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.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, August 6, 2012
Thursday, August 2, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A Lesson in Futility: The Manchester Joint Planning Commission
© Laura Adams, 2012 for ManchesterTownship.org
September 2007.
It started well before then, but that is as far back as the web site records go here. Since that time, other townships have joined in, pulled out, and re-considered. Meetings have been cancelled, re-scheduled, or failed to meet a quorum - with the failing to meet a quorum option being the most popular. Every other township has since pulled the plug on this project, and now, the membership consists of just Manchester Township and the village of Manchester. Five years (and we're being generous, some accounts take this project back seven to twelve years), and the only tangible work seems to be that which is posted on the web site for the MJPC above. It's not much. It certainly doesn't reflect five years worth of work, effort, and resources. However, our planning advisers, Carlisle/Wortman, have served up yet another proposal to complete this futile project at considerable expense, running into the thousands of dollars - during a time period when our township is slated to pull $140,000 from our rainy day fund in an attempt to present a technically "balanced" budget. The initial re-selling point of this project has been that Freedom Township would be re-joining the initiative, thus splitting the cost of the work three ways. However, after stalling for several months, it appears that Freedom Township is now seeing the project as delusive, and has declined or delayed their involvement, which leaves the project, and it's costs, solely to Manchester Township and the village. In both our planning commission and township board meetings, our officials like to tout how this project costs us nothing since the participants are volunteers and how we should continue to move forward with it.
We beg to differ.
Add up five years worth of resources: time, effort, volunteers, man power, re-training, typing, updating documents each and every time an entity joins or leaves the project, sending materials over to Carlisle/Wortman for review and revising AND THEN over to our township attorney for the umpteenth time for even more review and revision. There IS considerable cost. After contemplating all of this, go review the materials produced and posted on the web site (see the link above) by the MJPC after all of this time. It makes the insinuation presented by the planning commission, township board, and Carlisle/Wortman that this has only cost the township and it's taxpayers a negligible amount after 5-12 years worth of work ridiculous. Additionally, to purport that Carlisle/Wortman has not found this project to be lucrative over this length of time is absurd - there are expenses related to this, they just simply have not been released to the public as an itemized expense. Any private citizen, in an average job, with average performance expectations, and average abilities would have been relieved of their duties after about one month of producing so little tangible progress in such a generous amount of time. We've already invested five to twelve years in this project to little or no avail. And now, Carlisle/Wortman wants to charge us several thousand more dollars to complete it? Our elected and appointed officials are following along, at even more time and expense, during a year where we have a documented income deficit and no clear cut incentive to continue to chase this dead horse. WHY?
As a tax payer, with a significant amount being pulled from our rainy day fund to supplement operating expenses for 2012-2013, would you like our representatives to continue to pursue this, or would you prefer that they table it as a future project, to be re-visited when time or circumstances warrant a fresh look?
September 2007.
It started well before then, but that is as far back as the web site records go here. Since that time, other townships have joined in, pulled out, and re-considered. Meetings have been cancelled, re-scheduled, or failed to meet a quorum - with the failing to meet a quorum option being the most popular. Every other township has since pulled the plug on this project, and now, the membership consists of just Manchester Township and the village of Manchester. Five years (and we're being generous, some accounts take this project back seven to twelve years), and the only tangible work seems to be that which is posted on the web site for the MJPC above. It's not much. It certainly doesn't reflect five years worth of work, effort, and resources. However, our planning advisers, Carlisle/Wortman, have served up yet another proposal to complete this futile project at considerable expense, running into the thousands of dollars - during a time period when our township is slated to pull $140,000 from our rainy day fund in an attempt to present a technically "balanced" budget. The initial re-selling point of this project has been that Freedom Township would be re-joining the initiative, thus splitting the cost of the work three ways. However, after stalling for several months, it appears that Freedom Township is now seeing the project as delusive, and has declined or delayed their involvement, which leaves the project, and it's costs, solely to Manchester Township and the village. In both our planning commission and township board meetings, our officials like to tout how this project costs us nothing since the participants are volunteers and how we should continue to move forward with it.
We beg to differ.
Add up five years worth of resources: time, effort, volunteers, man power, re-training, typing, updating documents each and every time an entity joins or leaves the project, sending materials over to Carlisle/Wortman for review and revising AND THEN over to our township attorney for the umpteenth time for even more review and revision. There IS considerable cost. After contemplating all of this, go review the materials produced and posted on the web site (see the link above) by the MJPC after all of this time. It makes the insinuation presented by the planning commission, township board, and Carlisle/Wortman that this has only cost the township and it's taxpayers a negligible amount after 5-12 years worth of work ridiculous. Additionally, to purport that Carlisle/Wortman has not found this project to be lucrative over this length of time is absurd - there are expenses related to this, they just simply have not been released to the public as an itemized expense. Any private citizen, in an average job, with average performance expectations, and average abilities would have been relieved of their duties after about one month of producing so little tangible progress in such a generous amount of time. We've already invested five to twelve years in this project to little or no avail. And now, Carlisle/Wortman wants to charge us several thousand more dollars to complete it? Our elected and appointed officials are following along, at even more time and expense, during a year where we have a documented income deficit and no clear cut incentive to continue to chase this dead horse. WHY?
As a tax payer, with a significant amount being pulled from our rainy day fund to supplement operating expenses for 2012-2013, would you like our representatives to continue to pursue this, or would you prefer that they table it as a future project, to be re-visited when time or circumstances warrant a fresh look?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)