Board of Trustees - Regular Meeting

Saying the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Union Township Board of Trustees special meeting agenda December 15, 2025, 6 PM. Mr. Campbell, let the record show all three trustees are present. This is a public hearing for item one, Union Township Resolution 2025-72, resolution levying a permissive motor vehicle license tax of $5.00 00 pursuant to Ohio Revised Code section 45504.1812 provide revenue for the repair, maintenance, and construction of township roads. Everyone likes their township roads paved.

[snorts] Public hearing regarding the adoption of proposed Union Township Resolution 2025-72 leving additional annual license tax in the amount of $5 upon the operation of motor vehicles on the public roads and highways in the unincorporated territory of the township for any uh authorized purpose as permitted pursuant to to section 45504.181 of the highrise code. The proposed effective date for the collection of such additional license tax is January 1st, 2027. Um, Mr. Wright, do we have uh anything to present on this or do we want to just go ahead and open it to public?

So, I would point everybody to the presentation that we made um at the meeting on the 9th that talked about the road roadway pavement cycle, all of that. kind of the first review of that and kind of what we've done and what we continue to do and where we are. Um just a couple of common reference points here. So, um you know, now road resurfacing is about $200,000 a mile. We do save money with the county paving program. Neighboring peer communities are on a blended uh about a 15 to uh 17ear uh cycle. uh we have made really good progress, but we are dipping into reserves to do it or utilizing uh uh one-time funds to sort of bring the roads up to snuff as they say. And um we are going to continue to burn our reserves if we do not allocate additional revenues and secure additional revenues to that because I and I I think Mr. Taylor I think we were talking it was not too long ago it was $100,000 a land mile. Now it's 200. Is that correct? And so, you know, with that, again, everything's more expensive. Um, things cost more. It's really, this is probably the least expensive option that we have available to raise additional revenues. approximately 55,000 to 56,000 registered vehicles in the township to generate approximately 275,000 to 280,000 annually which will go straight into the uh permissive tax fund which is used exclusively for for road resurfacing efforts. Um $5 a plate versus uh a one mill tax levy. A one mill tax levy would cost uh $200,000 home $70 per year approximately. one mill in Union Township generates around $35 per 100% market appraised value. Uh so that so that would be a much more

significant collection. However, this gets us to where we can do this uh and be able to spend uh basically uh a more appropriate amount out of uh the permissive tax. Um and just a couple of things and I I really didn't talk about this. People talk about property taxes and they talk about, you know, um what what does your money go for? So, if you look at a traditional tax bill in West Claremont, you know, if you look at that, the bulk of the taxes go uh to the schools. And then of the remaining taxes, you know, for residential property, about 56.35 mills is the effective rate. You're looking at 21% of the total tax bill goes to the township. And then of that millillage, 85% of that is devoted exclusively to public safety. And I actually put this in an email to a person that contacted us about the u license plate fees and all of that. So if you think of that, of that 21% 85% of that is devoted exclusively to public safety. Those are your police and fire levies. That means we have 15% to do everything else. So I don't know what you know 15% of 21% is about I think you know somebody might have to check me on my math but I think it's like three and a half%. And so these types of taxes or not taxes or plate fees user fees are ways for us to raise revenue that don't impact just property tax owners. That's really it.

All right. Thank you. It sounds like uh again most efficient and effective method to fund adequately or more in a conservative approach uh fund the pavement program with user fees. So okay uh gentlemen public hearing. So um like to have a motion to open the public hearing. So moved. Second. Roll call. Mr. Dills? Yes. Mr. Becker? Yes. Mr. Logan? Yes. Public hearing is opened at 6:05 p.m.

Okay. Are there any proponents of this um public hearing for Union Township Resolution 2025-72 leving a permissive motor vehicle license user fee of $5. Are there any opponents? Not to make it awkward, but just you two. All right. Uh gentlemen at this time seeing no proponents. Seeing no opponents uh entertain a motion to close the public hearing for Union Township Resolution 2025-22. Second. Roll call. Mr. Dills. Yes. Mr. Becker. Yes. Mr. Lo.

