Editor:

With the recent arrest of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on alleged federal corruption charges, the culture of deceit, lies and bribery in Albany has been brought further into the public spotlight.

It is unfortunate that a few members of the legislature refuse to follow the rules and fall victim to money and power. Scandals such as these bring a pejorative perception to the already tainted Albany culture and make it difficult for the rest of us who truly want to do what is best for all New Yorkers.

If the recent news regarding Speaker Silver has demonstrated anything, it is that we need ethics reforms in Albany now more than ever. It goes against the very function of our government to have a single person hold as much power as Sheldon Silver.

Silver has omnipotent control over which bills come before the Assembly for a vote and how taxpayer funds are used. The length of time Silver has been in office, more than 20 years, has allowed him to accumulate significant wealth and power. Now we have discovered that much of his wealth and power allegedly was either illegally obtained or used to promote his own private interests.

If we are to truly reform Albany’s culture of corruption, we need to pass the Public Officers Accountability Act. I sponsored this legislation last legislative term, along with almost all of my Assembly Minority colleagues, because I know that abuses of power such as these should be handled proactively.

This legislation limits the time a member of the legislature can serve as a committee chair or legislative leader to eight years, bans elected officials from future employment for certain felony convictions, and requires the return of campaign funds to donors or charities upon certain felony convictions. Furthermore, I sponsored Assembly Bill 4935 of 2014 that proposes stripping pension and retirement benefits from public officials convicted of certain felonies.

Until these bills are taken up for a vote, we are leaving the door open for further abuses of power and theft from the public coffers. The last thing we need is career politicians who have lost interest in benefiting their constituencies in exchange for padding their own pockets and ensuring their own re-election.

The only way to handle serious ethics violations is with a serious ethics reform bill, and the Public Officers Accountability Act provides a plethora of reforms that will prevent these abuses before they happen again.

State Assemblyman Steve Hawley
Batavia

Editor:

In regards to the veterans’ exemption for school taxes (click here), shame on the NYS Department of Veterans Affairs Director, the Governor, and our local representatives for allowing this to happen. (Click here to see “Medina schools leaning towards tax exemption for veterans.”)

When we elect our representatives to office we expect them to have moral courage among other things. This NYS legislation demonstrates a lack of moral courage on the part of our elected officials in Albany by shifting the burden of decision-making and funding on this issue to local officials and community members.

As prior military, disabled and a veteran, I, by NYS definition, qualify for this benefit. However, how can I in good conscience accept it? Besides, the reduction in school tax is most likely offset by a rise in fees in other areas – so it’s a shell game in my opinion. My point, and the intent of this letter, is to put the spotlight on the weak-minded decision-making on this particular issue that did not consider the impact of decisions at the local level.

It is further dividing communities and is further driving a wedge between the voters and all veterans. Remember, approximately 0.45 percent of population served post 9/11 that is “damn few” as we know it in veteran circles. In this case, the tax relief being directed by NYS law puts pressure on local communities to provide an unfunded (non state reimbursed and designed to reduce current state funded school STAR credits) tax break to gold star survivors, combat, and disabled vets.

To use veterans and gold star survivors as a method to lessen the reimbursement of STAR tax credits to schools is a flat out disgrace. The winner is NYS – not the veterans nor gold star survivors nor even non-veterans. This is shameful, cowardly, and just plain weak can’t the NYS Veteran’s Affairs Committee find ways to trim the NYS budget to fund this? Why the shell game to reduce school tax reimbursables to school districts?

Why hide behind veterans? If my neighbors are saddled with deciding on this tax break for me without the prospect of a break for themselves then I’d have to decline it. Again, the burden of shame belongs with the director of the NYS Department of Veteran Affairs, the NYS Veteran Affairs Committee, our assemblymen and women, our senators, and our governor.

I can only speak for myself and say that I will again shoulder my share of the task 100 percent and then some. So, how about this: increase my school taxes to help fund rising NYS education costs by the percentage of my disability etc. The greater cynic would ask, “Why trim waste when you can set veterans benefits in conflict with voters, force local districts into an ethical quandary, and then benefit either way the decision is made?” This is a disturbing trend that is trickling down from other federal efforts.

The director of NYS Veterans Affairs and the NYS Veterans Affairs Committee should have looked deeper with regard to the social impact of this law on local school districts.

