Township officials urge 'NO' on all county levies

Here is a copy of the letter that 14 elected officials in eight of Lucas County's 11 townships have signed. I think the letter says it all, especially this point:

We believe one questions must be asked by the Commissioners prior to putting any levy on the ballot, and each individual voter prior to casting their vote on a property tax levy: “Is this levy so important that someone should lose their home if they cannot afford to pay it?”

I think this also applies to city and school levies, too. Did Toledo City Council ask themselves this question before they decided they just had to have a brand new tax levy for recreation in the city?

You might not have your home, but you can have 'recreation' ... what a bargain!

Did Toledo Public School board members ask themselves this question before they decided they just had to have a brand new tax levy - on top of their multiple other levies - for a school system that has a budget carryover and health care savings that total a couple of million dollars MORE than the levy will give them in the next year?!?

As if more money will reverse their five-year trend of spending more than take in or help Pickett Elementary which has been in academic emergency for 12 years!


Here is the letter:

We, the undersigned Elected Officials in Lucas County do hereby state:

1) We believe our County Representatives are not acting like responsible leaders in placing numerous levies on the ballot.

2) We believe that the residents in our jurisdictions are becoming overburdened by the numerous “quality of life” levies that are already included in their property tax bills.

3) We believe that by placing these numerous “quality of life” levies on the ballot, the Lucas County Commissioners are jeopardizing our chances of getting any future levies passed for essential services such as Roads, Police, Fire and Schools.

4) We do not want to see our residents become financially burdened by their property taxes and potentially face losing their homes if they become unable to pay.

5) We believe that all of the levy requests that will be on the November Ballot are not “needs” for our community, but “wants” by these organizations.

6) We believe that it is irresponsible for our County Officials to allow the “wants” of these various organizations to become such a burden to the property owners of Lucas County that they can no longer afford to pay for the “needs”.

7) We believe one questions must be asked by the Commissioners prior to putting any levy on the ballot, and each individual voter prior to casting their vote on a property tax levy: “Is this levy so important that someone should lose their home if they cannot afford to pay it?”

As such, we are asking the voters not just in our jurisdictions, but in all of Lucas County to vote “NO” on every county wide levy request that is on the your ballot in November. We must take a stand to get the attention of our County Commissioners. We must make them realize that we want the process to get a property tax levy on the ballot in Lucas County to be extremely difficult, not just a rubber stamp.

And that new levy review committee which I fought when I was a commissioner has 'recommended' all these levies and others in the past. Do the commissioner have nothing to fear from constituents because they hide behind individuals unaccountable to the public to decide if a levy is 'worth it'? I think so.

We'll talk about this today when I fill in for Brian Wilson on 1370 WSPD from 3-6 p.m. Eastern.

Will township residents be double-taxed for 911 dispatching?

Most people who live in a township or pay attention to the local media will know that Lucas County is trying to get townships to pay for the cost of road patrols and dispatching from the Sheriff's Department.

This is in spite of voter rejection of recent levies in several townships to cover these costs.

One of the sticking points in the discussions deals with the 911 Levy as approved over several elections by voters.

Originally, this levy was supposed to cover the cost of dispatching. From an October 20, 1996 Blade article, "LEVY PUTS 911 SYSTEM - DESIGNED TO SAVE LIVES - AT RISK 911":

But the $5 million system - which was set up to answer calls with the speed of a computer - is on trial.

Weary of higher taxes and moved by union opposition, voters turned down a 0.9-mill levy in March.

Now, they will decide whether to approve a 0.7-mill tax to keep it alive for the next five years.

The tax would raise $4 million a year to run the system and make improvements.

Those include ``breaking up'' the downtown 911 station into six smaller centers to be scattered across the county to speed response times.

``We're talking about taking 911 to the next level - and bringing it into the next century,'' said Sandy Isenberg, president of the Lucas County commissioners.

But so far, there's no contingency plan to keep the phones ringing at 911 if the levy fails.

If it goes down, there wouldn't be any money to pay the 911 operators and their supervisors past Dec. 31.

``No one's going to be here to answer the phone,'' said Doug Kemp, data manager for 911 .

It is clear from this report that call-takers and dispatchers are covered by the cost of the levy.

From the same article:

Here's a snapshot of what the new levy would do:

* It would bring 911 calls closer to home.

As it now exists, if a frantic Sylvania mother dials 911 for help because her child has fallen down the steps, the call goes to the 911 center at 2144 Monroe St., in Toledo.

Then, the message is sent via computer to a dispatch center in Sylvania. From there, a rescue vehicle is sent to the scene.