Yes. The public hearing is closed at 6:06 p.m. Okay. Gentlemen, open up for board comments. Um Mr. deals. You have uh any comments, concerns? Have you heard from residents? I personally have not heard from residents of any concern on a user fee for paving their roads. I do hear that they like their roads paved and we've done a great job accelerating the pavement program.

Um I had I had two two guys that I know uh call me ask me what it was about. um when I explained it to him, broke it down like oh makes sense, you know, basically in much more layman's terms than what Mr. Wright just did. And uh uh but uh basically, yeah, so uh my view is um you know, I've I've got uh well, now that I have my daughter's vehicle, I have five vehicles. Um two company, I have a spare vehicle, I have my Harley, now I got my daughter's vehicle. It's five vehicles. 25 bucks a year that I'll be paying. um I don't have a problem with it and uh uh and it'll go directly towards the roads. Basically, we're talking about a cup of coffee per vehicle that you own per year. That's that's what we're looking at. Compared to Mr. Wright and where he lives at, you know, he pays $70 a year for based off his roads levy tax. So, um and I nobody likes their property taxes going up. So, I think this is a more than fair and reasonable to get over uh another lane mile paid per year. So, and another argument is, you know, Mr. Right, we do about on average on average for, let's say, the past five to 10 years. We average about 700ish, thousands is what we spend every year ballpark.

So, if you look at our expenses, if you average it from 2020 to 2025, um, you know, you're probably looking at last year's anomaly. Last year was a million, the year before was a million7, but you had ARPA money. Yeah, that was anomaly. Yeah. So, I mean, we're we're trying to bump that up

to be in this seven. I mean, and again, if our economic development efforts continue to mature and some other things fall into place, there's ways to throw excess revenues to that. And we have done that as Mr. Campbell knows. And we've also through the pavement program, the savings we achieve with the county, we've been able to multiply that and add additional roads for the cost that we budget. So we look at we are we we under we we overturn every rock to do as much as we can because it's important. It's you know roads are as important as public safety.

That's why we've paved more roads road miles as a board than I think any at least board in recent history. So it's great to be able to pave that pave the roads with you guys. So So my thoughts are um I'm going to pose this question to to both of you. I think Uh based off what you've already said, uh you're probably in favor of it. Mr. Becker, uh one one question I'm going to ask you is if you're against this is um which is fine. I I don't mind if you're against it, but my question would be uh what's a solution? What's another solution? Because 700,000 year over year over year is what we've been paying for our roads. Uh labor has gone up, materials have gone up. So if you're a no vote then my question I have a few more questions for you but my one question would be no problem that's fine same whenever have any zoning case and I've got we've got residents that are against it I always ask them hey you could be against it but tell me a solution you know um if you know whenever I have company meetings my employees have gripes or complaints or something uh that's fine you could have a grip or complaint but are you bringing a solution to the table um and and so that would be my one question but um yeah we have I 700,000 every year and labor material goes up and if the cost is still if we're stay maintaining the same amount of dollars spent then um we're not getting as much done so we need to offset that it's all I got

Mr. Becker comments.

Well, uh, I've been hearing from the public. Uh, most of the people who are verbalizing an opinion, this is on social media, are opposed to the increase. I think a lot of it has to do with, you know, there's a lot of people out there just opposed to any kind of taxers or increases across the board without regard to the need or the purpose. So, that's part of it. also part of it. Of course, you got a lot of people that live paycheck to paycheck where unlike the rest of us up here, you know, $5 is a real sacrifice for them. Um, so, you know, that's part of it. Also, I guess you know what what I'm confused about, and this goes back to, and you know where this this is going, guys. This goes back to the money we spent on the parks last summer. I specifically said we should put that money into the roads and I was told we don't need the money for the roads. Now, you know, Mr. Ray here has made a very compelling argument, but I'm still confused. I'm hearing a compelling argument for the roads. Makes good sense to me. And last summer, I heard a compelling argument that we didn't need the money for the roads. So, I'm sitting here confused, frankly.

