If there’s to be a dedicated millage for the construction of additional safety paths in Oxford Township, it won’t be levied against the village.
The township board last week voted 5-2 to direct its Safety Path Committee to ‘put together? a ‘suggested safety path millage proposal? for the November 2004 ballot, ‘to be placed on the unincorporated portion of the township? (areas outside village limits).
The suggested proposal will then return to the township board for review and a decision as to whether it will be placed on the ballot.
No project cost estimates or proposed millage rate were available at the meeting because Treasurer Joe Ferrari, who chairs the Safety Path Committee, said the committee was first looking for direction from the township board. ‘Where do you want to go from here?? the treasurer said.
‘I really feel a ballot proposal is the way to go,? said Clerk Clara Sanderson.
Trustee Shirley Clancy said she favors a ballot proposal for ‘several reasons.?
She noted that ‘safe pedestrian access? along the township’s busy major roads to places like the Kids Kingdom playground, local parks, downtown Oxford and the library ‘simply doesn’t exist.?
‘I think we all see a need for safety paths on the more heavily travelled corridors,? Clancy said.
The township regularly receives ‘comments and calls? from residents asking ‘when are we going to have safety paths,? she said.
Clancy said more safety paths could ‘assist? in alleviating local traffic congestion by giving people a non-motorized alternative.
‘A lot of people might not hop in their car to go three-quarters of mile on a beautiful day,? she said. ‘They may choose to take another approach if that safe access in there.?
Clancy said it’s time to give voters a choice in the matter.
‘It’s been a long time since our citizens have had an opportunity to express their viewpoint on this topic,? she said, referring to the 1992 failed safety path millage proposal.
Not every official was in agreement with Clancy that a ballot proposal and dedicated millage is the way to go.
‘I don’t think the village ought to be included. I don’t think the township ought to be included,? said Supervisor Bill Dunn, stating his opposition to a millage proposal of any kind. ‘I think we ought to have fund-raisers, try to contribute what we can from our General Fund, and construct these.
Dunn said levying a safety path millage over the village would be a ‘double tax,? given the village already has a sidewalk system, the maintenance of which is paid for by village residents.
Clancy, Sanderson and Trustee Pat Fitchena also stated their opposition to including the village in the millage proposal.
Councilman Steve Allen, who was in attendance at the meeting for another issue, thanked the board for ‘taking the village into consideration on this.?
‘We do spend a considerable amount of money on our sidewalk systems and have for a number of years,? Allen told the board.
Trustee Jerry Dywasuk expressed his opposition to any type millage proposal, based on all the money he claims the township has ‘wasted on unnecessary things.?
‘We had a lot of money to do it. But we spent it on other things that I really don’t feel were necessary,? the trustee said referring to items like contracting with Oxford Village for fire/EMS dispatch instead of the lower-priced Oakland County dispatch and continuing to fund the now-defunct joint Oxford Police Department after ?75 percent? of the voters said they ‘didn’t want? it. ‘That money was there and we spent it on other things.?
‘When we don’t have the money for safety paths, what we immediately do is go to the voters because we think it’s something they’ll vote for,? Dywasuk explained. ‘We don’t ask for an increase for OPFEC attorney fees or road master plan studies or all the things that we don’t think they’ll vote for. As a taxpayer it bothers me that any time there’s something that really benefits this community, (the township) wants to raise the millage.?
‘The way to find money for additional safety paths is to be more fiscally responsible (with the existing budget) when we make some of these decisions on how to spend things,? he said. ‘I don’t think it’s fair to go to the voters and ask them for additional taxes.?
Despite being opposed to asking voters for a millage, Dywasuk stated his support for safety paths.
‘I want safety paths too,? he said. ‘I don’t think anybody disagrees with the need (for safety paths).?
Dywasuk agreed with Clancy that residents do want safety paths, but they ‘are not calling, saying please raise my taxes for safety paths.?
‘I think what we need to do is find the money (for safety paths) within this government,? said Dywasuk, explaining the township should reexamine its spending, start saving money and then build the safety paths. ‘When we go to the voters, it should be a last resort.?
Trustee Charles Kniffen echoed Dywasuk’s sentiments.
‘If the people vote it down, it doesn’t mean they don’t want the safety paths. They want us to provide the money for it,? Kniffen said. ‘I think we have the money. I hate to say it, but we do waste a lot of money.?
Clancy disagreed, noting there isn’t enough in the General Fund budget to build safety paths.
‘If I felt the township had the ability to provide this for our citizens out of our General Fund budget, I would be proposing that,? she said. ‘I would definitely love to do everything out of our existing budget.?
But after ‘realistically? looking at the township and state’s budget situations and the township’s other financial obligations, it can’t be done, according to Clancy.
‘I don’t feel that the township will achieve that out of our General Fund dollars,? she said.
Sanderson echoed Clancy’s sentiments
‘Safety paths are very expensive,? said Sanderson, noting the funds are not available for them in the township without additional millage. ‘If we could do it out of the General Fund, I’d be the first one in line to say so.?
Ferrari noted the board ‘could choose to allocate money from the Building and Site (Fund) to safety paths.?
‘That’s $800,000 right there,? Ferrari said. ‘And that could accomplish quite a bit, depending on where we want to prioritize.?
The treasurer said there are different ‘internal funding sources,? but it’s the board’s decision whether to reallocate them.
When asked to provide cost figures regarding the eight safety path connection projects which makeup the township’s plan, the only one Ferrari had readily available was the W. Drahner Road project, which will have an estimated cost of ‘over $1 million.?
Construction cost is the main funding problem and largest expense concerning the safety paths, he said.
‘The design (costs) we can probably squeeze out of our safety path fund,? Ferrari said. ‘Where we’re going to run into difficulty is going to be construction.?
In defense of a ballot proposal, Clancy asked the question, ‘How can it be unfair to give our citizens a choice??
‘If they (voters) feel this is an unfair ballot proposal and they don’t like it and they don’t want it, trust in our community and our citizens to tell us that,? she said. ‘Trust your public and involve them in this.?
‘I don’t think the issue is whether this government trusts the people. I think it’s whether the people can trust this government,? Dywasuk retorted.
Fitchena, who also sits on the Safety Path Committee, cast her vote in favor of a ballot proposal, citing the health and fitness of township residents as one of the main reasons.
‘Our people are fat,? she said. ‘Look at us. Why? Because we don’t move. We don’t ride bikes. We don’t walk. We don’t do the things that we should do or like we did when we were kids.?
‘The idea of safety paths has been around for a long time. It’s been in many of our hearts for a long time. . .Somehow we have to connect these safety paths together,? Fitchena said.