‘Autonomy.?
In a word, that’s the main benefit and objective of incorporating a village into a city, according to Jack Myers.
‘You’re your own governing entity. You don’t come under the township anymore. You’re a primary form of government (with) self-control,? said the former village manager for Chelsea and current manager for the Village of Stockbridge since 2003.
‘I say that’s the biggest thing.?
Myers addressed members of the Oxford Area Chamber of Commerce on the topic of cityhood at Kalloway’s Restaurant and Pub Nov. 17.
A resident of Chelsea and the municipality’s manager for 12 years, Myers helped initiate the process by which the general law village eventually incorporated as a home rule city on March 8, 2004.
Upon being hired as Chelsea’s lage manager after serving as a councilman, Myers said he did some research and ‘discovered a village is not a primary form of government, it’s a secondary (form).?
In other words, the village is still considered geographically and governmentally part of the township unlike cities and townships, which are all separate primary forms of government and not part of each other in a any way.
What makes them primary units is the fact they conduct county, state and national elections, do their own assessing of property for local tax purposes and collect county and school taxes. Villages do none of these things.
‘You have autonomy as a city whereas a village you don’t,? Myers said. ‘You’re also double taxed. The village and the township tax you.?
Myers recommended Chelsea’s village council form a nine-member committee to research the pros and cons of cityhood, in which his involvement was as an ‘ad hoc? member due to his position as village manager.
‘I knew people were opposed to it (cityhood) so I didn’t think it was right for them to pay tax dollars to pay my wage,? he said.
Formed by council in June 1992 and comprised of a ‘mixture? of people from different walks of life throughout the village, Myers said the committee members were against cityhood in the beginning.
‘Everybody, I mean everybody was opposed to Chelsea becoming a city,? he said.
The anti-city argument was basically, ‘Here we are in a quaint little village and tomorrow we could become a filthy crime-ridden city.?
‘Well, that’s not true,? Myers said.
The other argument against cityhood is that taxes would increase. ‘Chelsea’s been a city since March of 2004 and they haven’t had any tax increases,? he noted.
By the time the committee made its report to the Chelsea Village Council about a year after its formation, they’re feelings were ?100 percent just the opposite.?
‘Now, they wanted to go forward,? Myers said. So the committee was ‘tasked with spreading the word.?
Myers said cityhood is ‘really a hard thing to sell? and educating the public is ‘critical? because the residents ‘ultimately have to vote on it.?
Usually only about 200 or 300 of Chelsea’s 3,700 voters turn out on election day, according to Myers.
However, when it came to the cityhood issue, ‘over 1,000? people voted, the end result being the approval a home rule city charter 12 years after the process began.
‘You could do it in a lot less time then that, but we wanted to educate the people because there were a lot of people that were against Chelsea becoming a city,? he said. ‘People don’t like change.?
During the whole process, the two rural townships of which Chelsea was a part, Lima and Sylvan, hired lawyers and sued the state Boundary Commission in an effort to stop the cityhood process. According to Myers, the townships expected to lose about $50,000 (Lima) and $140,000 (Sylvan) in property taxes from the village if it became a city and withdrew from their boundaries along with some proposed territories for annexation. ‘That’s huge to a rural township,? he said of the lost tax revenues.
Myers said ultimately a compromise was reached between Chelsea and the two townships. An agreement between the municipalities was signed and presented to the state Boundary Commission, ending the legal battle.
One audience member asked what the pros and cons of cityhood were for business owners and residents.
‘I don’t know if it has any direct (impact) to a business owner,? Myers replied. ‘Your business is in the village as it would be in the city.?
Myers said the tax reduction that comes from village residents no longer paying township taxes is a ‘selling point? for cityhood. Other than that, he said ‘there would probably be not much difference at all? when it comes to changing from a village to a city in terms of services, existing ordinances, etc.
However, Oxford Township Parks and Recreation Director Ron Davis pointed out, ‘If the residents of the village become a city, they’d be charged as nonresidents? for his department’s numerous programs and services because they would no longer pay a dedicated township millage.
‘So, eventually the cost village residents may be saving up front is going to cost you in the long run if you want to continue certain efforts and services,? Davis explained.
Speaking as a ‘frustrated? resident, Davis said, ‘I just don’t understand why two bodies of government can’t get along for the betterment of the community as a whole.?
To that, Myers replied, ‘I think it’s power, authority.?
‘The township is in control of the township, meaning the village too,? Myers said. ‘The village leaders don’t want to do something ? well, there you start butting heads.?
In Myers? opinion, ‘Townships are just another layer of government that probably isn’t necessary.
In the end, Myers didn’t recommend or oppose cityhood for Oxford.
‘I’m not saying it’s good for Oxford,? he said. ‘I think a community has to decide that for themselves.?