the significant financial progress we have made, discuss the issue of borrowing money, and talk about public works. Thanks for taking the time to learn more about the workings of Sylvania Township government. I invite you to share this with your friends and neighbors and encourage you to sign up for my email newsletter.

Significant Financial Progress

Look what happens when you have a fox guarding the hen house. No, you don't have wholesale slaughter of the chicks, but you do have peeps much more conscientious of what they are doing. What am I talking about?

A review of our financials as of June 30, 2007 shows that we have $5,039,870.01 more than we did as of June 30, 2006. Five million dollars more. Now, granted, half of that is due to a windfall estate tax receipt that we received in February of this year, an unexpected but welcome deposit into the township's treasury. But what about the rest? Good fiscal policy, ardent review of expenditures, conscientious pursuit of revenue (without raising taxes), and employees who are beginning to realize that the trustees (well, at least two of us), do not view the taxpayers as bottomless pits of money.

The first step in putting our financial matters in orders was hiring someone who knew what a balance sheet and budgets were, someone who not only knew how to read reports but how to develop reports that were informative and useful. Devon Klofta was hired in fall of 2006 as our Director of Accounting and Budgeting. Devon is working with all senior management to formulate and monitor department budgets, identify and explain variances, and to make sure that the township is collecting all revenue that it is due. Why was this not done before? Good question; I have no idea why the prior administration and elected officials didn't do this.

Now we have monthly reports that show us how much we have spent, how much we had expected to spend, how much more we plan to spend, trending information, and - (drum roll please) - a bank reconciliation, to show us how much cash we have in the bank. Last fall, when we had state auditors in the office performing our biennial audit, I refused to approve monthly financial information as it was provided to the trustees by the Fiscal Officer after the state auditor told me that the cash we reported on our balance sheet did not match the cash we had in the bank. I'm not sure how that happened, but I do know we have fixed that problem and now we know exactly how much cash we have, and I'm happy to say that we have $5 million more than we did last year.

Borrowing Money

I think most people would agree that when you borrow money, you should pay it back. Much of our economy is set up on that premise.

For years, the township fire department has borrowed money from the general fund of the township. Currently, the general fund is owed over $1 million by the fire department, some of it dating back to 2001. The fire department has been living above their means, yet they provide a valuable service to the city and township, so it was the decision of past elected officials to loan the fire department this money. The current board agreed to loan about $135,000 in 2007 as well.

As we approach having to make a decision on a levy request for the fire department, I have heard numerous people ask whether the proceeds from a new levy will go to repay the general fund. Specifically I have heard queries as to whether proceeds from a citizens levy initiative will go to repay those advances. Many site the mismanagement of the prior township trustees as a reason why the fire department should not repay the loans. But the community as a whole voted for those trustees, so it would be unfair at this point to disavow borrowings that were made under prior trustees.

City residents do pay a 0.5 mill levy into the township's general fund, because the city has never removed itself from the township's borders. In addition to that levy, we receive general fund revenue from numerous other sources, including gas tax, licence fees, personal property tax, estate tax, etc. Except for the 0.5 mill levy, all general fund revenue is received directly or indirectly from activities in the unincorporated township. In all, the tax revenue from city property amounts to about 6% of the general fund receipts. To say that the fire department, which serves the city, should not pay back the general fund when only 6% of the revenue is derived from city property taxes is not logical to me. If the fire department does not repay the general fund, in essence we would be making taxpayers in the unincorporated township subsidize fire and EMS services provided to the city.

So should the fire department have to repay the general fund? We required loans made to the police department be repaid. We are also asking for repayment of loans made to the water and sewer district. The general fund is repaying a loan it received from the road department. Why should we treat the fire department differently? Fire services should be paid for by those who benefit from the services, so I think it is logical and fair to plan on having the fire department repay the general fund.

Balancing Roads and Leaves

Our Department of Public Works is making good progress this year in street repaving. In total, department director Greg Huffman expects to be able to pave 7 miles this season. This is an improvement over past years when sometimes the township was only able to repave 1 mile of road. Given that we have 120+ miles of residential road, and on average roads need to be repaved every 20 years, the Township needs to repave at least 6 miles a year to stay on top of the game. Raiding the road department budget to pay for other township services is exceptionally short-sighted, and something I am opposed to.

Last year, we spent about $400,000 on street repaving, just barely hitting our average of 6 miles. But surprisingly, the leaf pickup for fall 2006 cost over $600,000. I was stunned when I saw the report that said we spent more on a non-capital service than we did on our infrastructure.

I know that leaf collection is an important service to our tree-laden community. Our residents expect it, and we will continue to provide that service. But I also think that we need to figure out more efficient ways of providing that service. I believe that many of the problems at the Township result from failing to look beyond what has always been done. We have grown from a small rural township to an urban community, and yet some of our practices have not changed, thus leading to inefficiencies.