Regards,

Steve Bunch
Medina

Editor:

When County Legislator George Bower retired, the Nursing Home experience he had left with him. In my second term, it is not a stretch to say that he was the only legislator who knew the operation fairly well.

Now what? Legislator Lynne Johnson congratulated her fellow legislators at the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Luncheon on the sale of the County Nursing Home. She called it “a job well done.” “The sale of the nursing home takes the pressure off. We can rebuild our bridges and culverts.” Was she saying that we could not have rebuilt them otherwise? (Click here to “Legislature leader says selling nursing home one of county’s best decisions.”)

Yes, Lynne, the Orleans County Nursing Home just got privatized (January 1, 2015). Taxpayers may be interested to know that at any point during our operation of the publicly owned County Nursing Home at least $2 million in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement was owed them. That would have been the case on Dec. 31, 2014. It would not surprise me if that was news to some of our current legislators.

Here is the $2 million question: Now that the taxpayer-created Orleans County Nursing Home has been handed over to a private operator, who is seeing to it that the millions owed the taxpayers will end up in county coffers? Do we still have county employees pursuing reimbursement and accounts receivable? Or has the new owner been contracted to do it for us? And when will the final accounting take place?

It seems to me that taxpayers get information about the ongoing operation of Orleans County on a need-to-know basis. For example, were taxpayers ever told what the facility housing the County Nursing Home, Board of Elections, Public Health and unused storage space was appraised for? Why not? Was it an oversight? In the absence of any real accountability, why would taxpayers need to know that anyway?

Did the deal to sell the County Nursing Home for $7.8 million include the right of the new operator to recover $2 million in delayed reimbursement owed the taxpayers? Do we have a contract with them to do so on our behalf? Is that something we need to know? Is it more, or less, important than giving the taxpayers an appraisal of the County Nursing Home property before selling it for $7.8 million?

The theory the County Legislature operates on is one akin to “Ignorance is bliss.” After all, it was proven conclusively in 2013 that a majority of taxpayers either do not pay attention to truth, or cannot handle it when they hear it.

Your County Legislature has been reassured that it can do whatever it pleases. That is our “bad,” and the fact that Lynne Johnson thinks selling the County Nursing Home was a splendid accomplishment does not make it one.

Sincerely yours,

Gary F. Kent
Albion

Mr. Kent is a former Orleans County legislator.

Editor:

During the discussion on the Medina dissolution and even now that the referendum has been defeated, I hear the leaders of the various communities talk about Shared Services as a way to reduce costs.

Personally I see Shared Services as proof that you have too many bosses – one boss loaning equipment and workers to another boss tells me you have too many bosses.

Also, I don’t understand why some folks think that with dissolution they will “LOSE THEIR COMMUNITY.” My thoughts on this are if lines on a map define your community maybe you don’t have the community you thought you did.

And if you really want to save some money you should be discussing merging all three governments of Shelby, Medina and Ridgeway into one. Then maybe some real cost savings could be found.

I completely understand why dissolution is hard because change is hard especially when you have community leaders who aren’t united in the process.

John Beckingham
Holley

Editor:

Finally someone has answered the question regarding calls answered outside the Village by the MPD. Thank you! (Click here to see “Shall the Village of Medina, NY, vote to dissolve?”)

The entire piece is exceptional reporting! It really tells the story without the emotion of those involved.

I think that you have taken no sides. There are many points you raised that I also have posted in my own musings on Facebook.

When I vote on Tuesday, I will take the route you suggested, try to do it together one more time. Four years is an eternity and most of today’s players will no longer be involved. In the mean time we should all work closer together with our village government. We all need to be more involved in our future and look for ways to invigorate our village, not just downtown, but the entire village!

I would hope that village unions will offer some act of good faith to help in the near future, that the county will see the light with sales tax, and Albany will rethink the fate of rural NY.

I also on Tuesday will not hold any ill will for those who passionately feel dissolution is a step to the future! Only good and honest people would try such a bold step. There is merit in the concept. It is simply not the right place or time!

Thank you Orleans Hub, once again, for your contribution to providing a source of news in Orleans County. I also wish to add a side note to Orleans Radio for their recent contribution. I see a bright future for this endeavor also!

Dayton Hausman
Medina

Editor:

The debate has been ongoing, contentious at times, and a necessary part of the democratic process. Anyone who has followed the coverage of the dissolution of the Village of Medina knows that there are no easy answers or a neat road map to a destination. One thing is clear: Not all entities have invested the time or effort to inform the public.

