REMINDER - There is a meeting for Manchester Township and Manchester village residents to discuss their views and opinions on the AATA Public Transportation proposal that will cost residents upwards of $500,000 over a five year period if our officials do not opt out of this service.
The meeting is this Thursday, September 27th at the Manchester Village Hall, 512 City Street, from 6:30 to 8:30 PM.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Friday, September 7, 2012
AATA County-wide Transport Proposal - Your Attendance is Vital
The above meeting on September 27th is a vital part of the county-wide transportation proposal being presented to our township government and residents. This proposal will add a significant cost to our township expenditures (potentially well over $500,000 over a five year period, with a minimum proposed cost of $86,000 per year for Manchester residents alone), and thus, affects us all. Your attendance is vital to ask questions and provide feedback on this proposal, and to investigate it's viability for our community as a whole.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Manchester - get your vote on!
Don't forget to stop in at the polls tomorrow, Tuesday, August 7th, and be heard!
Tomorrow's primary election offers us the incredible opportunity to take the leadership of our township into new and exciting directions. Residents can choose to actively preserve the unique rural and agricultural atmosphere that sets our town apart from neighboring communities. Vote to stop endeavors that will alter the characteristics of our small town - say no to Dollar General stores, banquet halls, and new limits on farming activities. Be heard, be active, protect the lifestyle you love, and choose change.
Additionally, tomorrow's election puts a proposal in front of voters to provide additional funding for fire services to cover costs incurred from outside fire departments servicing areas of Manchester Township. This proposal incorporates wording into it that would allow these funds to be distributed in any manner our township board chooses. Unfortunately, it does not mandate that funds will stay with the Manchester fire department. Please make sure to review the wording carefully on this proposal before casting your vote. Manchester loves it's fire fighters, we want to make certain that all funding STAYS with our fire department, and does not get diverted elsewhere. If you own a $200,000 home, this will cost you an additional $650 in higher taxes over the proposed 5 year period. It's a significant amount during tough economic times. We must insure we maintain ethical leadership with integrity to manage our hard-earned tax dollars, and that they actually go where WE choose.
Proposal 1:
Shall Manchester Township impose an increase of up to 0.65 mills ($0.65 per $1,000 of taxable value) in the tax limitation imposed under Article IX, Sec. 6 of the Michigan Constitution on general ad valorem taxes within Manchester Township and levy it for 5 years, for the period of 2012 through 2016 inclusive, for the purpose to provide fire protection services within Manchester Township, which 0.65 mills increase will raise in the first year the millage is levied an estimated $113,100 of which a portion may be disbursed to such other or fewer local units of government as the Township Board determines appropriate.
Tomorrow's primary election offers us the incredible opportunity to take the leadership of our township into new and exciting directions. Residents can choose to actively preserve the unique rural and agricultural atmosphere that sets our town apart from neighboring communities. Vote to stop endeavors that will alter the characteristics of our small town - say no to Dollar General stores, banquet halls, and new limits on farming activities. Be heard, be active, protect the lifestyle you love, and choose change.
Additionally, tomorrow's election puts a proposal in front of voters to provide additional funding for fire services to cover costs incurred from outside fire departments servicing areas of Manchester Township. This proposal incorporates wording into it that would allow these funds to be distributed in any manner our township board chooses. Unfortunately, it does not mandate that funds will stay with the Manchester fire department. Please make sure to review the wording carefully on this proposal before casting your vote. Manchester loves it's fire fighters, we want to make certain that all funding STAYS with our fire department, and does not get diverted elsewhere. If you own a $200,000 home, this will cost you an additional $650 in higher taxes over the proposed 5 year period. It's a significant amount during tough economic times. We must insure we maintain ethical leadership with integrity to manage our hard-earned tax dollars, and that they actually go where WE choose.
Proposal 1:
Shall Manchester Township impose an increase of up to 0.65 mills ($0.65 per $1,000 of taxable value) in the tax limitation imposed under Article IX, Sec. 6 of the Michigan Constitution on general ad valorem taxes within Manchester Township and levy it for 5 years, for the period of 2012 through 2016 inclusive, for the purpose to provide fire protection services within Manchester Township, which 0.65 mills increase will raise in the first year the millage is levied an estimated $113,100 of which a portion may be disbursed to such other or fewer local units of government as the Township Board determines appropriate.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ethics, Morals, and Candidates
With the pending election, it seems the closer we get to the August 7th primary, the more our e-mail box is filling up. Today's Manchester Enterprise ( click here for link ) has prompted a flurry of activity. Please note that we discussed putting similar opinion pieces out there in detail, and agree with the responder that this information has been out in the public for general comment for an incredibly long period of time. It seems everyone in the township is aware of this, but none of our officials, news sources, or the candidates themselves have addressed it. What are your thoughts?