All right. All right. Well, there's 133 miles of road and we have got to work on improving the pavement schedule and we have been doing that and we've been also at the same rate taking care of other things in the township that are uh not well funded to where it is um be akin to you having a house and not taking care of it. And that's not a very good st conservative principle. you've got to take care and maintain things. And so, you may have been against uh parks. Um we're not here to talk about the parks, I guess, tonight. We're here to talk about the roads. Um we understand that you're no vote on parks. Um that's fine. Uh, I do know that we've we have made funding and significant improvements to, let's say, Cleer Park by selling one of the township parks to TQL for whatever brought in about a million.2 and it was able to be repurposed and refunded directly into the the park improvements. Um, so yeah, occasionally a township does need to spend money on maintaining other amenities in the community that are good for the community. and what I fundamentally view as familyfriendly activities that get people out as we've heard from your friends that came here and presented on us for mental health uh uh levies uh that I know you're fully supportive of the mental health levy in Claremont County uh for preventative measures. Um those are the things too that I have issues with. I agree with you. I agree with you. you know, something countywide going to raise three and a half million dollars uh for preventative and they want a more increased preventative program for everybody to to have something mental health preventative. I'd like to just fix the roads. I'd like to fix our infrastructure so we on the same page.

Um so with that being said, I don't know if there is a significant solution that I'm hearing. Um, I don't know if there's a position that you're a yes or a no on the on the user fee. Um, well, any other comments or concerns? Yep. Okay. Any other comments, concerns, please? Mr. Beer, if we didn't do the parks last year, would you say you'd be a yes on this tonight?

It'd be a lot easier to justify, I guess. You know what? I have a So, it's like, you know, if you have, you know, a child that uh, you know, you don't approve of the way he's spending money for whatever the reason is, and he comes to you for more money, what's dad going to say? Hey, you should have thought about that before. You made your own bed. Now you have to lay in it. That's what I That's what I was told. I was a kid. Okay. And uh, so, um, if we vote this down tonight, do you have another solution?

Uh, we'll we'll have to see how it goes. Again, I'm, you know, I'm I'm just confused whether the need is is real or not based on what I heard last summer. And and I I guess it it I guess I don't have [sighs] the the gumption, if you will, to go to the taxpayer or go to the motorists and say, you know, we need more money for the roads even though we just spent all this money on parks to replace perfectly good playground equipment.

So the uh that park was about 100 grand and then 275. I'm just using easy numbers here. It's about we're talking about three years ballpark. Uh a little over three years of this additional paving program. So what would you do in three years then? What would you do now if we didn't do the parks? Well, we could revisit this in three years. And then do you have another solution between now and the next three years? No, no, no. Do do you have another solution today to bring to the table since we're openly talking about it now? If we don't do this now, what is another solution that you have? I I don't know that there's a problem.

Again, I'm confused by that. So, I by the way, for I never said there was a problem. I said there when we did the parks, uh it's a 20-year warranty. So, basically, when we're long gone, for the next 20 years, the township ain't going to have to worry about either one of those parks. Um and uh um you know, I I don't regret my decision at all. Uh the parks when I when I when I [snorts] got elected and I said, I'm going to take care of the parks. That's one of my top three goals. And damn it, I made it happen. We made it happen. But we made it happen. I should say, Mr. Mr. Logan, I made it happen. And uh um we did it. I made it crystal clear and uh and I mean I won election. I won re-election. So did you. But I made it clear I've taken care of the parks and get them redone. So that was no secret there at all. Um and and uh and you've seen the parks. It's pretty packed. We now have a bad problem. Good bad problem. We got to we got to have a bigger parking lot because helicopter park is too packed. So assuming [clears throat] there is a problem, my question you keep throwing it out there to hear. If the answer is no, the answer is no. if that's your answer. [snorts] But do you have another solution to help fund the roads for today, tomorrow, in the future?

Well, you know, Mr. Dills, I remember you running on that u as part of your campaign to improve the parks. I remember that. You might also remember that I ran on a campaign of fiscal conservatism.