I would like to thank Tom Rivers, editor of The Hub; Howie Balaban, former Journal-Register reporter; and Jim Krencik of The Daily News in Batavia. As part of the democratic process, information and transparency are necessary and expected in the gathering of facts.

When Mr. Rivers and Mr. Balaban were labeled as biased by Town of Ridgeway officials, I offered them an apology as this assault on their professionalism did not sit well with me. When efforts to gather facts (FOIL requests) and report accordingly are ignored or openly thwarted, every person depending on unbiased media coverage is DENIED freedom of the press. We still, I think, live in a democracy.

Similarly, when an email was circulated several months ago by a Town of Ridgeway official directing numerous demeaning, derogatory comments at the mayor of Medina, I once again stated that this unprofessional leadership did not represent many Ridgeway residents. Civility and cooperation have not been forthcoming from some elected officials.

It has been alleged that the dissolution committee was not representative of the entire area. I would counter that by simply saying you will be hard put to find a more ethical, fair-minded individual than Chairman Don Colquhoun. He and his committee were faced with a Herculean task and met it with open minds and deliberative purpose. I trust that they did their homework, researched and drew conclusions based on factual information.

One would hope this was the case based on cooperation from other entities! Thank you to this committee as I know firsthand how thankless volunteer service can be at times. Your desire to help find ways to improve, or perhaps even save, our area is appreciated.

After reading, researching and trying to stay informed, one issue remains overwhelmingly frustrating for me, especially after attending the theatrical performance Wednesday evening at the high school. Why are the taxpayers forced to pay for a PR person to orchestrate what should be open dialogue between citizens and elected officials?

As is my usual practice when attending a meeting, I prefer to stand in the back. This vantage point opens an amazing assessment of the dynamics of the event. So I have a few questions that result from my viewing of the event. (The event was billed as a Q & A.)

Why did our elected officials surrender their responsibilities to a PR person, failing to speak openly throughout the process rather than at a staged event? Were their prepared statements written by each individual or the PR person?

Why were the little slips of paper containing questions turned over to the PR person in the back, edited and then given to another person for further review?

Why were the men with the microphones directed, by the PR person, to certain members of the audience?

Why did the men with the microphones totally ignore one individual in particular? Was it because this individual would have opposing views? (This individual moved three times, visibly trying to be recognized and finally succeeded.)

Why were individuals who had supporting comments allowed to read lengthy statements while others were cut off?

And Why, when no announcement was made by the moderator, was a seated member of the audience told by the PR individual NOT to video the proceedings? The out-of-town TV personnel were tripping over their camera tripods videotaping throughout the meeting and yet the PR person had the authority to tell a member of the community not to do so!

My observations of this event is it was staged, manipulated, a waste of taxpayer money, and saddest of all our elected officials see the need to talk through a hired representative rather than doing their job of personally representing their constituents.

As a resident of the Town of Ridgeway for nearly all my life having been raised in the village, now a rural resident, I believe this affords me at least a reasonable perspective of what this way of life has meant to me. My husband and I currently pay taxes on a home and 78 acres. Previously, we farmed several hundred acres. I understand the different lifestyles and value each.

However, in today’s world survival may be measured by an ability to see the bigger picture, looking beyond policies which once worked or dwelling on territorial enclaves.

This is best done when people are represented by elected officials who do just that: represent – not a paid PR individual who, in my opinion, just may have orchestrated more divisiveness than unity.

Our community of Medina, Ridgeway and Shelby deserves better. It could be ONE when open minds work together.

Maureen Blackburn
Town of Ridgeway resident

Editor:

If dissolution and consolidation made sense, and a good plan was put together, I would be the first one out there promoting it. The dissolution plan does not do that.

I cannot stand behind a plan that is blatantly incorrect. Whether you like me or not, or the stance the towns have taken on this, I have to stand by what I know to be right. The dissolution plan is not worth the paper it is written on and every board member in Shelby and Ridgeway is in full agreement.

Our community is being torn apart due to one man’s agenda, his combativeness, pride, refusal to acknowledge the towns and the concept that we might have better ways to reduce taxes for our constituents, without dividing a community.

We were told this week that “hiring a media consultant is what rich people do when they are trying to hide the truth” but I stand by all of our decisions and hiring our consultant, with deep roots in the area, is what real people do when they need the truth to come out and they aren’t getting a fair shake.