Under the new plan, the call would go directly to Sylvania, eliminating the middleman in Toledo, and allowing the local operator to immediately send an ambulance. System officials hope to shave the response time by up to 45 seconds.

``In life-threatening situations, seconds can mean everything,'' said Tom Bodi, director of the 911 system.

This obviously describes dispatching as part of the services provided by the levy.

The 1996 levy included funds for upgrading the equipment, as county officials currently claim as the purpose of the levy. But news reports also show that the funding of the entire system was at risk, including dispatching, if the levy failed.

But just in case there was any doubt, a February 23, 1997 Blade article, "9-1-1 SPELLS QUICK HELP," further clarifies what the system does:

When a call comes in to 911 , an operator obtains necessary information from the caller, decides the priority of the call, then transfers the call by computer to the appropriate emergency dispatch system. Once the local dispatcher receives the emergency request - which takes just seconds after 911 operators obtain the needed information - a police, fire, or rescue crew is sent to respond to the call.

But changes to the system resulted in localized call centers run by the various municipalities. However, as reported in May of 1997, "Each community is to receive about $21,000 annually to help pay for operator salaries...", meaning that levy monies were still paying for dispatching.

In September, 1997, when the suburban call centers went on line, The Blade reported:

The decentralization of the main dispatch center is paid for by a five-year, 0.7-mill levy approved in November.

The levy raises about $4 million annually.

Subsequent reports in the paper over the next two years referenced the point that the suburbs took over paying 911 dispatchers in their own communities. But those news stories fail to mention that the county continued to subsidize those salaries with levy money. It's also important to note that the Lucas County Sheriff dispatchers, which service the townships, were NOT part of the decentralization.

In 1999, the Lucas County Commissioners decided to upgrade and expand the Emergency Services Center on Monroe Street to "put Toledo police call takers and Toledo fire department and Lucas County dispatchers under one roof on the same floor."

In 2000, officials began discussions of the levy's renewal scheduled for 2001. Because of a provision in state law, this renewal was treated as a 'new' levy, taxed at the current property values and generating a bit more money as a result. News reports from 2001 show that the levy would be used to operate and maintain the 911 system. The additional funding would go toward a countywide communications system for public safety personnel. That levy was approved by voters.

In 2006, the levy was up for renewal, but officials wanted a replacement levy - the same millage charged against current property values, resulting in more money for the county. As explained at the time, the funds would continue to support the maintenance and operation of the 911 system and pay for enhanced inter-agency communications among first responders. That levy was also approved by the voters.

So what does this really mean? Over the years, the levies have been advertised as funding the call-takers and dispatchers as well as the maintenance and operation of the system. Even when the county decentralized the dispatching to the suburban cities, they subsidized the salaries of the workers. However, the townships continued to receive dispatching through the Sheriff's dispatchers, funded by levy dollars.

But with time comes increased costs in wages and benefits, along with everything else. Through the years, the funding did not keep up with the costs. New equipment, necessary for today's needs, was purchased and had to be maintained. Which is why the county finds itself in a position of asking - rather, demanding - funds from the townships to pay for costs the levy no longer covers because of decisions made by those same county politicians.

The elected officials have known for years that the increased personnel costs they approved with their votes on union contracts would mean less money for other purposes. With a finite set of money from the levy, the scenario of needing additional money is a no-brainer and easy to predict.

So now the county wants even more funds from certain jurisdictions to cover increased costs the county is responsible for. The Commissioners and Sheriff know that a levy request for such things probably wouldn't go over well. Increasing a levy to cover increased personnel costs when many who would pay the levy haven't seen pay increases or might not even have a job anymore is, well...dumb.

So rather than go after all county residents, they've decided to go after the townships, extorting cash for promised safety.

The townships are right to raise the question of what, exactly, the levy was supposed to pay for versus what it's actually covering. They've got valid reasons to believe dispatching is a service they're already paying for and the township trustees owe it to their taxpayers to ensure they are not double-taxed.

Too bad the Commissioners and Sheriff don't realize the same thing, especially knowing that township residents are their constituents as well.

Charging for Sheriff patrols needs to be uniform

The Lucas County Commissioners and Sheriff James Telb have been meeting with and telling township trustees that they will now have to pay for services from the Sheriff's Department.

I understand the county's desire to collect more revenue for the Sheriff's Department - which habitually overspends and is rarely able to stay within their approved budget.

As a commissioner, I advocated against bailing out the Sheriff when he couldn't meet his budget, but was always on the losing end of that idea. My position was that rewarding his overspending with more funds just encouraged the poor fiscal behavior.

Then there is the general perspective that government should fund its mandates before doing anything else, and if the Sheriff's Department has a mandate to 'preserve the public peace' in the county, then that should receive funding before any 'initiative' that is the fancy of any commissioner.