Below is a partial quote from the letter in question submitted to the editor of the Manchester Enterprise. Out of respect for copyright issues and the source, we ask that you follow the link to view the post in it's entirety below:
Link to original post here
"To the Editor:
I have served on the Manchester township board as a trustee for eight years, and before that on the planning commission. Due to my involvement in other community activities, I have decided not to run for trustee again, though I do plan to continue staying informed and will consider becoming involved in the planning commission again. Our current township supervisor, Ron Mann, is retiring, and for the first time in many years there is competition for the position of supervisor. I believe there are only two candidates in the running, as a third person stated that they have withdrawn their petition, leaving Les Kopka and Gene DeRossett in competition for the seat.
Sincerely,
Sybil Kolon"
The response below was submitted to The Manchester Enterprise and to us by a mutual reader. At the time of this being shared, this response had been posted to The Enterprise's comment section. We must note again that this information has been presented to us for months by numerous sources, and that candidate Kopka has had ample opportunity to address these concerns with the voting public. We are posting this here as public opinion has presented it to us on numerous occasions. We invite candidate Kopka to provide a written response. Additionally, contrary to Sybil Kolon's remark above, Gene DeRossett is a long time resident of Manchester.
In a township where this particular candidate's name (Les/Leslie Kopka) is linked heavily to numerous rumors of embezzlement and misconduct as part of our daily vernacular, I find it incredibly offensive that an elected official would endorse a candidate who has publicly opted to not avoid even the hint of impropriety associated with his name and conduct. Not only has Mr. DeRossett been to the township board meetings, he has also been in attendance at the planning commission meetings. You, Ms. Kolon, have not been to one planning commission meeting in 2012, so you are hardly an expert on who has been in attendance at what meetings. I urge readers to explore the township's board and planning commission meeting minutes to become educated on the issues plaguing Mr. Kopka, his integrity, his history as a planning commissioner appointed to protect the interests of the residents of our township, and his candidacy for township supervisor.
~ ManchesterTwpResident
Below is a partial quote from the letter in question submitted to the editor of the Manchester Enterprise. Out of respect for copyright issues and the source, we ask that you follow the link to view the post in it's entirety below:
Link to original post here
"To the Editor:
I have served on the Manchester township board as a trustee for eight years, and before that on the planning commission. Due to my involvement in other community activities, I have decided not to run for trustee again, though I do plan to continue staying informed and will consider becoming involved in the planning commission again. Our current township supervisor, Ron Mann, is retiring, and for the first time in many years there is competition for the position of supervisor. I believe there are only two candidates in the running, as a third person stated that they have withdrawn their petition, leaving Les Kopka and Gene DeRossett in competition for the seat.
Sincerely,
Sybil Kolon"
The response below was submitted to The Manchester Enterprise and to us by a mutual reader. At the time of this being shared, this response had been posted to The Enterprise's comment section. We must note again that this information has been presented to us for months by numerous sources, and that candidate Kopka has had ample opportunity to address these concerns with the voting public. We are posting this here as public opinion has presented it to us on numerous occasions. We invite candidate Kopka to provide a written response. Additionally, contrary to Sybil Kolon's remark above, Gene DeRossett is a long time resident of Manchester.
In a township where this particular candidate's name (Les/Leslie Kopka) is linked heavily to numerous rumors of embezzlement and misconduct as part of our daily vernacular, I find it incredibly offensive that an elected official would endorse a candidate who has publicly opted to not avoid even the hint of impropriety associated with his name and conduct. Not only has Mr. DeRossett been to the township board meetings, he has also been in attendance at the planning commission meetings. You, Ms. Kolon, have not been to one planning commission meeting in 2012, so you are hardly an expert on who has been in attendance at what meetings. I urge readers to explore the township's board and planning commission meeting minutes to become educated on the issues plaguing Mr. Kopka, his integrity, his history as a planning commissioner appointed to protect the interests of the residents of our township, and his candidacy for township supervisor.
~ ManchesterTwpResident
The Bait and Switch, Planning Commission Style!
This
is a reminder that there is a Manchester Planning Commission meeting
this evening at the town hall board room beginning at 8 PM. There are
several interesting items on the agenda for this evening. You can
access it HERE.
