“I don’t necessarily like the old contract, but I like the new contract even less.”
So said Oxford Township Trustee Jerry Dywasuk referring to a revised contract for village dispatch services presented to the township board at its special meeting on Dec. 30.
Township officials rejected the new contract, disapproving of its revised language. In response, the township directed its attorney to change the existing contract “only as provided for” by a Dec. 17 resolution by the Oxford Public Fire and EMS Commission.
“Has the (new) contract (from the village) changed significantly,” asked Treasurer Joe Ferrari.
“Yes,” replied Supervisor Bill Dunn.
Ferrari stated that village President Steve Allen told him “it’s still the same contract.”
“I’d rather you ask our attorney than Steve Allen,” Dunn retorted.
The revised contract, drawn up by village attorney Bob Bunting and approved at the Dec. 23 council meeting, contained significant changes to the existing contract that were not included in the Dec. 17 OPFEC resolution, according to township officials.
The OPFEC resolution stated, “To accept the proposal from Oxford Village Dispatch for $50,400 which is to be the total cost to OPFEC, beginning January 1, 2004, with the understanding that the contract can be ended with four months notice.”
Basically, the resolution means that instead of the township paying the village $67,000 per year for fire/EMS dispatch services (as under the existing contract), OPFEC will now pay the village $50,400 for dispatch in 2004 with 3-percent annual increases. OPFEC’s cost would be split in the following manner – 83.01 percent for the township ($41,837) and 16.99 percent for the village ($8,563).
Township attorney Chris Kaye told the board some “substantive changes were made” in the revised contract from the village, “some of which were pretty troubling.”
“One of the biggest changes from the existing (contract),” according to Kaye, is the fact the village has “written the township out of the 4-month notice (clause).”
According to the existing contract dated March 2000, “This agreement may be terminated by OPFEC, the township or village, with or without cause, upon 4 months written notice to the other parties at any time.”
The revised contract stated, “This agreement may be terminated by OPFEC, or the village, with or without cause, upon 4 months notice to the other parties at any time.”
“That’s obviously a major change,” Kaye said.
It appears the township was also written out of another section in the revised contract concerning when the agreement and any amendments to it can become effective.
In the March 2000 contract, it was stated, “This agreement, and any subsequent amendments, shall not become effective prior to the approval by resolutions of the OPFEC board, the township board and the village council.”
In the revised version, that section states, “This agreement, and any subsequent amendments becomes effective by resolution or motion of the OPFEC board and the village council.”
Dywasuk, who made the Dec. 17 OPFEC motion to accept the village’s dispatch proposal, said the revised contract was not at all what he had in mind.
“The only thing I wanted to do was accept the cost and make sure we can get out with four-month notice,” Dywasuk said. “And that’s the only change I really wanted.”
Dywasuk blamed the whole dispatch situation on the township itself.
“We put ourselves in this situation,” he said. “We entered OPFEC. We agreed that people not accountable to the (unincorporated township) voters (i.e. the village council) have equal power over any decision we make.”
“The problem is under OPFEC we really don’t have the right to go with somebody else (for dispatch) unless OPFEC votes for it,” said Dywasuk, a longtime and vocal proponent of switching to Oakland County dispatch. “We’ve got one choice (for dispatch) until OPFEC’s gone. . .We don’t have any ability right now to go with any other kind of dispatch.”
According to OPFEC’s bylaws, in order for a resolution or motion to be approved it must be approved by both the township board and village council, which makeup OPFEC. If the vote fails on either the township or village side, no action can be taken.
“We’re screwed,” Dywasuk said. “The best we can do is hope the village gives us a lower cost. We don’t really have a lot of options. We can’t take the (dispatch) agreement as it is because of all this stuff they put in it. We’re the slave in this relationship. We put ourselves in it and its the taxpayers who are going to pay for it. . .We cut ourselves off at the legs.”
Ultimately, the township board voted 4-1 to accept and adopt the Dec. 17 OPFEC resolution “with the township continuing to have the four-months-out clause.”
As part of the approve motion, the township board instructed its attorney “to make only those revisions to the existing dispatch contract that are necessary to meet the requirement of the OPFEC resolution” and provide a copy of the revised contract to the township for its review and delivery to the village.
The township’s revised version of the contract must be approved by the township board, village council and OPFEC before it can take effect.
“Until all three parties execute the new contract, (the price for fire/EMS dispatch to the township is) going to be $67,000 (per year),” according to attorney Kaye. “Now hopefully when all three parties execute it, it will be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2004.”
This reporter questioned village President Allen about the changes in the revised contract approved by council.
Allen said that “any changes” to the contract were “proposed” and “executed” by the village’s legal counsel.
“Coincidently, (OPFEC attorney) Steve Gross looked it over and seemed not to have any glaring concerns,” he added.
When asked if he believes council would approve the revised contract the township is proposing, which is the basically the existing contract with the only changes being those specifically from the Dec. 17 OPFEC resolution, Allen replied, “ I have no reason to believe otherwise.”
Based on their unanimous votes on the subject, “I truly believe that the village council firmly understood that local dispatch was in the best interest of the entire community,” Allen noted.
Allen said he “would have no problem making (the dispatch contract) retroactive to Jan. 1, 2004.”
“That was my intent,” he said.
“I have no reason to believe, since the contract is payable at the end of each month, that the $50,400 figure would not still stand,” Allen said.