Feb. 12, 2020

An article in the February 10 edition of The Manchester Mirror had some factual inaccuracies, as we are not sure where the confusion may have occurred, we feel it necessary to clarify.

In the ‘Council Hears Public Questions on City Status’ article, Village President Pat Valliencourt was quoted as stating the village and the township have formed a committee to discuss mutual concerns regarding cityhood. In the last sentence of that paragraph, it was also called a subcommittee. Neither of these descriptions are accurate. In fact, the Manchester Township Board, in an effort to work collaboratively (and fully understand the root causes for the sudden push of village leadership to incorporate into a city), invited the representatives of the village to meet so we could learn why the elected officials in the village, not the residents, were so motivated to divide our community by becoming a city. This was a one time meeting of representatives from both the township and the village, no committee or subcommittee were formed. While there was a brief conversation about reconvening, to date, no follow up meeting has been scheduled.

While the rest of the article did not imply the ‘statements’ came out of that meeting, some of the topics mentioned by President Valliencourt were discussed. Township officials expressed concern for the viability of a city when lower taxes are promised yet the village struggles to fill and retain retail space. Is there a solution to this problem that is available only to a city, something a village form of governance is unable to do? Will businesses locate here and local residents shop here only when the governance structure is different? Then, there is a lack of understanding on the townships part when lower taxes are promised but the cost of operating a city is proven to exceed that of a village. Are the residents of the village aware that their taxes are going to go down, when the village pays off two bonds in the next 3 years? Dexter has been a city for only 5 years and is already going to their voters to ask for additional money in the form of a millage. Finally, there was conversation about the townships position that we are one community and should work together to unite, not divide. Village leadership did not feel that ‘sentimental’ reasons for maintaining the current structure were enough. They admitted becoming a city was about money and control- and as the residents of a city cannot control the money, we are left to conclude it is the elected leadership of the village who want that power.

It should be noted, the township board has taken the position that a consolidation of our village and township, with one form of governance instead of two, is of far greater benefit to our residents, all of them, than cityhood is. Our elected officials represent both village and rural township residents, and we want to work together to keep our community vibrant and healthy. It is unfortunate that the village representatives we met with are unwilling to consider any alternatives other than their myopic vision, one that is certain to divide, and potentially destroy our community.

Thank you for allowing the Manchester Township representatives who were at that meeting clarify what actually happened when we met with the village on January 22.

Gene DeRossett - Manchester Township Supervisor
Ron Milkey- Manchester Township Trustee
Lisa Moutinho - Manchester Township Trustee

Editor’s Note: Views expressed in any Letter to the Editor are always exclusively those of the author. Do you have something you want Manchester the know? Send your Letter to the Editor to themanchestermirror@gmail.com.