Although the two boards finally sat down and discussed the issue face-to-face, it appears Oxford Township and Village couldn’t be farther apart on the question of how the former is going to compensate the latter for its equity in the fire department.
Last week, both the township board and village council met in an attempt to finally resolve the issue of how to compensate the village for its share of the fire department’s approximately $6.37 million in assets, which, according to an arbitration award, amounts to at least $1.128 million.
On the one hand, the village wants either free fire service for a set period of time, a vote in how the department’s run via creation of a new fire board or complete control of the agency.
‘The township decided they no longer wanted village input on the fire department board and guess what? That’s going to cost the township some money,? said village President Chris Bishop, noting there are other options on the table that don’t involve dollars and cents.
On the other hand, there are those on the township side who favor continuing the existing arrangement in which the township has total control of the fire department and continues to serve village and township residents who are equally taxed for the services.
‘Why are we even doing anything?? said township Supervisor Bill Dunn. ?(Let’s) just continue the way we are. No money changes hands (and) everyone gets one of the best services, I believe, in the county for the same price. End of discussion.?
How we got here
In July 2003, the township sued the village in an attempt to dissolve the Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission, the joint government entity which oversaw the fire department since 1999.
Consisting of all seven elected township board members and all five elected village council members, OPFEC was created as the successor to the controversial and scandal-ridden Oxford Emergency Safety Authority, formed in 1989 and governed by a board of township and village appointees.
In February 2005, a circuit court judge ordered OPFEC’s dissolution.
Given the township owned 82.3 percent of the fire department, it took sole control of the agency on Jan. 1, 2006 while the village agreed to receive fire services from the new township-run department.
The only issue to be settled via binding arbitration was exactly how to compensate the village for its 17.7 percent equity share of the fire department, which it founded and exclusively controlled until it became 50/50 partners with the township in 1982.
Proposal #1:
Free service for 12 years
Village officials suggested three proposals to the township to settle this matter.
One offer involved having village residents receive 12 years of fire service at no charge in return for their equity.
Currently, the fire department is financed by two voter-approved taxes, totalling 2.5 mills, which are paid by both township and village residents until their expiration in December 2009.
Council noted it was flexible about the time period. ‘We’re not cemented in 12 years,? Bishop said.
When asked to explain how the village arrived at that time period, Bishop said council couldn’t elaborate on those numbers because they’re part of attorney-client privilege.
‘There is a rhyme and reason to the 12 years,? he noted.
However, township officials didn’t like this proposal because it would mean either raising the fire tax on its unincorporated residents (those outside the village), which would require voter approval, or reducing the level of fire/EMS services.
‘I really think that increase would be voted down. I really do,? said township Trustee Sue Bellairs, noting unlike the village, the township can’t raise or levy taxes without voter approval. ‘You can’t get blood from a turnip. If there’s no money there, it’s just not there.?
Bishop said if there’s a court order mandating the township provide a certain level of fire service ‘you’ll have to come up with the money.?
‘It’s up to the voters in the township . . . It wouldn’t matter if God himself came down and said you’ve got to pay this,? Bellairs retorted.
Retired Oxford Fire Chief Jack LeRoy didn’t understand why the village had to be compensated at all.
‘I guess it escapes me why penny one should change hands under the present circumstances,? he said. ‘Now, I could see the village having to be compensated if you were to break away and become a city and no longer part of the township. But that is not the case. You are receiving the services equally with the rest of the township.?
Proposal #2: Give the village a vote
If the township wished to avoid dealing with dollars and cents, the village offered a second option of creating a three-member board to govern the fire department.
It would consist of one village council member, one member selected by the township board and the Oakland County Commissioner who represents District #1, which includes Oxford and four other townships.
‘If the village is going to own an asset in excess of $1 million, our taxpayers should have a say in how it’s run,? Bishop said. ‘An asset owned by the Village of Oxford is an asset that is governed by its village council.?
Bishop explained the county commissioner is elected, so he’s accountable to voters, and he should be able to remain ‘neutral.? During those times when the township and village members can’t agree, he can analyze the issue in an ‘unbiased? manner and cast the tie-breaking vote.
If the township and village members agree, the third vote is moot, Bishop noted.
Bellairs disliked this proposal because the current county commissioner is Brad Jacobsen, a former Oxford Twp. board member who once served on the controversial OESA board.
‘He’s definitely not a solution to this problem because he was part of the problem,? she said.
‘We can’t design a board around who we like and who we don’t like,? Bishop retorted. ‘This has got to be something that goes into the future.?
Some officials didn’t like this setup for the simple fact that, in the future, the county commissioner could be a resident of Addison, Brandon, Groveland or Independence townships.
‘They still answer to the voters of Oxford,? Bishop noted.
