It appears Oxford Village voters will finally get to vote on whether the cityhood process continues in either the August primary election or November general election.
The referendum petition started by Oxford Twp. Supervisor, and village resident, Bill Dunn has been received and filed with the state Boundary Commission.
Legal sufficiency of this petition is tentatively scheduled to be determined at the Thursday, May 15 Boundary Commission meeting in Lansing.
Given Dunn already determined that 152 of the petition’s 160 signers are registered village voters, it’s a sure bet we’re finally, finally going to have an election on this issue. Score one for democracy!
The majority of village residents ? who have largely been left out of this minority-driven process initiated by a convicted felon who’s since left town ? will finally get to mark a ballot and say ‘yes, please go forward? or ‘no, stop wasting my money you idiots.?
If the petition’s found legally sufficient at the May meeting, the question of whether the incorporation process should continue will be on the August ballot.
If the meeting is cancelled or the petition’s approval is postponed for some other reason, the question would probably appear on the November ballot.
Either way the question will be decided during a real election where lots and lots of people vote ? not just a village level election where only a handful of people cast ballots and the majority could care less.
I’ve had several people ask me when the newspaper’s going to run articles on cityhood.
To be sure, as the election draws near there will be articles regarding the pros and cons of cityhood.
But there’s already been a whole slew of stories on the subject over the last three years.
Every article regarding cityhood can be found right now by searching our website www.oxfordleader.com.
The following are some of the more important news articles (not opinion columns like this one) to check out:
n ?152 villagers sign petition for cityhood referendum? (April 9, 2008) ? Synopsis: Contains information about what taxes city residents would and would not pay. Also, about what services would be transferred from township to new city.
n ‘Council supports cityhood, wants to see cost? (May 16, 2007) ? Synopsis: Oxford Village Council members approve a resolution supporting the cityhood process, but have lots of questions about the cost. Manager Joe Young tried to answer some of those questions. There’s some debate over whether cityhood’s about cost or services.
n ‘Cityhood hearing draws meager crowd? (May 9, 2007) ? Synopsis: The state Boundary Commission held a public hearing regarding cityhood at Oxford Middle School. The event was very poorly attended and only three residents who weren’t public officials spoke. Representatives from both the township and village governments spoke about what they perceive as the pros and cons of cityhood.
n ‘Public discusses cityhood costs, benefits with committee? (April 25, 2007) ? Synopsis: The village’s cityhood committee held a town hall style meeting so residents could ask cityhood attorney Tom Ryan questions along with representatives from the Michigan Municipal League (MML), which serves as an advocate for the state’s cities and villages.
Residents? questions regarding taxes and services were asked and answered, and opinions were offered.
n ‘Research paper says cityhood’s no cost savings? (May 24, 2006) ? Synopsis: Former Oxford Village Clerk/Assistant Manager Christine Burns wrote a research paper for her master’s degree in which she did a cost/benefit analysis of going from village to city. Her conclusion ? ‘The bottom line is you can’t do it for the financial reasons. Looking at the numbers, it’s not a cost savings.?
n ‘Impact of changing from a village to a city? (November 9, 2005) ? Synopsis: Edited by Sue A. Jeffers, associate general counsel for the MML, this reprint of an article that appeared in the May 2003 Michigan Municipal Review offers a detailed overview of the cityhood’s impact.
n ‘Cityhood speaker addresses chamber? (November 23, 2005) ? Synopsis: Jack Myers, former manager of Chelsea, gives an overview of why that village chose to incorporate as a city in 2004. His comments are largely anecdotal and very pro-cityhood.
Granted some of the information in the articles is contradictory and changes depending on who was quoted.
For instance, in Christine Burns? research paper, former library director Judy Doublestein talks about how city residents would have to temporarily contract for library services from the township until a district library could be formed.
However, it was later determined that because both library operating millages were previously approved by township and village voters without expiration dates, city residents would continue paying those township millages and have access to the library.
Same goes for the township parks and recreation department. Originally, Director Ron Davis said city residents would have to be charged non-resident fees for recreation programs.
However, it was later stated, by cityhood attorney Tom Ryan, that city residents would continue paying the township parks and rec. millage until it expired along with other township millages such as those for fire/ALS services.
And just to make it crystal clear because some residents have asked me this ? cityhood in this case only refers to the village breaking away from the township.
It does not, I repeat does not, mean merging the village and township into one city. That’s not what village residents will be asked to vote on here.