By C.J. Carnacchio
Leader Editor
“A financial and political dispute between Oxford Township and Village that began in December 1999 was finally settled last week.
The village council and township board each formally approved a “consent judgement” whereby the township agreed to repay $416,000 over a five-year period to the township internal funds from which it paid for police services in 2000.”
The agreed upon figure represents the amount the village claims was collected from village taxpayers and used to help fund the $1.3 million the township spent on the first year of its contract with the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department.
Village officials based their claim on a state law that says if a village provides its own police service, village property owners can’t be taxed for township police services.
Under the terms of the consent judgement, the township has five years to repay $416,000 to its General Fund and Building and Site Fund using state revenue-sharing monies and ordinance enforcement revenues.
However, the agreement also states that “the township does not consent, acknowledge or accept that any money is owed to the village or its taxpayers.”
Under the agreement, the village “does not consent, acknowledge or accept that it is the proper party in this litigation.” The settlement also “does not compromise or affect the rights of the taxpayers to make any claim they have independent of this consent judgement.”
In December 1999, the village hired the law firm Miller-Canfield to determine how much tax money collected from village property owners was allegedly improperly spent on police services by the township.
Between August and December 2001, the village repeatedly demanded the township repay the money council believed was owed village taxpayers.
In January 2002, the township filed a suit in Circuit Court to determine exactly how the village justified the $416,000 claim.
Village President Steve Allen said council “ultimately, would have liked to have had the money returned directly to taxpayers,” but the “likelihood of that was nihl given the circumstances.”
The circumstances were that the total amount allegedly owed by the township “was still in dispute” and it would have been an “accounting nightmare” to determine how much each taxpayer was allegedly owed, he said.
Allen said council also wanted to settle the issue “without a protracted, lengthy and costly legal fight,” noting the village had already spent “up near $25,000” on attorney bills related to this matter.
When asked it the agreement satisfied village officials, Allen said, “For the most part, it sure does.”
“Given the circumstances, it was the best solution possible,” he added, noting it was a “virtual no-win situation.”
Township Supervisor Bill Dunn said he’s “glad it’s finally over with.”
“It’s a relief to have all of this behind us,” he said.
Dunn said while he agrees “some village monies were probably spent, it wasn’t $416,000 worth.”
The supervisor said repaying the township funds from which the police services were bought is an “acceptable” and “logical” compromise.
“It just makes sense that if the village is saying we shouldn’t have spent some of that money on police, we repay the funds it came from,” he said. “It works out the same.”
Dunn estimated the township spent $22,500 on legal fees related to the intergovernmental dispute.
With the dispute settled, both Allen and Dunn expressed their desire to improve relations between the two governments.
“The settlement allows us to get back to the business of celebrating our similarities, instead of condemning our differences,” Allen said.
“It’s the Christmas season. What a perfect time to set aside our differences and work together as friends and neighbors,” Dunn said. “Peace on earth starts in your own backyard.”