For a man who’s basing part of his campaign for township supervisor on improving relations with the Village of Oxford, Lawrence Kucemba’s role in creating the upcoming safety path millage proposal certainly didn’t endear him to council last week.
‘I am disappointed to see that the township would levy a millage on the Village of Oxford’s residents for safety paths when we have paths throughout our entire town,? said council President Chris Bishop. ‘I think this village is being steamrolled.?
Council voted 5-0 to let it be known for the record that it does not support village taxpayers being required to help fund a township safety path millage.
‘People cannot afford to pay for township recreational safety paths,? said Councilwoman Teri Stiles. ‘Our village residents cannot afford any more taxes. I absolutely disagree that village citizens should have to be included in that.?
Kucemba was instrumental in creating the proposed 10-year, 0.25-mill safety path tax, which will appear on the Aug. 5 primary ballot.
He first pitched the idea to the township board back in November 2006 and again in May 2007 when officials first voted to place a millage on the ballot.
If the new tax is approved by voters, township and village taxpayers would be required to pay property acquisition and construction costs for new safety paths along with the maintenance and replacement costs of existing ones.
‘It’s for the benefit of the whole community,? explained Kucemba, noting the idea was to tie into the Polly Ann Trail and give people more opportunities to ride their bicycles to places like the downtown area.
The township’s Safety Path Master Plan calls for constructing an additional 46,500 feet (or 8.8 miles) in asphalt safety paths along W. Drahner, Seymour Lake, Granger, Dunlap, Ray and Oxford roads along with a path connecting the POH Medical Center to W. Market St. in Waterstone.
‘I don’t believe that we should have to fund sidewalks outside of our borders,? Bishop said.
It was noted by officials that the village already funds and maintains its own sidewalks and safety paths.
‘I just think it’s a bad deal for the village residents,? said Councilman Tom Benner. ‘We’ve always maintained our own sidewalks.?
Given the fact that many people are losing their jobs and their homes due to Michigan’s poor economic climate, village officials expressed their opposition to asking for more taxes.
‘I think it’s just extremely bad timing and I’m terribly disappointed in the township board,? said Benner, noting that township Supervisor Bill Dunn, who was in attendance at the village meeting, voted against it. ‘I know you weren’t for it, Bill.?
‘I don’t think this is the right time for it,? said Councilman Mike Hamilton, who noted he regularly rides the Polly Ann Trail and bicycles ‘all over town.?
Kucemba explained the reason he and the others who created this tax proposal asked for a ‘small millage? was because ‘we realize that there’s always difficult times and that you never want to spend a whole lot of money doing this sort of thing.?
Village officials were also unhappy that the township approved placing this millage proposal on the ballot without consulting them first.
‘I think if the township was looking to improve relationships with the village, they would at least have made a motion some months ago requesting some sort of dialogue (with) the village as to what their position would have been on this millage,? Bishop said.
Council felt the village should have been excluded from the millage proposal like it is from the township’s police millage, which is only levied on unincorporated areas (i.e. properties outside the village).
Kucemba told council he understands their concerns and originally he wanted to exclude the village, but after doing some research he discovered that’s not legally possible.
‘The village has to be part of this,? Kucemba said.
According to Bishop, village attorney Bob Bunting was ‘not aware of any statute? that prevents excluding the village.
‘I did do the research on that,? Kucemba responded. ‘I didn’t see anyway around that.?
According to the state constitution and various court decisions, any tax levied by the township must be assessed uniformly on all properties including those in the village.
In other words, it’s unconstitutional for the township to levy a property tax on its unincorporated areas and not assess the same millage in the village.
When asked about the idea of excluding the village from a township millage, Treasurer Joe Ferrari, who chairs the township safety path committee, said, ‘Everybody we talk to, except the local attorneys, say that’s illegal. Our police millage, if it was ever challenged . . . that could be basically vetoed.?
Kucemba admitted the safety path millage proposal is ‘not perfect,? but he assured council ‘we’re not meaning to steamroll the village.?
Kucemba told council that Ferrari originally said he would be willing to refund the village’s portion of the millage to be spent on their own sidewalks and safety paths.
Of the $221,427.87 the safety path millage would generate in its first year of levy if approved, an estimated $36,760 would be derived from village properties.
‘It’s not Joe Ferrari’s kingdom out there,? noted Bishop, referring to the fact that any decisions regarding giving the village it’s money back would have to be made by the entire township board, not just one member.
‘That’s definitely something the township board would take a look at,? Ferrari told this reporter. ‘But there would have to be some type of agreement that if we refund it back to them, it would only be used for sidewalks and safety paths.?
It appears case law does not permit the township to reimburse the village tax money collected on its properties.
However, a 2004 Michigan Townships Association legal opinion concerning Orion’s police millage suggested a township and village could work out an interlocal agreement prior to the millage election whereby the township provides ‘financial assistance? to the village with respect to the service being funded by the tax in question.
Bishop noted how this safety path millage could push village voters into approving the referendum question asking whether the municipality should continue the cityhood process. It too is on the Aug. 5 ballot.
‘This validates cityhood for a lot of people,? he said. ‘I’m personally not in favor of cityhood and I’ve been on the record as saying that, however, I struggle with this.?