Safety paths will not be an issue in Oxford Township during this year’s general election.
Township officials last week voted 6-0 to not place any millage requests for safety paths on the Nov. 2 ballot.
The township board was considering placing a bond proposal and operating millage request on the ballot to finance the construction and maintenance of a safety path network along busy corridors such as Seymour Lake and W. Drahner roads.
A state constitutional provision requiring uniformity of taxation and opposition from Oxford Village were deciding factors in the debate.
The township’s safety path committee originally recommended paying for the safety path network’s construction with a $6.715 million, 10-year bond issue and its maintenance with a 0.40-mill tax levy to kick in after the third year of the bond.
The committee recommended the proposals be voted on and, if approved, paid for by unincorporated township residents only (those living outside the village limits).
However, some township officials questioned the legality of levying a tax without including the village and asked the township attorney if it can be done.
‘The village is part of the township and the concept of uniformity in taxation, which is a Michigan constitutional requirement, states that if we levy a tax, the tax must be levied across the entire township including the incorporated portion of the township, the village,? said township attorney Gary Rentrop.
‘The exception to that, and it’s not even a settle area of law, is when we talk about police and fire,? Rentrop said. ‘In that situation, there is a separate statutory provision that applies only to police and fire, which says that in the event the village provides its police or fire, then you cannot levy the tax across the entire township including the village.?
If the township was to levy a tax for safety paths, it would have to be across the entire township, including the village, in order to be ‘constitutionally legal,? according to Rentrop, who noted the uniformity of taxation requirement ‘includes everything, not just sidewalks.?
Treasurer Joe Ferrari, chairman of the safety path committee, said since the village cannot be legally excluded, the ‘only thing? the township ‘can possibly do is have some type of contractual agreement with the village? whereby the money collected from village taxpayers would be allocated back to the village government, which could then spend it on improvements to its own sidewalks or safety paths.
This idea was not acceptable to village officials, some of whom were present at the township meeting.
‘I think it would be safe to say that the majority, if not all, the council members were not interested in participating in this millage only to have that money rebated back to us to work on our sidewalks,? said Councilman Steve Allen. ‘We felt that if we need to float a sidewalk millage that we’re perfectly capable of doing that on our own.?
‘I have some very, very strong objections to a millage to cover safety paths that includes the village,? said village President Renee Donovan. ‘We already have sidewalk systems in place. We maintain our sidewalks. We have ordinance that require the maintenance of these . . . Safety paths are basically an extension of sidewalks. We already provide this for our people and they’re maintained. I don’t feel that the village should in anyway whatsoever have to carry any of this burden.?
‘I question the legality because of the court cases that are out there that say that villages that reside within townships can’t be double-taxed for services that they already offer,? Allen told township officials. ‘We’ve talked to a lot of our constituents and they feel very much the same way. We would like to be excluded.?
Village residents Bob Scott, Robert Brannon and Merle Smith also spoke against including the village in any safety path tax proposals.
‘We have our sidewalks,? Scott said. ‘I don’t see where there’s any way that you people can tax us for walkways.?
Trustee Shirley Clancy said she agreed with the ‘sentiment expressed? by the village and has ‘always favored? township residents outside the village funding a safety path bond.
‘I would prefer to see if we could follow through with the township’s safety path program being funded by residents outside the village limits,? she said.
Clancy said the constitutional requirement of uniformity of taxation ‘puts the township, I think, in a very difficult position.?
‘In essence, what that says is if ever the township wanted a millage for a safety path system, whether it be now, 10 years from now or 20 years from now, this would always be an issue,? the trustee said. ‘What the resolution would be, I don’t know. I do know township residents have expressed a desire to have a safety path system, especially on the busy roads.?
‘This type of legal dilemma makes it very difficult to really fulfill their needs,? Clancy said.
‘If (the safety path issue) isn’t addressed at this point, (then) I think we need to be very realistic with our citizens and tell them probably something like this wouldn’t come forward for another four or eight years and you’re still going to face the same dilemma,? she said. ‘I think the township residents need to know that the safety path plan we put together will not come to fruition. It will be piecemeal and it will be a long time before those paths are in.?
Ferrari said he was ‘torn? over the issue of taxing village residents. The treasurer said he would feel more comfortable if there was an agreement in place with the village stating how the township would handle the issue, something to the effect of the township agrees to ‘rebate X amount of dollars to the village? to use for its sidewalk system.
Without such an agreement, the ‘village aspect is up in the air,? the treasurer said.
Supervisor Dunn disagreed with that statement.
‘It doesn’t seem like it’s up in the air? given some council members had just stated their opposition to the village being taxed, he said. ‘It doesn’t sound like you’re going to get much cooperation from the village council.?
Dunn stated his personal opposition to the safety path tax proposals, noting he would work with village officials to fight it.
Councilman Dave Bailey noted for the record that he ‘didn’t say what my own sentiments were regarding this issue.? He said if there were an agreement to rebate money back to the village, he couldn’t say whether he would favor or oppose it.
Bailey said he would ‘read every word with an open mind? and not just oppose it ‘sight unseen.?
Trustees Charlie Kniffen and Jerry Dywasuk also stated their opposition to the tax proposals.
‘As we can see, the village is not with us at all. I’m not for it at all, 100 percent,? said Kniffen, suggesting money spent on attorney fees could be used for safety paths.
Dywasuk said the township board only wants to put things on the ballot it believes voters will approve like ‘safety paths or fire or parks,? never the ‘big spending? items such as attorney bills or participating in the Oxford Community Development Authority’s Tax Increment Financing Plan.
‘I don’t think we think the voters would vote for those kind of things,? Dywasuk said.
Dywasuk noted, ‘I don’t think there is money for a huge safety path plan? in the township’s existing operating budget because so much is spent on the things he mentioned above.
Clerk Clara Sanderson said she would ‘not approve going forward to spread (safety path taxes) across the township and the village? given village officials and residents comments opposing it.
Sanderson noted that the state law is a ‘real stumbling block? with regard to this issue and suggested approaching state legislators to see how it could be changed.
Rentrop told the board the state Legislature is ‘not going to cure your ill because it’s a constitutional provision.?
‘I don’t think it’s a state problem, it’s an Oxford problem,? Dywasuk added.
Dunn made a motion to not put any safety path millages on the November ballot and direct the safety path committee to ‘continue doing what you’re doing and look for grants.?
Clancy added she wanted to see included in that motion some direction for the committee to ‘gather information on how other municipalities like ourselves address these issues because this issue isn’t going to go away.?
She noted that the ‘clamor? for safety paths will only increase, not decrease, with additional population.
Dunn’s motion was seconded by Dywasuk and approved 6-0.