If villagers enjoy their level of services, especially fire, ambulance and police protection, you should VOTE NO to dissolution because I cannot guarantee you will be able to enjoy them as you do now, if the village is dissolved.

I’m no attorney. I’m just a regular guy who just wants to do the right thing here.

As a father, businessman and town councilman, I am committed to the long-term vitality of Medina.

I am confident, that with the support of so many like-minded residents on Tuesday, along with those village trustees who also support shared services, that we can effectively reduce the tax burden without the finality of dissolution.

Please consider this when you vote.

Steve Seitz
Shelby Town Board member

Editor:

The members of the Shelby Volunteer Fire Company recently had a discussion about the upcoming vote on dissolution. We wish to explain our concerns on dissolution and why we feel it wouldn’t be in the best interest of public safety to have the village dissolve.

To start off with, despite what has been said, everyone loses their jobs when dissolution occurs. When Medina dissolves, so does every employee contract. That means some of our strongest allies in public safety are lost, and then we have to hope to get them back and in the same capacity.

As firefighters, when we get called out for a medical emergency there is nothing better than hearing the Medina ambulance crew calling in route. Medina operates four ambulances and the possibility of losing just one of those units during a restructuring after dissolution is too great a risk.

Those against dissolution have said we are using scare tactics to get people to vote no. However, it is us who are worried. Shelby, Lyndonville, Ridgeway, East Shelby and Medina Fire are intertwined with our operations to keep you safe. Firefighters are planners; We have to be to jeep us alive at a fire, and what is being proposed with dissolution has too many variables and would put us all at risk.

What happens if you lose a department, or even part of one, is it will begin to tax the manpower of your surrounding fire companies. What follows are increased response times, less manpower to a scene, and the greater possibility for loss of life and property.

The line officers of the Shelby Volunteer Fire Company have discussed what would happen if we had to take over 30 percent of the village in the event Medina Fire or Medina Ambulance does not return to full capacity because there is no guarantee that they will. The determination was that we may not be able to maintain the service level that Medina Fire and Ambulance provides to the area due to extra call volume, which would be catastrophic for public safety.

When firefighters arrive to a burning home, we don’t blindly rush into it hoping for the best. Our chiefs do a size-up, then form the plan of attack that will be the safest and most effective. We do a 360 of the scene, walking around to get a full picture of what is happening. During that time a plan begins to take shape, and then a risk vs. reward calculation is done. How much risk is involved, and how much will the reward be?

The members of the Shelby Volunteer Fire Company have done our 360 walk around and size-up of dissolution, as well as risk vs. reward calculation. We have found that the risk of dissolution – the dismantling of a great team of firefighters, ambulances, and paramedics at the Medina Fire Department is not worth the reward, especially for a reward that is not set in stone, a reward that doesn’t make mathematical sense, a reward that just puts all of us at too great a risk.

The Shelby Volunteer Fire Company cannot support dissolution because of the potential impact on emergency services and public safety is too great.

Gary Lamar
President of Shelby Volunteer Fire Company

Editor:

Kudos and accolades to the Hoag Library Board of Trustees for their recent ‘dismissal’ of Director Jeff Davignon. Although I don’t know Mr. Davignon I’ve seen the effects of his actions during his short stay with us, and heard enough stories about him, to believe that the Board’s decision was justified.

I feel confident that the Board will pursue, and be successful in finding, a qualified and acceptable replacement.

Joseph Gehl
Kent

Editor:

My wife and I moved into the village a year ago, although I have always lived in the area. In that year we have appreciated the services provided to us.

We had a carbon monoxide detector go off late one evening and we were amazed by the response time of the Medina Fire Department. This is something that would not have happened with a volunteer fire department simply because the volunteers generally do not staff the fire hall around the clock.

Thinking we may lose our wonderful fire service and village police department due to dissolution scares my wife and me. We don’t want to wait for a police car that is across the county.

There are services I expect to have living in the village. If the village dissolves we would be starting from ground zero. The OneMedina group claims all services will remain and taxes will go down. It seems far-fetched that we can eliminate all of these services, then while saving tax money, get all of the services back. Do not dissolve our village. Vote no on Jan. 20.

Brett J. Goheen
Medina

Editor:

The Medina Central School district is considering the option to offer veterans a discount on their school tax, which I believe is a good idea that would benefit the vets greatly.