Comm. Ben Konop has identified several cost saving measures (from a 4-day work week to lowering thermostats in buildings, including privatizing some services), but he wants to use those funds to give some Lucas County residents a 'free' college education (though it wouldn't really be 'free' if they have to 'serve' after graduation). He, and the other commissioners, reject using those cost saving ideas to fund current services - like the Sheriff's patrol in the unincorporated areas of the county.

This is part of the overall expansion of government that many, including me, find so repulsive: available dollars or cost savings are not used to reduce OUR payments to government, but to provide more and more 'services' for some while continuing to expect the same, and often more, funding from the rest of us.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that billing the townships for the services of the Sheriff Department makes sense and is the 'right' thing to do.

Will the Commissioners and Sheriff also charge the City of Toledo? Or is this just a billing of the townships?

The Sheriff has a downtown Toledo patrol car/route that covers many of the county buildings. Around the first of May, at the urging of Konop, the Sheriff agreed to some additional services within Toledo to help with the safety of citizens after the city laid off police officers.

According to the paper at the time, these are some of the arrangements made:

- Deputies who already patrol county buildings will be more available to respond to police calls downtown.

- Toledo Police would get first-in-line status at booking prisoners in the jail to get officers back to the street more quickly.

- Off-duty deputies will be assigned to the schools to replace Toledo police known as "school resource officers" for the rest of the school year. The school districts would pay for the deputies' time.

- Laid-off officers would be deputized so they can continue to earn money "projecting" at supermarkets, baseball games, and concerts. The entities hiring the officers would pay for the uniforms and gear.

- Deputies would attend Block Watch meetings in place of Toledo police officers.

- The sheriff would keep four SWAT team officers on duty to back up Toledo in an emergency.

Some of these have no costs associated with them - but others do, as Telb explained:

"We understand it's a bad situation and we'll do the best we can in the sheriff 's office to do our part to try to make the streets as safe as we can, at very limited cost."

So - if there are 'limited' costs, will Toledo be charged for those costs the same as the townships? And at the same rate?

If the commissioners believe that some jurisdictions should pay for road patrols by the Sheriff, certainly they agree that ALL jurisdictions should be treated the same, and charged the same rate.

I'll be interested to see how much Toledo is charged for the patrols within their limits.

Details on the proposed water agreement

I wanted to post some details about the proposed water agreement between Lucas County and the City of Toledo for supply of water to areas of western Lucas County which don't currently have water.

The agreement was discussed between county and city staff. Despite the fact that it significantly impacts the townships, they were not at the table to provide input. This is a major problem for me, in that their issues and concerns were not even considered.

My second issue is that the BCC has not held any public hearings on this proposal. Staff will tell you that we don't normally do such hearings, but this agreement is so much more restrictive than our current terms that I felt it would have been a good idea to get input from those impacted by our decision. This is why I've scheduled a public meeting to hear from people on Monday at 7 p.m. at the Springfield Township Hall on Angola.

Our current agreement calls for county recipients of Toledo-supplied water to pay the Toledo rates plus a 50% surcharge. The new agreement calls for a 75% surcharge. Additionally, staff has provided the following summary of terms:

Service Area: All of the township area in western Lucas County not in the July 6, 2005 Lucas County and September 9, 2005 Berkey water agreements, subject to restrictions involving the creation of a JEDD in each township.

(A JEDD is a Joint Economic Development District - from Wikipedia: A Joint Economic Development District (JEDD) is an arrangement in Ohio where one or more municipalities and a township agree to work together to develop township land for commercial or industrial purposes. The benefit to the municipality is that they get a portion of the taxes levied in the JEDD without having to annex it. The benefits to the township are that it does not lose prime development land, it can still collect property taxes, and it normally receives water from the municipality, which it may not otherwise have.

To create a JEDD, the municipality and township work together to create a contract. This contract specifies details such as how taxes are levied and shared, annexation prohibitions, and water rates. The communities then vote on the agreement. The issue must pass in each community for the JEDD to be approved.)

Lucas County Obligations: (These obligations also apply to the townships.)
* Adoption of the Fourteen Principles of Smart Growth and accompanying goals promulgated by TMACOG in June, 2003.
* Participation in studies or efforts designed to promote regional cooperation.
* The successful creation of a JEDD in appropriate territory of each township before water is provided to that township.
* Compliance with the Lucas County Land Use Policy Plan update adopted by the Lucas County Planning Commission on September 27, 2000.

