BELLVILLE — The Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal from the Village of Bellville regarding a fire services contract with Washington Township.
The one-sentence ruling signed by Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy didn’t rule on the merits on the village’s request to end a decades-old agreement with the township regarding fire department services and who pays for it.
“Upon consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this case, the court
declines to accept jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to Rule 7.08(B)(4),” Kennedy wrote in a decision that may end more than a decade of legal wrangling.
Rule 7.08(B)(4) gives the Ohio Supreme Court discretion to decline appeals that it deems do not meet the criteria for review, focusing on cases involving substantial constitutional questions, questions of great public interest or felonies where leave to appeal is warranted.
On March 10, the village filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, the latest in a string of legal actions pertaining to the cost of services provided by the Washington Township Fire Department.
Washington Township has provided fire protection services to the portion of Bellville within township boundaries since Bellville annexed the highly commercial I-71 corridor of the township in 1995.
During the last three years, the village has filed several legal challenges to a decades-old fire services agreement with the township, a legal battle that has cost the village more than $17,000 in attorney and court fees.
In various unsuccessful court challenges to the contract, Bellville has argued the fire protection agreement is void because it requires payment in perpetuity without a vote from village council or residents, thus creating an unconstitutional tax.
“It’s unheard of today to have a contract in perpetuity or doesn’t at least get reviewed by both sides on an annual/bi-annual basis,” Mayor Teri Brenkus has said.
“Parties involved should have the choice to opt out at some point,” the mayor said.
However, the contract provides it will renew annually and end only if Bellville becomes a city under Ohio law; the township refuses to provide fire protection services; or if both parties agree to end it.
Most of the Village of Bellville is located within Jefferson Township and receives its fire protection services from the Bellville Jefferson Township Fire Department.
But there is also a portion of the village in Washington Township.
Bellville annexed that portion of the village in 1995 through a mutual agreement with Washington Township, despite initial reluctance from township trustees.
The two parties entered into a fire protection contract in November 1995, according to the facts and procedural history listed in a judgment entry from Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals.
(Below is a PDF showing the contract between the Village of Bellville and Washington Township in 1995.)
Under the contract, Washington Township’s fire department would continue to serve the area annexed by the village.
In exchange, Bellville would pay Washington Township half of the bed tax collected from “current and existing” motels in the annexed area, plus an amount equal to all real and personal property tax revenue levied in the territory (based on 1995 property values), and a portion of property tax collected from new construction in the annexed area for the next 20 years (50 percent for the first ten years and 25 percent for the following 10.)
Bellville took up the matter again in 2023, filing a complaint against Washington Township in the Ohio Supreme Court. The village sought an order directing the township to provide fire protection services “without any additional agreement or payment such as is required by the Fire Protection Contract.”
In an affidavit, then-village administrator Larry Weirich testified that the village of Bellville had paid Washington Township nearly $1.2 million as of Sept. 2023.
Washington Township filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court granted in February 2024.
In March 2024, Bellville filed a new case in Richland County. The court sided with the township again in June.
Bellville appealed the local court’s decision to the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals in June 2024.
A February 2025 opinion from the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Richland County court, noting the contract is not “vague, indefinite or against public policy.”
“The only change pointed to by Bellville is that newly elected Village officials do not like the contract entered by their predecessors,” the opinion states.
“Bellville agreed to the conditions of the contract so that it could annex a portion of Washington Township. To avoid litigation the parties agreed to the annexation if Washington Township would provide fire protection to the area, and that Bellville would pay for that protection from the collection of bed taxes within the annexed area. Now, Bellville wants to avoid its obligation to pay for the fire protection,” the court said.
Washington Township has argued against Bellville’s attempts on procedural grounds, arguing if the village wants to challenge the agreement, it should appeal a 2011 Richland County Common Pleas Court decision.
Around 2011, Bellville stopped making fire protection payments to Washington Township. Township trustees filed a breach of contract claim against the village in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. A judge ruled in favor of the township.
“When we went to court with them Judge (James) DeWeese basically said, ‘This is a terrible contract. It’s very bad, but the village of Bellville signed it,’” said Darrell Banks, who was Bellville’s mayor in 2011 and now serves as county commissioner.
“We went to court over it once and we lost,” Banks said earlier this year. “It’s too bad (the village and township) can’t sit down and negotiate something better.”
Washington Township Trustee Jack Butler has said it’s unlikely township officials would be interested in renegotiating terms.
“It was an agreement that was agreed to years ago. We’ve been holding our end of it,” he said. “The people that were in office back at that time all agreed that it was fine.”