As you can see from the agenda, they will be discussing the Tracey Road lawsuit, "interpretation" of 5.03 of the A/R zoning ordinance, and a new item, "Availability of documents used by Planning Commission during meetings for public viewing". As many of you know, a very specific memo authored by Andrea Bibby of Carlisle/Wortman, which was referenced heavily in last month's meeting regarding the "interpretation" and proposed revisions of the A/R zoning, section 5.03, which prompted the Tracey Road lawsuit (in addition to the misconduct by several members of that planning commission), was committed to be made available to the public as part of the draft minutes. Even though this was confirmed several times within the meeting and should be reflected in the meeting minutes, that document was not and has not been provided to the public. That document provides new verbiage to open up Manchester's A/R zoning district to banquet halls, and will be expected to pass without a strong showing of opposition from the public. It is vital that you be in attendance tonight, and bring several Manchester residents with you as a public show of opposition.
Lastly, next week's primary election on Tuesday, August 7th will be the election in which we choose a township supervisor. Les Kopka is pushing very hard at the planning commission level to push these proposed ordinance changes through - without regard for public input or opinion - to accommodate the request of one private citizen. It is vitally important that we have strong voter turnout for that primary, if only to elect change for Manchester in the township supervisor position. Mark your calendars to vote and commit to getting others to the polls.
As you can see from the agenda, they will be discussing the Tracey Road lawsuit, "interpretation" of 5.03 of the A/R zoning ordinance, and a new item, "Availability of documents used by Planning Commission during meetings for public viewing". As many of you know, a very specific memo authored by Andrea Bibby of Carlisle/Wortman, which was referenced heavily in last month's meeting regarding the "interpretation" and proposed revisions of the A/R zoning, section 5.03, which prompted the Tracey Road lawsuit (in addition to the misconduct by several members of that planning commission), was committed to be made available to the public as part of the draft minutes. Even though this was confirmed several times within the meeting and should be reflected in the meeting minutes, that document was not and has not been provided to the public. That document provides new verbiage to open up Manchester's A/R zoning district to banquet halls, and will be expected to pass without a strong showing of opposition from the public. It is vital that you be in attendance tonight, and bring several Manchester residents with you as a public show of opposition.
Lastly, next week's primary election on Tuesday, August 7th will be the election in which we choose a township supervisor. Les Kopka is pushing very hard at the planning commission level to push these proposed ordinance changes through - without regard for public input or opinion - to accommodate the request of one private citizen. It is vitally important that we have strong voter turnout for that primary, if only to elect change for Manchester in the township supervisor position. Mark your calendars to vote and commit to getting others to the polls.
Friday, July 27, 2012
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Support Gene DeRossett for Manchester Township Supervisor
Two life-long Manchester residents explain why they support DeRossett in his candidacy for township supervisor:
http://heritage.com/articles/2012/07/26/opinion/doc50118e71d6b61805206750.txt
http://heritage.com/articles/2012/07/26/opinion/doc50118e71d6b61805206750.txt
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Balancing Act
© Laura Adams, 2012 for ManchesterTownship.org
"There is a difficult leap between talking about balancing the budget and actually doing it." ~ Kevin Brady
Over the past several months there has been a lot of discussion in the township board and planning commission meetings about Manchester Township's projected operating budget deficit for the 2012-13 fiscal year. By all accounts, our officials agree that the projected deficit lies somewhere around $150,000. It's a significant shortfall which has garnered the concern and attention of area residents. In the May township board meeting, current township supervisor Ron Mann invited residents to participate in the budget process and give input and feedback on where residents felt additional cuts could be made, and how residents could contribute to the process in a positive manner. Unfortunately, the budget information provided to the public was an incredibly generic and rudimentary budget, with no detailed line information, and thus, no possible way for residents with significant backgrounds in accounting and finance to provide free expert assistance to the township in managing our ongoing budget deficit. (You can view the provided document here. ) Sadly, when some residents requested more detailed information regarding the township's budget, Mann proclaimed that they "wouldn't understand it" (despite some profound professional experience in budgeting and accounting), and did not produce the requested information. To date, detailed budget information has not been provided to the public for the 2011-12 fiscal year, nor the current 2012-13 fiscal year which has been approved by the Manchester Township Board. Requests were made by e-mail and in writing.
The secrecy surrounding the budget, and the manner with which it's detailed information has been and is being withheld from public consumption, should raise questions with township residents. Surely, with thousands of residents in the township, there are likely a number of experts who could provide amazing assistance to the township on a volunteer basis. Despite what has been stated by officials in public meetings, this assistance, when offered, is not being taken advantage of (which reminds us of our township's web site issue, but that's a different post entirely).
Questions regarding the budget were raised at the recent forum for candidates that was held in Carr Park (see this post), and it seems that even the candidates were having a difficult time reconciling the state of the township's budget. A major point that many people seem to be confused on is how the township could have, or does have, a balanced budget on paper.