Councilman Tom Benner proposed having the fire department governed by both boards, like under OPFEC, but instead of needing a majority from both boards to approve something, motions would require eight out of 12 votes to pass. ‘We want to protect the residents on both sides,? he said.
Clerk Curtis Wright wasn’t in favor of this suggestion because basically it would be going back to the 12-member board format, which was already tried and didn’t work. In his opinion, the idea of seeking a settlement is about moving on.
Proposal #3:
Give the village total control
Immediately following the joint meeting, the village council held a special closed session, in which it offered the township yet another proposal ? let the village have ‘exclusive and total management control of the fire department.?
Bishop said the offer was in direct response to the township’s suggestion that it keep managing the fire department on its own with no votes from the village council.
‘It’s just throwing another suggestion out on the table,? he said. ‘If they feel it’s good enough for us to walk away, then it should work the other way around. If they feel that’s such a great plan, hand the department over to us and we’ll run it.?
‘It’s a slap in the face,? said Dunn, after viewing the village’s offer. ‘That proposal’s nuts. If I own 82 percent of a company and you own the other 18 percent, why would I let you make 100 percent of the decisions? It’s insulting.?
Counterproposal:
Keep things the way they are
Despite his opposition to total village control, Dunn favors allowing the township to continuing running the department on its own as it has for the last three years.
‘If we get in a situation some years down the line (where) we get in a crunch and we have to reduce services, raise taxes, do whatever (to pay off the village), people are going to look back and go ‘Why didn’t you just leave it the way it was??? he said. ‘They’re going to bring out the tar and feathers and we’ll deserve it.?
Township officials argued that because village residents are township residents who vote in township elections, their interests are being represented.
‘You do have a say in how (the department’s) run because you elect the seven members that are running it,? Dunn said.
But council argued the village’s representation on the township board isn’t enough.
‘Village voters demographically have a minority voice in township issues,? said Councilwoman Teri Stiles.
There are approximately 2,400 registered voters in the village versus about 11,900 in the unincorporated township.
It was noted that while Dunn is a village resident, he’s still only one of seven votes on the township board.
‘I really believe that village people don’t have a very loud voice at the township,? Stiles said.
In the end, the village council has to be the one to govern village-owned assets, according to Bishop.
‘The Village of Oxford elects its council members to manage its affairs, its assets,? he explained. ‘It’s not responsible for us to give them out to other parties to control for us.?
‘Currently, the Village of Oxford has no control . . . as far as staffing levels, what is purchased with ongoing money, things of that nature. We have no managerial control at all.?
Bishop noted the village charter doesn’t allow council to ‘arbitrarily? give up ownership of municipal assets without a vote of the people.
‘We are not allowed by our charter to give anything away or even sell it,? he said. ‘The taxpayers of this community are not prepared to give away what could be up to $1.5 million.?
‘We just cannot allow our assets to ride off into the sunset.?
‘Your assets are not going anywhere,? Dunn said. ‘If we continue on (as things have been), you still own 17.7 percent of the total assets.?
Township resident Ed Hunwick agreed.
‘I’m sitting here with an outside perspective thinking, ‘What asset are you losing?? he said. ‘You’re still retaining the fire department. You’re still retaining the services. If Merrill Lynch had my retirement money, they control it. It’s still my money, but they’re the ones that invest it. I gave’em that authority to do so.?
Some agreement and good feelings
Despite their disagreements, officials on both sides of the table seemed to feel good about the meeting overall.
‘I think this is a great first step,? said Treasurer Joe Ferrari, noting it was preferable to the more than $200,000 in legal fees the township’s spent on this issue over the last six years. ‘You know how much money we’ve saved by doing this (meeting).?
‘I think it’s been helpful to be here tonight,? Dunn said. ‘I wish we could have done this two or three years ago.?
Despite their numerous disagreements, both boards agreed to seek clarification from the arbitrator as to the basis upon which the township will charge the village for fire/EMS services.
The township believes it should be based on actual usage of the services whereas the village believes it should be calculated according to the total State Equalized Value of each municipality as it was with the department’s assets.
Both sides attorneys apparently interpreted the arbitrator’s decision differently.
According to the arbitrator’s Nov. 23, 2005 award, ‘I recommend that the annual charge be based on the usage of services (i.e. the village’s use of township fire resources as a percentage of total fire resources used), using an average usage rate over a three-year period.?
Both boards agreed to hold another joint meeting to further discuss various settlement options. No date has been scheduled yet.
The issue of what’s going to happen with the old township hall located at 18 W. Burdick St. was supposed to be discussed at the meeting, but officials agreed to set it aside as the property may be used as a bargaining chip in future negotiations over the OPFEC settlement.
Council had previously agreed to purchase the hall for $262,500, but later lowered their offer by $75,000 when the village building inspector found some structural damage and generated a list of needed repairs.