PERRY TOWNSHIP — The board of trustees discussed the status of the proposed intergovernmental annexation agreement between the township and the city of Salem in its meeting Monday.

Trustee Tony Ieropoli said he wanted to revisit the question of a proposed intergovernmental agreement to establish set terms for future annexations of property from the township into the city in principle now that the board of trustees’ makeup has changed with the election of Russ Sinsley in November. Ieropoli asked Sinsley what he thought of the agreement and of the larger negotiation process, and whether he was in favor of continuing negotiations. Sinsley said that he had read the current draft for the agreement several times and that it was difficult to understand in its current form.

Ieropoli said he was against entering a formal agreement and wasn’t in favor of continuing negotiations, stating he felt the city’s conduct in the process thus far had been dishonest and undemocratic. He questioned if the trustees should hold an official vote on whether to continue the negotiations or not or to place one on the agenda for an upcoming meeting.

“The way we’ve been treated for the last two years, I don’t think I want to negotiate with those kinds of people. It’s more like a dictatorship. They’ve treated our people badly for years now, and I just don’t think it’s right,” said Ieropoli.

Trustee Chair Steve Bailey said he was still waiting for a response from Salem regarding information about the agreement the township had requested. He argued that until the trustees received that information, they could not make an informed decision. Bailey also said he knew there were several property owners in the township who wanted to annex into the city or wanted access to city utilities, which makes it difficult for the township to refuse an agreement across the board.

“We haven’t heard back from the city on anything, so we have nothing to vote on. Until we have more information on what may or may not be out there, we can’t make an informed decision. I see no reason to even discuss it any further until we have more information back from the city,” said Bailey.

Bailey said that despite contradicting claims by the city that the township has been delaying negotiations, the township has been waiting for the information it requested so negotiations could move forward productively.

“That is not the case. I’ve talked to them about that and we have not received any information. I’ve met with a couple of the council people and talked to them, and they’re trying to get more information,” said Bailey.

Bailey said his last conversations with the city were a few months ago, and he had requested more information about the possibilities for construction of the agreement. He explained that he had asked about what the actual possibilities for negotiations were, such as if the agreement had to address both residential and commercial annexations, or if they could be separated.

“We’re trying to work out some of those details and see if there’s a better structure for it. Hopefully we can come up with some. It’s beneficial for both the city and the township if we can come up with one,” said Bailey.

Ultimately, no action was taken regarding the agreement.

The board of trustees will meet next at 4 p.m. Feb. 23.