I never mentioned spending money on anything, frankly, except well, paying down debt is is really what I what I wanted to see any excess funds go to. That's not frankly it's not an expense but it's it's a use of the funds. So um in keeping with fiscal conservatism as I ran and as we both won and got reelected I can't justify the spending that we've been doing and I can't justify a fee increase because of that spending that had occurred. But I get your point about well you know what about three years from now and we can revisit this issue sometime in the future.

So no I just no solution on the table you're offering. I'm not offering any any alternative. There's 60 acres at Clever Park. Do you want to sell some of that acreage? No. I'm just looking for solutions out of you. Okay. We're on the same page there. I would want to sell either last. So no. Okay. And then last question I have is um how long are you going to keep bringing this up? How long are we gonna keep talking about higher taxes and higher fee cases? So So that's the only time I bring it up. So this year, next year, whatever. If we have to vote on something, um are you going to keep throwing in our face that we redid the parks? I'm just curious. Is this is it the point?

What are we going to be voting on? Anything. A number of things the township has has a lot of operating this year. like are are we are how long are we going to keep hearing about the parks? So So basically, you're kind of punishing the roads, you're kind of punishing Mr. Taylor's department, you're kind of punishing the residents who would like more roads done based off a vote that me and Mr. Lo did last year, which by the way, both parks are flatout packed when it's not when it's not snowing outside. So how much more longer are we going to just say, "Hey, there's a vote we got to do in in six months from now that comes up. I don't know what it is. Fill in the blank, but Mr. Becker's probably going to be a no vote because Mr. Logan I uh voted for helicopter park. How much longer we have to hear that argument from you,

Mr. Dills? We have voted on a number of tiffs. We have voted on a number of jets. I didn't bring up the Just one Jet for Children's Hospital, but because I'm I'm systematically against jets. Well, tonight T tonight's about the roads and we're talking about parks. Didn't we do didn't we do pot shop, Chad? Apologies. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Stay correct. I thought there was more than correct. So, no, I didn't I didn't bring it up for for It's that same physical conservatism that you're referencing though like why you did not support the fire department with a fire truck when that was needed, right? Were you not a no vote on that? You voted no on it.

Oh, that was on fire. That was on the package that that was an entire package that included the firetruck. I verbally supported the firetruck. I remember you were no you were a no vote on the fire truck. So, you can't really say that you supported something if you voted no for it. Okay. So, what's the plan here? Do you guys want to browbeat me into a into a yes vote? It's not going to work. No, no, no, no, no. We understand that you don't have a a solution or a yes vote on this. That's fine. I don't want to fall on the road. Yes, you do. And then, you know, hand me this crap about voting no on a firet truck. That's You know it. You did vote no on it. I vote no on the package. I verbally supported the fire truck. Question. Did you vote yes or no? I voted no on a package.

That's like this happens. This happens in the general assemblies in the Congress Congress like every day. There's poison pills and there's reasons for people to vote no. Sometimes they vote no on good stuff. Sometimes they vote yes on bad stuff. You have to look at an entire package and take it take it as is. And we've se we've we've separated stuff before for you to vote no on specific lines. Completely understand. And had we done it on that particular vote, I would have been a yes on the fire. I believe I offered you that that night. I think your reason for voting no on the fire truck was you keep saying that when I verbally supported the fire truck. Verbally or voted?

I verbally supported it. We went down the list item by item. I said I like this. I like this. I like it. Most everything on there. I don't remember what all was on there. I think it was two or three items I could not support. You as chairman decided we're going to take this whole thing up as a package. As a package. The answer was no. That's why I voted. No, I read you if you wanted to pull it out. I'm fairly certain. I'm fairly certain because that had been the precedent. We'd been pulling things out for you. Oh, well, you know, maybe we should go back and look at the tape. It's all good, guys. I just I just want to have a good I just want to have a good precedent for what your interest is and what you want to support. You got my answer.

