‘I believe the township is going to withdraw from OPFEC and if they do, that’s going to set forth a chain of events that I have no idea what the outcome will be. We may be in for a rough couple of years.?
The day after Oxford Village President Steve Allen uttered those prophetic words at the May 13 council meeting, the township board voted 5-2 to withdraw from the Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission (OPFEC).
OPFEC is the governmental entity which owns and operates the Oxford Fire Department. It’s governing board consists of all seven township board members and all five village council members, with each side having equal veto power. Under OPFEC, the townships currently funds 82 percent of the fire department and the village 18 percent.
The township’s action was prompted by the village council’s May 13 unanimous (5-0) vote to send a letter stating that the village is not interested in selling it’s share of the Oxford Fire Department to the township to create a township-owned-and-operated department.
‘Council firmly believes that no useful good would be served to our citizens by doing so,? Allen wrote in a May 15 letter to Dunn. ‘It is however, council’s wish to remain co-owners in the fire department, just as we have in the past. If the management vehicle of OPFEC does not suit the township’s needs or desires, perhaps that is what needs to be changed.?
‘Based upon the (May 14) e-mail provided to us by Steve Allen, it appears the concept of a township owned and operated fire department as proposed, serving all of Oxford Township, including the village, is not acceptable to the village,? wrote Supervisor Bill Dunn in a May 15 letter to council. ‘At this point, the township, through this vote to withdraw, has concluded that there is no alternative but for the township to proceed with a township owned and operated department, which begins with its decision to terminate its involvement with OPFEC.?
Dunn explained that the township’s action was necessary to ‘get off dead center.?
‘Just about everybody agrees OPFEC should be dissolved, but we haven’t been able to agree when it should be done or what should replace it to oversee the fire department,? he said. ‘For two years, we’ve held public meeting after public meeting discussing dissolution and alternatives to OPFEC, but we’ve been unable to make a decision. We keep ending up back a square one. It’s been a complete waste of time, money and resources, and it had to stop. Some kind of definite decision had to be made.?
When the village made its May 13 decision to not sell its share of the fire department to the township, Dunn said he ‘realized that if the township didn’t act on its own to withdraw, OPFEC may never be dissolved.?
Dunn said the ‘best alternative? to replace OPFEC is a township-owned-and-operated fire department that provides services to the entire township, including the village.
‘We don’t need both the village council and township board overseeing the fire department. The (OPFEC) board is too big and too difficult to get things done,? he said. ‘The township board can do it alone and the village is still represented because village residents are township residents who vote for board members and pay taxes. The village is part of the township.?
Dunn said he would like to see a village representative have a ‘direct role? in the oversight of a township-owned-and-operated department, but not have any ‘veto power.?
In response to the township’s action, Allen sent Dunn a May 15 letter stating that ‘It troubles me greatly that at your regular meeting of May 14, 2003, the township board passed a resolution to withdraw from OPFEC. This was done without benefit of discussion with the village, and in my estimation, without regard to many important details such as: funding, insurance, OPFEC’s ownership rights, impacts to community health and welfare in general, employee rights, short and long term financial obligations, day-to-day operational control, pension/retiree obligations. It is our hope that a detailed plan of this decision and its effects would be forwarded to the village as soon as possible.?
Allen stated that the township acted without consulting residents.
‘Sadly, as a result of the township board’s swift actions, your taxpayers did not get the benefit or courtesy of a public hearing to discuss this matter or to offer their input and wishes. Not only did you shortchange village residents, in fact you did the same thing to all township residents. In reality, many of us, as elected officials have inherited a warped perspective on what the public wants, or even cares about for that matter. We need to, and must, solicit their input at every crucial step,? Allen wrote.
Allen also stated that the township’s action has set back township-village relations.
‘Both the village and township have worked very hard to improve relations over the pat 18 months and I feel that we have all made tremendous strides in this area. Sadly, actions such as this, done with little regard for village residents, set this process back by many years. I fully understand that several township board members have little, if any, regard for the village. Some members have taken this to the point of questioning its reason for existence and some just showing it by their actions. Regardless of their personal beliefs, it is incumbent upon all of you to represent all of us. After all, it has been point out to us countless times ‘the village is part of the township.? Please let those words echo very clearly in your ears as you proceed ahead with your plans to ‘take over? the fire department,? Allen wrote.
As for what’s next, in light of the township’s withdrawal, OPFEC attorney Steve Gross said everything’s ‘totally up in the air.?
The state statute under which OPFEC was established allows for entities to withdraw from the authority, but it ‘doesn’t say what happens next,? he said.
The township’s withdrawal means OPFEC must be dissolved and cannot exist anymore because there’s only one entity remaining, the village, Gross said. The authority is legally required to be comprised of two or more entities in order to exist.
Gross said the statute doesn’t indicate how OPFEC’s assets should be divided between the township and village in the event of dissolution.
‘No one (in the state Legislature) ever contemplated this happening,? he said.
Gross said there are a ‘million different scenarios? of what could happen next.
‘It’s a complete mess,? he said.
Because the village would be the only remaining entity in OPFEC at the time of it’s dissolution, Gross said ‘the village could end up owning everything.?
The attorney said an act of the Legislature may be required to determine the next step because there’s no law or case law to govern this.
Gross said the ‘easiest way? to settle this would be for the township and village to agree to some sort of ‘joint operating agreement? to oversee the fire department in OPFEC’s place.
Otherwise, this could ‘become very messy.?
Regardless of what happens next, Dunn wants both township and village residents to be assured that none of this will affect the quality of the fire and EMS services currently provided.
‘The fire department will continue to serve the entire township, including the village, uninterrupted,? he said. ‘No one is going to lose their fire and EMS services. No one is trying to take away those services. When you dial 9-1-1, the fire trucks are still going to show up. The only thing that’s going to change is who oversees the department operation.?