After meeting twice last week, Oxford Township officials were unable to reach a consensus to place fire operations and Advance Life Support millage proposals on the Nov. 2 ballot.
The second time, township officials couldn’t even agree to hold the meeting.
At their Aug. 25 regular meeting, township officials discussed placing requests for a 1.75-mill fire operations levy and a 1-mill ALS levy, the latter of which would be used to establish and maintain the program.
The current fire operating millage (on unincorporated township residents) of 1.3202 mills is set to roll back to 1.3043 mills next year and expire with the December 2005 tax levy. If the 1.75 mills had been placed on the ballot and approved, the current millage would have been abandoned and the new one levied beginning in December 2004.
Officials failed four motions regarding possible millage proposals because they were unable to agree on which entity should levy these millages, if the millages should be combined into one proposal and if the proposed millages rates would generate enough revenue.
Some officials also said they didn’t like feeling ‘rushed? into making a decision because the deadline to submit ballot language to the county for the November election was Aug. 26.
Prior to the meeting, township officials were debating whether the township should levy both millages over the unincorporated and incorporated (village) portions or levy them over the unincorporated portion only and let the village continue to levy its own equivalent, matching fire millage.
The latter is the way millages for the Oxford Fire Department have been levied since 2000. Each entity levies its own millages ? the township’s is voter-approved while the village’s is council-approved ? and separately contributes their portions of the necessary fire funding.
However, village officials present at the township meeting suggested that the Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission (OPFEC) ? the joint township-village authority which governs the fire department under Public Act 57 ? levy both millages.
The OPFEC board is comprised of all seven township board members and all five village council members.
‘Yes, all citizens should have a voice,? said village President Rene Donovan. ‘But there’s a very viable way for all to have voice. The legal governing authority for our community fire service is OPFEC.?
Donovan said OPFEC can and should float fire millage proposals, which can then be voted on by both township and village residents, because it’s the ‘existing, legal, legitimate avenue? for them.
‘By utilizing our existing fire authority we use common sense,? she said. ‘It’s unfortunate that the township would consider circumventing an existing authority which provides excellent fire service to our community.?
Despite all the controversy surrounding OPFEC and its predecessor the Oxford Emergency Safety Authority, Donovan said, ‘I’ve not had a single resident from the Oxford community address me with negative comments about the governing authority of OPFEC. Only with positive comments about our fire service.?
Trustee Jerry Dywasuk agreed with Donovan about using OPFEC, despite being a longtime and vocal opponent of the authority and proponent of its dissolution.
‘For whatever reason, OPFEC runs the fire department,? he said. ‘Put it on the ballot. If the people want it, they want it. If not, they don’t. What better way to have a thumbs up or down issue (regarding OPFEC).?
Dywasuk reminded officials that Public Act 57 makes OPFEC a taxing authority and when they tried to remove the taxing powers from the authority’s bylaws, they couldn’t.
‘It is a taxing authority. It is what it is,? he said. ‘Nobody’s come up with an alternative to it, so let it put out a millage.?
‘The fact that nobody’s put an end to (OPFEC) in four years leads me to believe the sentiment on this board is completely happy to have it,? Dywasuk said.
‘That’s what we’ve chosen. We’ve said OPFEC runs the fire department, so put it out there. I’ve got no objections to that. I don’t like OPFEC, but that’s the way it is. That’s what runs the fire department,? he said.
‘If you want OPFEC, go to the voters and say OPFEC runs the fire department, I wan an OPFEC millage,? he said. ‘If you don’t want OPFEC, let’s vote tonight to get out of OPFEC. That’s all it takes is us voting to get out of it . . . I don’t believe for a minute that if this township pulled out of it today, it would exist. It would just end.?
Councilman George Del Vigna also spoke in support of OPFEC floating the millages.
‘The employer of the fire department is OPFEC, not the township, not the village,? he said. ‘I don’t understand why the fire department is coming to the township for a millage. We should be going through OPFEC, which is the governing authority, not the township and not the village.?
Del Vigna told township officials he doesn’t believe they have the authority to bypass OPFEC.
Fire Administrative Assistant Margie Payne said the fire department went to the township at the direction of the OPFEC Finance Committee.
Payne said OPFEC ‘promised voters? a few years ago it would ‘no longer levy or try for a millage? and that’s why they went to the township board.
