Effective September 30, 2003, Oxford Township will no longer be a part of the Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission (OPFEC).
Township officials voted May 28 to set a 120-day time frame for their withdrawal from the controversial safety authority. The township is pursuing 100 percent ownership and oversight of the Oxford Fire Department.
‘We recognize the many questions associated with this action, and are hopeful the village will cooperate in the unwinding and termination of OPFEC,? wrote township Supervisor Bill Dunn in a May 30 letter to the Oxford Village Council. ‘We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the orderly and cooperative dissolution of OPFEC as well as how fire and EMS services will be provided.?
The township board’s action comes the day after the village council voted May 27 to ‘reaffirm? it’s position that the village is not interested in selling or negotiating the sale of it’s share of the fire department to the township.
‘I’m disappointed that they’re forging ahead with that,? said Oxford Village President Steve Allen, reached for comment June 3. ‘I’m not opposed to removing the fire department from OPFEC, but I guess I would have liked to have had a little more discussion before somebody jumped.?
‘Most people that I’ve talked to around town that are village residents are not particularly interested in giving up our ownership share. Even though it may not be a majority share, they’d would like us to continue to own part of the fire department,? Allen added.
However, that isn’t the same public input township Trustee Pat Fitchena has received.
‘We’ve had many village people come to us (township officials) and tell us it doesn’t matter who owns the fire department as long as we have? a ‘good? or ‘better? fire department, she said.
‘I’m tired of OPFEC. The people are tired of OPFEC. We need to do something. It’s time to move forward,? Fitchena said.
The township board originally voted on a motion to pull out of OPFEC effective Aug. 31, 2003 ? a 90-day time frame ? however, it failed.
Dunn said he favored a 120-day deadline because ‘we’re in unchartered waters,? meaning no one knows exactly what’s going to happen next because a withdrawal has ‘never been done.?
At the May 27 council meeting, Allen defiantly declared, ‘If (the fire department’s) going to be taken from us, it’s going to be pried from my cold dead hands.?
‘To me, (the township’s action) is a whim. Or someone beating on their chest, ‘I’m bigger than you are and I’m gonna take it,? the village president added.
Dunn expressed his displeasure with that characterization.
The supervisor told the township board, ‘We are not going to take the fire department. We’re going to give them (the village) their fair share. We’re not taking any money from anyone. All we want to do is buy out their interest and put (the department) under one roof.?
However, some village council members expressed their belief that there’s no need or reason to make the township the department’s sole owner and operator.
‘I firmly believe that OPFEC itself functions fine and well as far as handling fire service,? said Councilwoman Renee Donovan. ‘I don’t see a reason for us to withdraw from OPFEC or even consider it on our part.?
Donovan also stated that the idea that the township owns 82 percent and the village owns 18 percent of the fire department based on State Equalized Value is a ‘total, absolute fallacy.?
Because village residents pay the ‘exact same millage? for the fire bond and department operations as township residents, Donovan said, ‘Each of us as individual property owners does pay in full our share.?
‘OPFEC works well, it’s people that make it complicated,? said Councilman George DelVigna, noting that the state law (Public Act 57) under which the authority operates is ‘well-written.?
‘Follow that and it will work,? DelVigna said.
‘I’ve not heard on solid, substantive business case for doing this. Not one,? Allen said.
For township Trustee Jerry Dywasuk one the big reasons to dissolve OPFEC and proceed with township-ownership of the fire department is ‘equal representation.?
Dywasuk explained that ‘everyone’s represented by the township board,? meaning all township residents, including those living in the village, can vote and run for township offices.
However, under OPFEC, Dywasuk said the village has veto power and village residents have ‘five more representatives? (i.e. the council), whom unincorporated township residents can’t elect.
The trustee said ‘it’s wrong when you give someone more representation? and ‘more rights than others? in the same community.
Allen has proposed to the township that in place of OPFEC a fire board be created, consisting of 3 township officials and two village officials. Under this structure, a ‘super-majority of four? members voting yes would be required to take action, ‘eliminating anyone’s veto power,? the village president said.
‘It’s a paired down version of OPFEC. That’s all it is,? said Dunn of Allen’s proposal. ‘You’d still need at least one village vote to approve anything. The village would still have veto power under this. It’s a smaller version of the bigger problem that is OPFEC. It’s definitely not acceptable to me.?