An offer to settle Oxford Village and Township’s legal wrangling over the fire department’s assets was rejected by the village council last week.
‘It looks to me as though some or all of the township board members are having second thoughts about the arbitration process and they would like to flip the coin again because it came down the wrong way the first time,? said Councilman Dave Bailey.
Council discussed and rejected a Jan. 9 letter from township Supervisor Bill Dunn outlining a ‘concept for the settlement of the lawsuit and arbitration proceeding? regarding the Oxford Fire Department, now under township ownership and control as of Jan. 1.
‘I’m disappointed, but that’s their decision,? said Dunn when he learned of the rejection. ‘I thought we could settle this and save money on both sides. I guess I was wrong.?
The department’s assets ? the value of which has not yet been independently appraised ? are currently in the process of being divided between the village and township via a court-appointed arbitrator as part of the dissolution of the Oxford Public Fire & EMS Commission.
Last month per the arbitrator’s first decision, council elected to have the township fire department provide fire and emergency medical services to village residents from January 2006 through January 2011.
But the village also demanded payment of its equity share in the department’s assets ‘forthwith.? The village claims its equity is worth approximately $2 million.
Rather than allowing the village and township to continue ‘incurring substantial expenses in attorney fees, expert witness fees, appraiser fees, arbitrator fees and the arbitrator’s consultant fees,? Dunn made a personal request to council outlining a plan to settle things without the arbitrator.
‘We need to stop the bleeding,? Dunn wrote.
In a nutshell, the ‘settlement concept? calls for ‘freezing? the arbitration process where it is now.
‘If this arrangement does not work out, we can always unfreeze the award at that time and have the arbitrator resolve the remaining arbitration issues,? Dunn wrote.
During this freeze, the township would provide fire services to the village ‘at no additional cost other than? village residents would continue to pay the millages they helped approve in May 2005 and the village would contribute its ‘equity interest in the fire assets.?
‘All fire assets are to be made available to the Oxford Fire and EMS Department to provide fire services,? Dunn wrote.
The actual appraisal and value of the fire department’s assets would be left as an ‘open? issue.
‘The value of these assets can be determined at any time, if necessary, in the future. We will recognize the village has an equity in these assets, we just won’t determine the amount at this time,? Dunn wrote.
Dunn also offered the village title to the old fire hall on W. Burdick St. but noted ‘if in the future there needs to be an actual division of assets, the township’s equity, if any exists at the time, can be addressed.?
‘I suspect that after we spend the money necessary to resolve the remaining issues in arbitration, we will be right where I am in my settlement concept ? the township will be providing fire services to the village at no additional cost, other than the millage cost and the village’s contribution of its fire asset equity,? Dunnwrote. ‘The only difference will be that we will not have a dollar value to assign to the village equity and there will be no formal amortization of that equity over time.?
Dunn’s proposal was soundly rejected by council members, who were, based on their comments, unanimously in favor of letting the arbitration process continue and collecting the village’s equity in cash.
‘The arbitrator came up with an appropriate way to handle it. I feel we should follow what the court is saying,? said Councilman George DelVigna.
‘Let the arbitration process continue to the end,? Bailey said.
‘This board took action based on the judgement that came from the arbitrator (and) that said how it was going to proceed,? said Councilman Steve Allen.
‘I believe we are supposed to be paid our fair share at the end of the arbitration,? said Councilman Tom Benner.
Benner noted it was the township who initiated the lawsuit to take over the fire department, which has so far cost the village ‘around $60,000 to protect our interests? and the township ‘in excess of $90,000.?
‘I don’t know why they’re so interested now in stopping the bleeding, what they started,? he said. ‘The only reason I can think of is they might not have the money to pay us.?
‘Basically, the township seems to be asking us to give up our equity interest at the beginning of the (arbitration) process,? said Bailey noting the arbitrator has ‘ruled in general how he will do his job, but he has not actually done his job.?
‘He has not actually told us what our equity interests (are), what we basically own and what we don’t own,? Bailey explained. ‘Mr. Dunn is asking is to bypass that whole process and just say, ‘Hey, we don’t have any equity. It’s all the township’s.? I don’t think that’s appropriate.?
Allen said the village council cannot just ‘give? the township its equity share in the fire department.
‘We are not in a position by law to give anyone anything. It’s very clear in our charter,? he said. ‘Any real property valued at over a tenth of a mill has to be voted on by the people of Oxford (Village) to be sold, let alone given away.?
‘Those are their assets. Those are assets that they’ve acquired through 100 years of ownership of the fire department and through taxation. Those are tax dollars that paid for those things and we are elected to protect the investments of the people who live in the Village of Oxford and not summarily give them away to anyone. We’re not in a position where we could even consider doing this,? Allen said.
Bailey quipped that Dunn’s proposal reminded him of an ‘old joke? that says, ‘We’ll flip a coin ? heads I win, tails we flip again.?