Guided by the spirit of compromise, the Oxford Village Council last week voted 3-2 to pay $9,500 of the cost incurred to switch four businesses from village to township water following a main break earlier this year.
‘I just think it’s the neighborly thing to do to at least reimburse (the township) close to the amount that we would have expended anyway and still not have solved the problem,? said Councilman Chris Bishop.
Back in February, a 4-inch village main that supplied water to four township businesses along M-24 ? Complete Auto Repair, Burger King, Red Carpet Keim and M.D. Hubbard Spring Co. ? broke due to a combination of old age and freezing temperatures.
At the time, township Supervisor Bill Dunn met with village Manager Joe Young and DPW Superintendent Don Brantley to discuss the situation.
Because the main had previously broken near the same spot in February 2006 and the township eventually planned to add these businesses to its system anyway, it was decided to switch systems.
However, who was going to pay the $22,525 cost was never decided. Township officials later wrote the village a letter requesting they pay the full amount.
No one on council was in favor of paying the whole bill and a majority felt the decision to switch systems was not made by the appropriate parties in either the village or twp.
‘I just think the decision was made by people who didn’t have the authority to make it,? said Councilman Benner, who noted there was an entire year following the first time the main broke that the issue could have been brought to the attention of council and the township board to ‘get some type of a remedy.?
‘I don’t think either one of our administrators had any business approving the receiving of these customers or the giving of these customers away,? Bishop said.
‘Administratively, I think this was a poor decision and a decision of opportunity for the township,? said Councilwoman Stiles.
Bishop said he also doesn’t believe the township’s motives for wanting the switch were as ‘simple and pure? as wanting to get water to these businesses who had none because of the main break.
Because village administration was part of this ‘poor decision,? Stiles said the village shouldn’t get a ‘free ride? on the $22,525 bill, but it also shouldn’t pay the whole thing because ‘we’re paying to lose customers.?
Following a pair of failed motions by Councilman Dave Bailey ? one to pay nothing and a second to pay $1,000 ? Bishop proposed council pay $9,500 because that’s close to the amount the village would have had to pay anyway to have the main repaired.
The village is also saving future dollars because the main ‘isn’t going to break for us again next year.?
When the main broke in 2006, the village paid $7,919 to have it repaired, according to Brantley. The only cost to the village after this year’s break was $1,970 to cut and cap the main.
‘I think that’s a fair amount,? said Benner, referring to the $9,500 offer.
Given the loss of four village water customers, council President George Del Vigna couldn’t see spending any money whatsoever on the switch. ‘If we kept the customers, then I can see sharing the cost or doing something like that,? he said.