Council debates interlocal agreement with Union City, Indiana, weighing oversight and cost savings

The Union City village council spent extensive time March 17 discussing a proposed interlocal agreement with Union City, Indiana that would fold several existing contracts into a single document and set shared administrative arrangements.

Proponents, including an agency official speaking to the council, said the agreement could cut costs by consolidating functions and splitting expenses between the two municipalities. The official said the plan would replace separate fire and police administrative posts with a single shared administrative position and described savings in shared licensing and equipment costs: “This interlocal agreement takes it to 1 person at 75, $80,000 a year that's split between 2 communities,” the agency official said, adding that license fees and other recurring costs could likewise be shared.

Council members and an official for the town said attorneys from both states reviewed the draft to reduce potential open-meeting conflicts. A council member asked for clarity on whether oversight appointments would be selected by mayors or handled through joint council meetings; attorneys had recommended a small appointed oversight panel so both councils would not have to meet simultaneously. "We can't get 14, 16 people's schedules aligned," one council member said, urging that each side appoint one or two representatives to a standing oversight group so routine operational matters could be handled without full joint sessions.

Speakers acknowledged local identity concerns — the official noted there are both Union City, Indiana, and Union City, Ohio communities — but said the agreement does not erase municipal identities and is intended to achieve "cost savings across the board." Supporters gave practical examples: sharing a single licensure for body cameras and splitting the $15,000 licensing cost, consolidating billing for utilities and sharing detective services across both sides of town.

Several council members asked for more time to review the final draft and to confirm procedural steps for adoption. The council indicated it expected attorneys to finalize language and said the oversight panel could be formed or an advisory committee named by the next meeting. One council member said a formal council resolution or similar action would likely be required for signing.

The council did not take a final vote on the interlocal agreement at the March 17 meeting; members asked staff to circulate attorney revisions and to bring the item back for formal action at a later date.

The next council meeting is scheduled for April 7, when the oversight structure and any required resolution could appear on the agenda.