However, I wonder if veterans would actually take this discount knowing that it raises taxes on their neighbors, including some vets that are ineligible for this discount. Everyone can agree veterans deserve thanks and praise for their service regardless of how and when they served.

If there is a policy in place that benefits someone who is in need, they should apply for it. A reduction in taxes is always beneficial, but not necessarily at the cost of your neighbor or your community.

We are one of the poorest counties in the state, and a large percentage of the population is living paycheck to paycheck.

For myself I will be happy to pay the extra amount, as it is the least I can do to help veterans. However there are many in the neighborhood that would like to pay this but are just not financial able to.

The school board faces a tough choice, especially since there is not a wrong choice. If you are a veteran please make sure the school board knows how you feel.

Timothy Elliott
Medina resident and “military brat”

Editor:

I want to save Medina, so I’m voting to dissolve it. We’ve all seen figures like the 16 percent decline in village property values versus 4 percent out-of-village or how much per-thousand we will save or lose, but in the end, here are the objections I had to overcome in my own mind:

Do I want to raise my neighbors’ taxes in order to lower my own?

No. But I don’t want to continue subsidizing their water/sewer and emergency services, either. They get services I pay for. I pay for other services I don’t get at all. So, I feel for them, but I don’t feel sorry any more than they feel bad about my water bill. It’s no fun feeling like you’re giving someone else a free ride.

Do I want my history and sense of identity to go away?

No. But, then again, my sense of Medina is not tied to political fictions like “village” and “town.” What’s in a name anyway? If it was the Town of Medina with a district called Medina within it, I would still have been born and raised here, I would continue to live here and raise my kids here. I will still have Mustang Pride.

Do I want my emergency services to go away?

No. But we already pay double tax and there are ways to keep most if not all of our current level of public works and safety with cooperation. That last word being pretty hard to come by.

Do I believe the state incentives will last forever?

No. But they have been available for the past four years that we’ve spun our wheels thinking about it and missing out on. And if/when they decide to cut the program, the people who will be cut out first are those that aren’t currently taking advantage. In other words, the ship will have sailed at some point.

What about becoming a City?

No new charters have been issued since the ’40s. We are free to petition for a City charter, but the county will take a hit and the association of counties will lobby against it. Plus, from Albany’s point of view, they have solved this problem when they created the Local Government Efficiency Program and associated grants and incentives. I’m a populist at heart, but I know the tail rarely wags the dog.

Don’t I want the Towns and Village to cooperate on consolidation?

Yes. But they haven’t and likely won’t.

Aren’t I afraid the Towns won’t cooperate after dissolution?

I know they won’t. They haven’t to date, and have plainly stated they will not follow the plan. They had to be forced into the conversation like this, if only to fight it, you can bet they will get back out of it the second they can.

Which leads me to what made my ultimate decision. For three years I’ve heard about this possibility. For three years, it has devolved into a schoolyard slap fight.

One side has had a third party evaluate the feasibility, created a plan and invited others to participate. They did their homework. The other side hired a PR firm to shill for them.

They and this firm have deleted Facebook posts, banned users and sent fliers, written editorials and mailed postcards filled with fear, uncertainty and doubt. Full of lies like “there won’t be any more Ale in Autumn” that demonstrate either their willingness to say anything to protect the status quo or how out-of-touch they actually are with what goes on in the Village.

I’ve got a well made, laminated flier in front of me without a single “quote” from someone not on the Town payroll. It has become obvious whose best interests they represent. They have presented anti-dissolution rhetoric.

They’re against it. I get that. But what are they for? Nothing, apparently. No change to the status quo is entertained, no alternative plan is offered.

So, I will vote YES on the 20th. And I will vote YES on consolidation in the next phase. And if I don’t see some level of maturity, productivity and transparency from the Towns, I will be voting against incumbents come election time. If a vote of “no confidence” can be forced before the next election, I will vote for that.

If you disagree with me, don’t bother trying to change my mind. Call your town supervisor and try to change theirs. They work for us. Just remember: Any new idea will be faced with fierce opposition by people with too much at stake in the current regime.

Roots in the past, eyes on the future.

Jeremy Hogan
Medina resident, business owner and concerned citizen

Editor:

As part of the ongoing discussion regarding the proposed dissolution of the Village of Medina, we as the East Shelby Volunteer Fire Company would like to express our position against dissolving the village government.