Improving our fall leaf pickup service to provide quality service in a cost efficient manner will be looked at in the next few years. There are a variety of ideas that we are looking at, and we always welcome resident input.

That wraps up this latest installment. As always, I encourage emails to trusteedeedee@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee

Fire Department Update

So far I've told you I'm going to say something, then I told you what I'm going to talk about, but I haven't really said anything yet. I can hear it now: typical politician! Well, I'll kick off my substantive comments with probably one of the most pressing issues facing the township - the fire department.

The trustees are moving closer to voting on the issue of putting a capital levy on the November 2007 ballot. I can hear some people now - but you said no new taxes! I did, and I'm not yet convinced that our taxpayers can afford any more taxes. But there are positives to what is being looked at.

First, as any one who has looked at our facilities will agree, our fire stations are in bad shape and some of the equipment should have been replaced years ago. Routine maintenance has been deferred for years, in exchange for more bodies on trucks. The roof repair at Station 2 earlier this year that necessitated our firefighters to move to temporary quarters for a month has been evident for years. I know their self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) equipment has not been tested in over 20 months (despite annual testing standards) because the 2006 budget was approved without money for testing included. I was not aware that the budget approved by the prior board did not include money for this testing because it was not brought to our attention until spring of 2007. Money is available in this year’s budget, and testing is scheduled for later this fall.

I believe it is bad management to forego maintenance of facilities and equipment in exchange for personnel because we can’t protect the lives of our fire fighters, residents, and visitors with equipment that may not be functional when it is needed. I am working hard to make sure that the fire budget has a solid balance of personnel and equipment/facilities, instead of over-emphasizing one at the cost of the other.

We have retained an architect to revise the fire station plans that were completed over 2 years ago when the township first considered a capital levy. We have scaled down the proposed buildings 30-40%, thus reducing the cost to the taxpayers. Incredible as it seems, the plans we are looking at will accommodate twice the manpower we are currently using at each of the stations to allow for potential future growth. And yet the plans from 2 years ago were larger! I have no idea what they planned to do with all of that space. Our community needs solid, efficient, productive facilities from which to operate the fire department, not monuments to government excess.

With scaling back the request for facilities and equipment from the excessive to the reasonable, I believe we are looking at a potential 20 year bond levy of around 0.75 mill. That is in comparison to the 1.1 mill permanent levy that was requested in May 2005. We are still working through final numbers, but I will continue to make sure that if we go to the voters for additional revenue, it will be under a prudent, efficient, and modest plan, not something that will fluff the egos of those involved at the expense of the taxpayers.

What did I say?

While preparing material for my return to proactive political communication, I took the opportunity to review some of my campaign material and remind myself of what I told people while I was campaigning. I think it is important for an elected official to carry through on the promises made while campaigning. When it comes to politics, almost nothing frustrates me more than having a candidate get in to office to say "I know what I said, but ..." I think that is wrong. So reviewing my campaign material has given me an opportunity to see if I have changed my mind since I've been in office. Have I held to my campaign statements? My current self-assessment is that I have not changed my position on the major issues I campaigned on, though I will admit progress has not been as quick as I had hoped on some items.

Here is a list of topics I discussed in my campaign emails:

· Fiscal restraint

· Financial Accountability

· Quality Growth

· Working with the City

· Purpose of Government

· Procrastination

In the next few months I will talk in more depth about these issues, especially as some of them tie in to the ballot issues that Sylvania voters will be facing in November.

Busy November Ballot

The election ballot for this November is promising to be a very busy ballot, indeed. In addition to the regular elections for a township trustee, the township fiscal officer, two school board members, and four members of city counsel, there is expected to be several other issues including:

· a citizen petition initiative to place a 1.5 mil fire levy on the city and township ballot,

· a merger proposal,

· the unexpired term of a city counsel seat,

· several county-wide levies,

In addition there is potential for a capital levy and an operating levy for the fire department.

As we get closer to November, I will talk about each of the election decisions that will affect our local community, including the township's role and my personal perspective.

Back to proactive communications

It's been 18 months since I took office as a Sylvania Township Trustee. While I think I did a good job of getting my message out to the voters of Sylvania during the campaign, I have to admit that I have done a poor job of that while in office. This email is the first in my effort to correct that.

I'll own up to a bit of naivety while entering the fray that is politics. I campaigned hard, got my message to the voters, and the voters supported me. But then I stopped proactively communicating with the voters, and let the media and others explain what was going on at the Township, I let others define who I was and what I was doing. As a result, my actions were not always being represented fairly and accurately.

I ran and was elected on some very important issues to our community - ever- increasing property taxes and development. The direction that I am working to take the township keeps those issues in mind, every step of the way. You may not always agree with me, but hopefully by resurrecting my email campaign, I can help you understand the basis for some of my decisions.