Mr. Becker, I'm not trying to bow breach you, but I had a feeling you were going to be a no vote. And so, I had these two questions in my mind and and and I think I think they're valid questions. All good. Do you have another solution? And how long how long are you because how long are you going to hold the park's decision over our heads? And I think those are good questions. You call it browbeating. I I don't think it is. I'm not trying to browbeat you, Mr. Becker. I'm I'm honestly surprised that the interaction because

you could argue, hey, we're being fiscally responsible. I could argue that the parks are pitiful. My kids hated it. And I don't ever go to the Veterans Park at all anymore. I go to Betavia Township and Julius Park now. I go to our parks because they're a heck of a lot better. And I would also argue for the next 20 years, what's that park going to cost for the next 20 years? A heck of a lot more than it is today. Uh so, um case of trying to more conservative up here, you know.

So, so my two questions were, hey, I'm okay with no votes. I It's okay. It's all good. When residents come up here, I you can say, do I browbe them? When they say I'm against this development, say it's okay. Give me a solution, though. You don't like this? Tell me what you do want. Oh, so are you a heck no or do you have a do you have a solution? Like you know that that last case that we heard, hey, what if we put your own fencing up? What if we put your own mountains up? What if we your own you know nomo zone up? Uh do you have any sol or any compromise at all? So my question was it's very simple is do you have you're a no. Cool. How how else would you come up with 275 grand uh for helping pave the roads? And my other follow-up question which is I think fair and reasonable is How are you going to keep beating our brow beat us over this park vote, which I think was a great vote. But even if you don't think it's a great vote, that's fine. How much more longer are we have to hear about it? And and are you going to punish further votes based off something that we did that we feel like was a great thing? And I got to tell you, the township is killing it over there. So, any other solutions? And and how long are you going to browbeat us over the park vote?

Well, Mr. D, that is a good question. And frankly, I thought about that before this meeting. And what I recall was when I was in the general assembly, we did something called Medicaid expansion. Okay? I voted no on that. And that was I believe it was built into that. I don't remember which year that was or which general assembly. It was built into the budget and that was a big sticking point because that Medicaid expansion there was a lot of reasons to vote no on that. In the next general assembly, I remember asking myself really the same question you're asking me tonight. Do I go am I going to vote no on every budget bill for as long as I'm a state representative? And if I was going in the state senate, you know, another eight years, I mean, you know, who knows how long I could actually be up there. Am I going to vote no every time because Medicaid expansions in the budget? And what I concluded was the answer was no. And I think at the last budget that I was up there, I did vote for it and it did include the Medicaid expansion. So the answer is to your question, Mr. D, and that's a fair question. I don't know how long, you know, so that was this vote we're talking about is in the term that's expiring the end of this month. January starts a new term. So, if history is a guide based on what I did in the general assembly, you probably won't be hearing about it again this next term. But legislation I take on a case by case basis. We'll see.

You have my word unless it's a cute little funny jab. I'm good with JS. I will not I will not pick on you for voting down on the parks. Yeah. Because I think it was a bad decision. But you have my word. If I do, it would just be like, "Oh, you're enjoying the park, Mrs. Jones." Do you hear that, Mr. record. I'm glad people enjoy the part. All good. No worries. Uh Mr. L, I think we're ready for the call.

Uh I have one question. Thank you. Um and it may I may need to hear from Corey or Lisa. Uh but as we did the public posting of this, do we have negative feedback from the community that you received? I'm hearing about Mr. Becker's um next door neighborhood app and negative feedback that he's soliciting there. But had did the township actually receive?

I so I don't I didn't look at our Facebook comments or whatever and I couldn't speak to that. Um but um I received one I think maybe one email from a concerned resident on Deer Valley which ironically was the benefactor of a resurfacing effort this year.

