Village Council makes response to attorney presentation on cityhood

Last Tuesday's meeting of the Manchester Village Council, included a special session on City Status. Village President Pat Vailliencourt also was present a half-hour prior to the scheduled meeting in order to answer any questions from citizens.

Although there were several visitors at the meeting, and time was allotted for questions, no questions were asked of Council during the City Status session. Village Manager Jeff Wallace reported that he has a meeting scheduled with the State Boundary Commission this Tuesday, Sept. 10, in Lansing. The village is hoping to coordinate a meeting with the Office of the Great Seal as well, but Wallace indicated that he is not getting a response from that office, which functions as the State's official repository for many types of public records--including surveys and boundaries of each city and village in the state.

Vailliencourt then took time to respond to each of the points in the report from attorney William K. Fahey that was presented to Manchester Township on August 13.

On some of the points, Vailliencourt agreed with attorney Fahey regarding his assessment of how the situation would look if the Village of Manchester decides to become a city. She stated that he correctly advised that the village taxpayers will be the only ones to vote on cityhood. Fahey also stated that township tax revenues as well as its expenses would both decrease if the three mandated services (assessing, elections, and tax collection) are no longer provided by the township for a new city. Vailliencourt concurred with this point. She also pointed out that Fahey rightly shared that village taxpayers are liable for all debts incurred by the township. "This is another factor that is important for village voters to be aware of as the decision is made on whether to become a city," she said.

However, on many of the points made by Fahey, Vailliencourt vehemently disagreed. She said that many of his comments were "general in nature" and "brought up negative assumptions (that were) not based on the facts in the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) report."

Fahey's initial assertion that (future city) residents will likely pay more for the same services the village now receives from the township, was disputed. Tax assessing costs were based on the same per-household costs that are currently used by the township. Taxes and fees currently paid to the township for tax collection, would be avoided. And officials hired for elections would be paid for in the same manner as they are now, only paid by the city rather than the township.

In addition, the CAC estimated the cost of fire contracts based on what is currently being paid by the three other townships who contract with the Manchester Township Fire Department. "Unless the township intends to overcharge us as a city, we should be pretty close," Vailliencourt stated. "This was dealt with in the CAC report, but appeared to be missed in (Fahey's) presentation."

Vailliencourt added that some of Fahey's statements were not corroborated by facts, and appeared to be based on generalizations from other communities, rather than on Manchester's specific situation. While some villages have, of course, voted against cityhood, and Fahey named some of them, Vailliencourt pointed out that these communities may have very different circumstances than our own.

On the topic of division of assets should Manchester become a city, Vailliencourt said that there are state formulas to ensure this division is done fairly. She also noted that if the township tried to avoid a division of assets, which Fahey indicated would be legally possible, would not be morally right. "Hopefully, this does not become a legal battle where only high-priced attorneys will win," she said. "It can all be negotiated to work out for the benefit of both the new City and the Township residents."

"Becoming a city does not automatically mean strife and disputes," she concluded. "Wouldn't all of our community be better served if, rather than hiring outside attorneys that know nothing about Manchester, the two boards at least try to work together, and plan on an easy transition if the village does vote to become a city?"

The next Village Council meeting will be held on Monday, Sept. 16, at 7 pm. Vailliencourt will again be available one-half hour prior to the meeting to answer citizen questions and listen to comments.

For as little as $1 a month, you can keep Manchester-focused news coverage alive.

by Sara Swanson

Sara Swanson is an editor, writer and founder of the Manchester Mirror.