Only three Oxford residents who don’t hold any elected office in the village or township spoke during last week’s public hearing regarding cityhood.
‘My motivation for doing this had nothing to do with money and everything to do with the Village of Oxford standing on its own two feet and being its own separate entity,? said village resident and former Councilman Steve Allen, who is officially listed as the petitioner.
‘I have not yet seen a benefit to us being a city,? said village resident Charlie Stevens, who serves as president of the Oxford Lakes Homeowners Association. ‘Instead of looking at cityhood, we should be looking at dissolving the village and becoming just the township.?
Only about 25 or so people ? including all five village council members, four township officials, the village manager and the cityhood attorney ? attended the state Boundary Commission’s May 3 public hearing regarding the village’s petition to incorporate as a home rule city.
The Boundary Commission is not expected to deliberate and decide on whether the petition should be approved or denied until possibly October or November at the earliest, according to Commission Manager Christine Holmes.
The vast majority of the 200 chairs set up in the Commons Area at Oxford Middle School were empty as village and township representatives presented facts and figures, answered questions and made their cases regarding cityhood.
Standing on our own
‘We want to determine our own destiny,? said Tom Ryan, the Sylvan Lake attorney hired to handle the cityhood effort.
Ryan argued it’s time for the 1.43-square-mile village to take the ‘final step? and become a ‘stand-alone entity? given the municipality already delivers ?99 percent? of services to its residents.
‘I’ve rarely seen a more well-developed, well-organized village,? he said. ‘I dare say you won’t find any villages of this caliber that aren’t yet incorporated in the State of Michigan.?
The only services the village doesn’t provide that would be required as a city are assessing, collection of county and school taxes, and conducting of national, state, county and school elections. All of these are currently functions of the township.
At present, the village conducts only village elections every other year in September. It collects only village property taxes once a year in the summer.
All the village’s assessing is currently done through the township which contracts with Oakland County’s Equalization Division for the service.
It was argued that all of these services could easily be taken over by the village.
Village President George Del Vigna said he would want the new city to look into hiring its own assessor as opposed to contracting with the county.
This way the village/city could have someone who’s ‘in tune with our needs here? unlike the county who’s not? in Del Vigna’s opinion.
‘Real estate prices are going down and taxes are going up,? he said.
Cost saving?
If the village were to become a city, residents would no longer be obligated to pay the township’s 0.95-mill operating tax, which equals 95 cents for every $1,000 of a home’s taxable value.
This tax pays for the township administrative functions which includes assessing, tax collection and elections.
Village Manager Joe Young estimated it would cost the new city an additional $25,200 to provide these services ? $22,000 for assessing, $1,700 for elections and $1,500 to begin sending out a winter tax bill.
Given the village’s general fund is currently more than $2 million, Young said $25,200 should be ‘absorbed . . .fairly easily unless we get some major cuts from the state.?
If a tax increase were necessary, the manager estimated it would be 0.19 mill, which is cheaper than the township’s 0.95 mill rate.
Township Treasurer Joe Ferrari disagreed.
‘As far as the argument it’s going to cost less to become a city, that’s a complete fallacy,? he said. ‘We all know it’s going to end up costing more.?
Ferrari noted it will be ‘difficult? for the village to hire its own assessor for $22,000.
The township currently pays the county $27,000 per year just to assess the village’s 1,800 parcels, according to Young’s spreadsheet.
Stevens argued even if cityhood would save village taxpayers 0.95 mill, it isn’t worth losing ‘our precious right to be able to vote in the township.?
‘I would rather pay (the tax) and keep my right to vote in the township, keep my ability to run for office in the township (and) be able to serve on building and planning commissions in the township,? Stevens told the Boundary Commission.
But Del Vigna said he doesn’t want village tax dollars exported to the township.
‘We’d like to keep all our tax money within the city or the Village of Oxford,? he said. ‘We’d like to have that money go to our projects.?
Young’s estimates of cityhood’s additional costs did not take into account that the village would be required to take ownership of the township cemetery located on the north side of W. Burdick Street.
According to Supervisor Bill Dunn, maintenance costs for the north side cemetery are approximately $10,560 per year to cut the grass, $58 per hour for snow removal, $10 per month for lighting, $400 to rent a dumpster for cleanup and $20 per hour for miscellaneous services such as removal of leaves and grave blankets, seeding the grass, etc.
Maintenance of the cemetery is primarily funded through the township’s general fund.
Given the north side cemetery is full, it has no money-making potential, only continual costs for perpetual care, according to Dunn.
As far as the voter-approved township millages for fire, Advanced Life Support, parks and recreation, and library, village residents will be expected to keep paying them as city residents.
‘We’re going to continue those,? Ryan said. ‘Those millages were voted by the taxpayers of the township and the village. They will continue. We will continue to be customers, hopefully.?
Consolidation
Michigan’s poor economy and Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s call for local governments to consolidate and share services were noted a few times during the hearing.
‘These are tough financial times,? Ferrari said. ‘This is not the time for a village to consider becoming a city. This is the time for all of us to sit and work things out.?
‘We should be looking for more ways to cooperate rather than have more division,? the treasurer explained. ‘Now’s not the time to establish separate forms of government.?
The idea of having one government for all Oxford was advocated by Stevens. ‘I believe that we would be better served by a commission or board that served all the people in the township rather than having this division amongst ourselves,? he said.
Stevens noted that cityhood for the village will not automatically solve all the fights with the township or improve relations between the two governments.
‘In fact, there’s going to be more litigation,? he said.
Township Trustee Pat Fitchena noted she already views Oxford as one community and predicted cityhood for the village would change that in a negative way.
‘Once this (village) becomes a city, that’s going to draw a direct line right between this community,? she said. ‘We are one Oxford and I expect to stay that way . . . We love Oxford. We want to keep it the way it is.?
Fitchena noted, ‘If cityhood is so wonderful how come they didn’t ask (the township) to become part of their city??
Still time to comment
Written comments regarding the village’s proposed incorporation as a city are still being accepted by the Boundary Commission over the next month.
Comments submitted via e-mail or fax must be received by 5 p.m. June 4. Those sent by mail must be posted marked no later than June 4.
All comments must include the Docket #06-I-3.
The Boundary Commission’s address is 611 W. Ottawa St., P.O. Box 30004, Lansing, MI 48909-7504.
E-mail address is boundaryinfo@michigan.gov.
Fax is (517) 241-9822. Phone is (517) 335-3439.