Trustee Shirley Clancy noted that ‘part of the problem? is because of the legal dispute pending in circuit court between the township and village over OPFEC’s existence ‘no one can say if OPFEC will be in existence 12 months or 24 months from now.?
Del Vigna said that doesn’t matter. ‘It is now, that’s the key,? he said. ‘Whether we like it or not, it’s in existence. No matter what the courts may do tomorrow or 10 years from now, at this point in time, OPFEC is the governing body of the fire department. That’s the facts.?
In addition to debating which entity should levy the millages, there was also a debate over whether the proposed millage rates were adequate and if they should be combined into one millage proposal.
Councilman Steve Allen, who sits on the OPFEC Finance Committee, said he did some figuring and projections on his own, for his own personal use.
Allen reported that based on his projections for the next four years, the proposed 1-mill ALS tax would run in a deficit, while the proposed 1.75-mill fire operations tax would run a surplus.
Based on his calculations, Allen said the 1.75-mill levy is ‘way more? than the fire department will need for operations and the 1-mill levy is ‘way less? than is needed for ALS.
The councilman said money would have to be taken out of the fire operations budget to make up for the shortfalls in the ALS budget.
‘My first thought was it’s not really fair to our citizens to assess 1 mill for ALS when it’s really costing them a lot more,? Allen said. ‘It’s kind of a shell-game shift.?
Allen proposed running the two millages as one 2.75-mill levy, which, based on his calculations, would yield a surplus over the next four years.
The councilman suggested the combined proposed millage ‘could go down as low as 2.35 mills combined? and still run a surplus.
Donovan agreed with the idea of combining the levies, ‘so the fire department can function as one unit.? She said having two millages out there would be ‘too confusing? to voters and if combining them could mean a lower tax rate, that would be an ‘advantage to taxpayers.?
Payne told officials if the fire department got the ALS and fire operations millages approved, when they are collected ‘it’s all the same to us? and ‘it’s all thrown together.? She said they wouldn’t keep a separate accounting for all ALS and fire-related expenditures because the employees would be full-time firefighters/paramedics (called Fire/Medics) performing both functions.
However, township attorney Gary Rentrop noted if they were run as separate millages, they would be considered dedicated millages for specifically designated purposes and therefore the money would have to be kept separate and a separate accounting would have to be maintained.
Trustee Charles Kniffen said he felt Allen was ‘right? about the millage figures he presented and would like to have the OPFEC Finance Committee look them over before a decision is made.
‘I would sure hate to put this on the ballot and come January 1 go back to the voters and say, ‘Hey, we screwed up. We need another tenth of a mill in order to make this work,?? Kniffen said.
Levying the appropriate millage rate was also an issue for Clancy and Clerk Clara Sanderon.
Sanderson said her ‘problem? is ‘how to justify? the tax increase to voters if it’s not the appropriate amount of millage needed.
Some officials expressed their dismay that this issue was being ‘rushed? and hammered-out at the ‘eleventh hour.? It was suggested to wait, take more time to review the proposed budget and millage figures, and put the millage proposals to the voters in a special election next year.
Fire Assistant Chief Pete Scholz said, ‘Everybody keeps saying that we’ve waited until the last minute,? but the meeting minutes from earlier in the year show that Payne alerted officials about the need to put a fire millage on the November ballot months ago.
But officials voted not to put anything on the ballot because of the legal dispute between the township and village over OPFEC and the uncertainty over what’s going to happen, Scholz said.
Scholz said a delay in placing the millage proposals on the ballot will delay the department’s ability to establish an ALS program by another year.
He told the board that the department had a medical call earlier that day in which a Priority 2 patient had to wait 25 minutes for an AMR ambulance that ‘never showed up? because they ‘could not provide a rig.? The patient finally had to be transported by the Auburn Hills Fire Department.
‘I can’t go on much longer like that people, sitting there with someone’s life in your hands,? said Scholz. ‘Something needs to be done soon.?
The township board failed four motions proposing various millage combinations and ballot language for fire operations and ALS.
The next day, Aug. 26, an emergency special meeting of the township board was called at 7:30 p.m. at Fire Station #1 in a last-ditch effort to approve and submit ballot language to the county for the November election.
However, because it was an emergency special meeting, by law at least five out of the seven board members had to be present and all five had to vote to conduct the meeting.
Five of the seven officials were present, however, the motion to conduct the meeting failed in a 3-2 vote, with trustees Dywasuk and Kniffen casting the dissenting votes.