Not really. The township board made a move to simply take funds from the township's savings to supplement the anticipated budget deficit to the tune of $140,000 or so. That, folks, is creative accounting, not balancing a budget - even though technically, it appears balanced. A truly balanced budget is comprised of expenditures that do not exceed income, and despite Ron Mann's invitations for the public to be involved in this, there's no way for township residents to ascertain if unnecessary expenditures have been eliminated without them being able to see the actual details of the budget.
The community group that manages this web site has been lobbying the township board and the planning commission to embrace a sense of transparent operations with township residents for months, only to be met with excuses and opposition at every step. The budget is but one of those issues, and none of our officials seem willing to share a detailed budget (or other simple operating documents and information) with our residents. WHY? With our available technology, it isn't hard to copy and paste documents to web sites, share a current budget on-line, post meeting minutes, live-stream meetings to the web, post audio clips, video footage, photos, or make even the most minute details available - all via the web. It's pretty simple, actually. So we're putting it out there - another public request that our township officials make a current and on-going township budget available for public review on the township's web site, along with our other simple web site improvement requests (which can all be found in the various meeting minutes, good luck getting a copy) , for public review and that long-requested transparency. Tell your elected officials that you want transparency within our government and want to see exactly what's in our township budget. You can reach Ron Mann, Township Supervisor, at (734) 428-7090.
"There is a difficult leap between talking about balancing the budget and actually doing it." ~ Kevin Brady
Over the past several months there has been a lot of discussion in the township board and planning commission meetings about Manchester Township's projected operating budget deficit for the 2012-13 fiscal year. By all accounts, our officials agree that the projected deficit lies somewhere around $150,000. It's a significant shortfall which has garnered the concern and attention of area residents. In the May township board meeting, current township supervisor Ron Mann invited residents to participate in the budget process and give input and feedback on where residents felt additional cuts could be made, and how residents could contribute to the process in a positive manner. Unfortunately, the budget information provided to the public was an incredibly generic and rudimentary budget, with no detailed line information, and thus, no possible way for residents with significant backgrounds in accounting and finance to provide free expert assistance to the township in managing our ongoing budget deficit. (You can view the provided document here. ) Sadly, when some residents requested more detailed information regarding the township's budget, Mann proclaimed that they "wouldn't understand it" (despite some profound professional experience in budgeting and accounting), and did not produce the requested information. To date, detailed budget information has not been provided to the public for the 2011-12 fiscal year, nor the current 2012-13 fiscal year which has been approved by the Manchester Township Board. Requests were made by e-mail and in writing.
The secrecy surrounding the budget, and the manner with which it's detailed information has been and is being withheld from public consumption, should raise questions with township residents. Surely, with thousands of residents in the township, there are likely a number of experts who could provide amazing assistance to the township on a volunteer basis. Despite what has been stated by officials in public meetings, this assistance, when offered, is not being taken advantage of (which reminds us of our township's web site issue, but that's a different post entirely).
Questions regarding the budget were raised at the recent forum for candidates that was held in Carr Park (see this post), and it seems that even the candidates were having a difficult time reconciling the state of the township's budget. A major point that many people seem to be confused on is how the township could have, or does have, a balanced budget on paper.
The answer: it doesn't.
Not really. The township board made a move to simply take funds from the township's savings to supplement the anticipated budget deficit to the tune of $140,000 or so. That, folks, is creative accounting, not balancing a budget - even though technically, it appears balanced. A truly balanced budget is comprised of expenditures that do not exceed income, and despite Ron Mann's invitations for the public to be involved in this, there's no way for township residents to ascertain if unnecessary expenditures have been eliminated without them being able to see the actual details of the budget.
The community group that manages this web site has been lobbying the township board and the planning commission to embrace a sense of transparent operations with township residents for months, only to be met with excuses and opposition at every step. The budget is but one of those issues, and none of our officials seem willing to share a detailed budget (or other simple operating documents and information) with our residents. WHY? With our available technology, it isn't hard to copy and paste documents to web sites, share a current budget on-line, post meeting minutes, live-stream meetings to the web, post audio clips, video footage, photos, or make even the most minute details available - all via the web. It's pretty simple, actually. So we're putting it out there - another public request that our township officials make a current and on-going township budget available for public review on the township's web site, along with our other simple web site improvement requests (which can all be found in the various meeting minutes, good luck getting a copy) , for public review and that long-requested transparency. Tell your elected officials that you want transparency within our government and want to see exactly what's in our township budget. You can reach Ron Mann, Township Supervisor, at (734) 428-7090.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)