Our fire company has been in service since 1953, and we are strongly opposed to the dissolution. We have the privilege of working side by side with the village fire, ambulance and police departments. This has always been a professional and respectful working relationship that has met the needs of the community.

If the dissolution occurs, we may never have again an ambulance service with the ability to put four ambulances on the road at the same time when called upon to provide for the needs of our citizens.

Throughout our 62-year history working closely with the Medina Fire Department at fire calls and emergencies, we have experienced a hand-in-hand partnership between the paid firemen in the village and the volunteer firemen and women in East Shelby, which provides the highest quality service possible for our communities.

Sincerely,

Members of the East Shelby Volunteer Fire Company

Fire Chief Michael O. Fuller
President Dennis W. MacDonald

Editor:

So Mr. Rivers does not have to add a disclaimer at the end of my letter, I am a Village of Medina Trustee.

That being said, for those of you who are unaware, I am against dissolution – both for personal reasons and what I am hearing from the majority of the residents I have spoken to as well as the response at the public hearing on the dissolution plan.

We have all seen the mailers, read the articles in the paper and on-line, and hopefully listened to the debate on Orleans Radio. Each registered voter in the village must ask themselves three important questions. After you answer these questions with thought and truthfulness, I believe you will understand why dissolution is not the solution.

1. Do I want the enhanced services to continue that I receive living in the village? (Career Fire/Ambulance Department, Police Department, Department of Public Works)

2. Do I want the same service inside the village as the towns receive outside the village?

3. Can I afford less than a dollar a day to keep the Village of Medina as it is now? (anticipated savings per the plan)

Our fire and police departments have a 3-minute or less response time for 911 calls. Our DPW clears our streets and sidewalks in the winter, repairs streets, water and sewer lines, pick up brush in the spring and leaves in the fall along with numerous other jobs to maintain the village as we know it.

The village and two towns have and do participate in shared services and purchases. I believe more savings can be realized with more shared services and inner-municipal agreements. I am personally working on renegotiating the ambulance contract between the village and the Towns of Shelby, Ridgeway, and Yates. These meetings have opened meaningful dialogue between myself and the town’s supervisors.

We need to look at all purchases that are made by the village departments. We have to investigate if we are using the NYS contracts as they are intended to be used to lower taxes.

Remember you are voting to dissolve the Village of Medina, not on the plan that was presented. There is a large unknown factor what would happen and what the tax rate would be or the services provided if the village is dissolved. Dissolution is not the solution.

Please vote “NO” for dissolution on Jan. 20.

Michael Sidari
Medina

Editor:

As many of us have been, we too have closely followed the ongoing debate regarding dissolution. We are not opposed to shared services and or consolidation if it is done properly. This upcoming vote is neither. It is not a vote to create “One Medina.” It is an elimination vote that would cause there to be no Medina!

We are not the Village of Seneca Falls that was located entirely within a township of the SAME name and could seamlessly consolidate with that township. Medina being split between two townships extremely complicates all aspects of this dissolution! This fact is being greatly overlooked.

There have been a lot of numbers thrown around and “promised” savings. If the savings are so great and the numbers are so accurate, why would CGR (Center for Governmental Research), the agency that conducted the feasibility study, recommend NOT dissolving the Village without merger of the towns?

Everyone keeps asking for better ideas. Here is one, petition for a consolidation vote of Ridgeway and Shelby. This should be the FIRST step in the process! Let all constituents who this affects have a say in the matter to determine if everyone truly wants One Medina.

To ask village voters to decide if they should dissolve Medina without having the knowledge of what the townships will do is irresponsible and frankly unfair to both village and town residents. Creating districts and LDCs (Local Development Corporation) that will all have taxing authority would make more government layers with voters having less voice. It would just put an invisible line on the map of what was the former village. If you are going to do this, you might as well keep the village.

The village is the biggest entity with the equipment, personnel, and infrastructure already in place. Why would you just throw that away and hope the towns could pick up the pieces, reinvent the wheel, and effectively provide these vital services.
Forcing this on two unwilling townships is not the answer! Medina would forever be the black sheep of the towns. This is not a test that we can try for a few years and then go back if we don’t like it.

This vote is final, and it would be a mistake that this area would spend decades trying to recover from. Vote NO on Jan. 20, and let’s start working with the towns instead of against them!

Respectfully submitted,

Don and Nancy Draper
57 years of combined service to the Village of Medina

(Mr. Draper is a retired Medina police chief and Mrs. Draper is a retired village court clerk.)