By Laurel Droz
Staff Writer
Too many layers of government coupled with a staggering state deficient that could exceed $1 billion next year, has at least one lawmaker seeking to eliminate local government as a cost saving measure.
House Bills 4780-4788 propose the consolidation of services provided by township governments into the county. But will this actually equate to savings for taxpayers?
It’s a question the Village of Goodrich has faced several times. Since Goodrich incorporated as a village in 1957, three attempts to dissolve its government have been made. The third attempt was organized in September 2004 by a committee known as Vacate the Village (VTV). The attempt failed, but tensions surrounding the situation and the division it created within the community continue to reverberate.
Supporters of the Vacate the Village movement said elimination of the village government would ease much of the financial burden placed on village taxpayers, who pay both township and village taxes.
‘We are taxed by the village so much over and above what we pay to Atlas Township,? said former VTV vice-chair, current village council member, Patti Wartella in a September 2004 interview with The Citizen.
‘Basically our taxes are providing salaries. I don’t feel as if we get any benefits whatsoever.?
Similar arguments are now being made by lawmakers of township government. The series of bills was introduced by Paul Condino (D-Southfield). Representatives of Condino said the office was refusing to comment on the bills at this time.
Representative David Robertson (R-Grand Blanc) said because the bill is still in committee, he cannot speak to the specifics of that piece of legislation, but he is aware of a conscience effort on the part of lawmakers to restructure government as a means of cost-cutting in the state.
‘We believe that re-organizing and restructuring government is preferential to raising taxes,? said Robertson. Because of that, added Robertson, consolidation of government services are being considered by many in office.
However, David Bertram, Michigan Township Association legislative liaison, said consolidation of services is not necessarily synonymous with savings.
‘It isn’t as simple as reducing the numbers and saving costs, it is not that simple,? said Bertram. ?…We just don’t see this as a cost savings. There’s nothing out there that demonstrates that.?
Bertram said he instead views this sort of legislation as a needless attack on local government, which he said provides low-cost services on a local level to residents. If county workers were to absorb the responsibilities of township workers, more workers would be needed to facilitate that change’a cost which would then trickle back to taxpayers, Bertram said.
Additionally, the only services townships are required to provide are those dealing with elections, taxes and assessing, said Bertram. Other services? such as fire protection, law enforcement, parks and recreation, sewer and water, zoning, building permits and libraries? would not be assumed by the county and would likely fall by the wayside, said Bertram.
‘This dramatic change isn’t going to save money. We’re actually very anxious to get into that discussion with (those supporting the bill). You can’t change government and say that ‘because we reduced the number of employees it’s automatically a cost savings,?? said Bertram.
According to information from the MTA, if this bill is passed, a township with less than 10,000 residents would automatically lose township services. A township with a population of 10,000-20,000 would retain assessing, election and tax collection duties if it provides 24-hour police and fire protection and provides public sewer and water service to at least half of its residents. Given those perimeters, Atlas, Brandon and Groveland Townships would be impacted.
Bertram said 1,175 out of 1,242 townships in Michigan would be affected by this bill, or more than 30 percent of the state’s population. Additionally, Bertram stressed township officials are already seeking ways to save money and implementing their own cost-cutting techniques.
‘I think the township form of government is probably one of the most efficient forms. I think it would be a hinderance to the residents (to eliminate or consolidate those services with the county),? said Ron Lapp, Brandon Township supervisor. ‘I see some big problems that sort of process.?
Lapp said one concern he has is the difficulty residents might face in getting representation if it were left to the county.
‘Who is it easier to get in and see if you have a problem; (County Commissioner) L. Brooks Patterson or Ron Lapp?? said Lapp.
Lapp added he feels an increased sense of accountability to his constituents because they are also his neighbors.
‘I think we are a society that has grown to like and accept local control.? said Lapp.
Atlas Township Supervisor Paul Amman agrees.
‘I think it would definitely be detrimental (for the county to assume the responsibilities of townships),? said Amman. ‘The township type of government is local, the people know the people that provide the services and we’re responsive to the local residents.?
Amman said if the bill were enacted, it would only further distance constituents from lawmakers and would ultimately offer no real savings to taxpayers. Amman added that township employees look for ways to get things done for low or no cost to the taxpayers because they are also township residents, and therefore have a vested interest. He said he doubted county employees would be able to go to the same lengths to save money.
Groveland Township supervisor Bob DePalma echoed the statements of Amman, Lapp and the MTA.
‘I think (this series of bills) would be disastrous to the over one half of the residents who live in townships throughout Michigan. I think it will cost more and destroy local representation and accountability,? said DePalma. ‘I just think people really need to understand what this house bill 4780 was driving at’taking over local control.?
Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson is also opposed to the bill.
‘I think, first of all, it will take government a step further away from the people and secondly it could cost more money? so it’s lose-lose,? said Johnson. ‘The services they are talking about taking away from the townships would still have to be provided…They’re talking about taking the money away and taking the authority away, but there’s still nothing that shows how those services will be paid for.?
.