Um so uh I found it that just a little bit of irony or whatever, but it was a very nice it was it was a very nice email. but was not um uh curt or um uh kind of antagonistic. It was just, you know, everybody has different opinions on spending priorities and uh we had an exchange and then and that's in the record and the board had a copy of that or whatever. And I don't know, I mean, I guess I could ask Miss R about how many comments did we have on the postings? It wasn't an over abundance and it wasn't um all negative either. Some of it was more um if we our opinion, will they really listen to our vote? Um

and then some tagging, but it was more questions like, okay, how much will this impact? Will this cost the same throughout the years? They wanted more questions and that's why we put together that PowerPoint presentation to kind of fill in the community. For reference, how many survey responses have we got on the trash aggregation thing? Just to give a comparable. I over 100. Okay. So, we've gotten a much bigger response from the aggregation trash. Probably they're in favor of it, right? I don't know. But I'm I'm not even going to get into that. But but for a comparative analysis purpose, it you probably have a seven to 10 to one

comparable. We really didn't hear a lot. We didn't get a lot of phone calls. I got a an email. Um I think the majority of the responses are probably would you say next door or yeah? Well, you know, yeah, next door. The majority are clearly anti uh which opposed to this. I can't tell people enough. It's like if you're going to take the time to put your concerns in the record, send them in an email to us. Send use the website. Put them put them on the record. I mean, you know, we we don't operate on next door, you know, we operate in the public in the public view here. Yeah.

And I think I mean, I know you're on there a lot, but but if they don't email me, I I don't I don't have a record of So, and we have several ways to engage. We've had this open for several weeks. Websites, emails. You got Yeah, we followed all the all the notification process and all that. Website, email, phone call. I mean, people can get to me pretty easy. It's a it's a 752-1741 and ask to speak with me and that's it. I mean, it's it's, you know, and no proponents here tonight. No opponents here tonight. No, we have two people.

Okay. Well, I'm glad that the information has been out there in the public domain to solicit and hear feedback and concerns from residents. And again, yeah, I know people overwhelmingly are supportive to have their roads paved, and that's why I applaud Mr. Becker and Mr. Dills for supporting such robust repaving programs. Uh, I don't want to go back to one mile a year for 133 miles to maintain. I I I liked how last year was nearly what, 10 full miles. and um you know that's it's it's all been great steps. So um that is I think Mr. Wright you got into a lot about fire safety uh safety services police where our costs go or operating costs roads are obviously something to be significant um and he referenced uh I believe funding the local government as TIFFs and Jed, which I have a hard time with, frankly, from one sense too because as a fiscal conservative, I want the local residents to determine how they want to fund their government. So, I like to give them a voice in the matter. Um, and sometimes when the government just takes that push for tiffs and Jeds, um, it is tough because we're basically not giving the public, uh, the opportunity to choose how they want to fund their local government. We're subsidizing it, uh, for them. And I know that there's a lot of I don't know if you get the questions, Joe, John, I don't if you get the questions, but um I know that there's always a need for more transparency on tiffs and the actual impact that that has for the rest of the

county. Um because there is a there is a philosophy or theory uh that it may be well supported by data, it may not be. Um, I'd be happy to hear it that when we pass tiffs here in Union Township that it actually raises taxes for other residents in Claremont County when you look at the whole county. So, it's, you know, we as a board, we're focused on Union Township. We have to be. That's what we do. But legislating, governing, it's complex, right? And sometimes you have a vote. Sometimes you have a vote on a park. It makes some people happy, it makes other people not happy. Um, that's just the nature of of this uh representational uh government. So,

I think it's uh it's 42 cents per month per plate and I think when you go to renew your license, you're not even going to think twice. It's a cup of coffee a year. Is a blessing to have a car. All right, Mr. Becker, any final comments? Nope. All right. roll [snorts] call, please. No, you gota Did you introduce the resolution? Oh, uh for No, we got to Sorry, we got to close the

board comments. We'll go to new business. So, new business item two, resolution 2025-72. Um, entertain a motion to approve resolution leving the permissive motor vehicle license uh tax of $5 pursuant to higher revised code section 404.181 to provide revenue for repair, maintenance, and construction of township roads. So moved. Second. Roll call. Mr. Dills. Yes. Mr. Becker. No. Mr. Lo. Yes. Motion carries. Just for the record, it's 454.181. 45504.181. Yes, sir.

To support pavement program in Union Township. Yes. All right, gentlemen. We have a motion for a journ. So moved. Second. Roll call. Mr. Dills. Yes. Mr. Becker. Yes. Mr. Logan. Yes. We'rejourn at 6:33 p.m.