Connection restrictions:
* No water in a township that fails to create a satisfactory JEDD. The unapproved modification of a previously created JEDD shall terminate Toledo's obligation to provide water to new customers in that township and shall authorize Toledo to impose the non-contract water rate on that township's existing customers served under this agreement.
* Water available to existing residential structures. No taps larger than one inch permitted unless mutually agreed.
* Water available to new residential structures that comply with the Lucas County Land Use Policy Plan Update adopted by the Lucas County Planning Commission on September 27, 200, only upon prior written approval of Toledo.
* Water available to existing or new commercial or industrial structures only upon prior written approval of Toledo.
* No sanitary sewers can be installed to serve properties receiving Toledo water unless required by a regulatory agency (at which time Toledo can stop new connections to the sewered area).

Water rates: First block Toledo inside rate plus a 75% surcharge.

Term: Agreement shall terminate October 10, 2024.

Some notes:

*"successful creation" of a "satisfactory" JEDD: First, the term 'satisfactory' clearly refers to Toledo's definition of 'satisfactory,' so even if the township trustees are willing to do a JEDD, they may not be willing to adopt Toledo's definition of "satisfactory." Second, 'successful' means that even if township trustees and the city of Toledo reach an agreement, it is subject to a vote of the township - if the voters were to reject such an agreement, no water will be supplied.

* any modification or termination of a JEDD means Toledo will not have to provide water to any new customers and all existing customers will be charged the "non-contract water rate." This is, according to the Toledo Municipal Code 933.02(b) a 100% surcharge.

* Toledo's written approval is needed before water can be supplied to any new residential structures.

* Toledo's written approval is needed before water can be supplied to any EXISTING or new commercial or industrial structure.

* The county will be limited in its ability to provide sewer services to county residents, unless so required by a regulatory agency like the Health Department or the EPA. This means that our existing sewer services cannot be expanded, meaning that any costs of service and maintenance must be born by existing customers and not, over time, spread out among a larger service area.

Some other things within the agreement:

* Standard language exists that if, for any reason, Toledo doesn't have sufficient water, it can limit the water it provides to the county. Under such conditions, the county may seek other sources of water to meet its needs until such time as the water shortage is eliminated.

* The service area is non-exclusive. Even with the agreement, Toledo can still enter into other agreements and provide water directly within the service area.

* Any proposed sewer service shall be submitted to the Plan Commission for their review of whether or not the proposed service is in accordance with the water agreement AND in accordance with the smart growth principles. The Plan Commission must prepare a written report of its findings to Toledo.

* Should any regulatory agency order sanitary sewers to be installed, Toledo may, in its sole discretion, prohibit any or all new service connections to structures that are or could be served by the sanitary sewers.

* Toledo reserves the right to deny water taps to new structures in any area impacted by an AMENDMENT of the adopted Land Use Plan that is enacted without Toledo's written approval. This means that any time a township wants to amend their Land Use Plan, they have to submit the proposed changes to Toledo for their approval - otherwise, Toledo can deny water...

* If there is any unauthorized or ineligible connection, the surcharge increases 5% for each one - and that surcharge is applied to ALL water customers in the service area.

* Toledo has the right to inspect the County's facilities used to provide water in the service area.

* Toledo's Department of Public Utilities must approve all construction or modification plans of the County's facilities to provide water. Toledo can require a feasibility report prior to granting such approval.

* Toledo's Department of Public Utilities must approve all the County's plans and specifications for the construction of any improvement within the service area. Only after such approval has been granted can the County take bids and begin construction.

* Construction standards must be in accordance with Toledo's standards at the time, and Toledo has the authority to inspect all work.

* Not only does Toledo have the right to negotiate agreements directly within the service area, Toledo also has the right to use the County's lines within the service area, subject to a charge for the actual operation and maintenance costs, for the purpose of supplying water to its customers inside or outside the service area, provided such use does not impair the service to Lucas County.

* This new agreement expires on the same date as the County's existing water agreement for everyone else within the jurisdiction. It is expected that any new agreement at that time will seek to impose the terms of this newly proposed agreement upon everyone else.

* A miscellaneous term: The parties will cooperate to attract state development aid, federal funds and employment training dollars to their jurisdictions. In addition, the parties agree to support state legislation that facilities tax-sharing arrangements between political subdivisions and which permits the use of water funds for economic development purposes.

I believe that this agreement is clearly in Toledo's best interest, and I have no objection to them hoping to get such terms. But this agreement is not in the County's best interest, in terms of the restrictions it places upon the County for provision of sewer services as well as the requirment that County lines can be used (only at cost - not any surcharge) should Toledo decide it wants to provide water directly to an entity within our jurisdiction.

I will wait for the public meeting Monday to see if the townships think the agreement is in their best interests, or if loss of autonomy is too high a price to pay for water from Toledo.