Basic HTML Version
A
SSOCIATED
N
EWSPAPERS OF
M
ICHIGAN
P
AGE
3
August 28, 2014
P
LYMOUTH
Board refuses to delay amphitheater project
When Plymouth Township
resident Jackie Peters emailed
Supervisor Richard Reaume
asking why the controversial
amphitheater project couldn't
be delayed until a promised
recreation survey was complete,
she didn't expect the response
she received.
In her email, Peters urged
Reaume and other board mem-
bers to reconsider their deci-
sion to build the $350,000
amphitheater in the Township
Park.
“As a resident of Plymouth
Township, I am urging the
Board to reconsider their deci-
sion to build an amphitheater in
the Township Park. We do not
understand why this action is
being taken without the support
of the public,” she wrote to
Reaume.
The hotly contested 300-seat
amphitheater and bandstand
project is part of a $2.5 million
capital improvement project
board members approved last
year. The township sold $1.9mil-
lion in bonds to pay for the
majority of the project. Last
year, township Treasurer Ron
Edwards budgeted $50,000 for a
recreation survey but to date no
public opinion poll has taken
place.
In recentmonths hundreds of
irate residents and concerned
citizens, many with homes adja-
cent to the park, purchased
lawn signs, wrote letters, signed
petitions and filled the township
hall board meetings saying they
were not consulted and the proj-
ect is not suited for the area or
the roads and infrastructure.
Residents have complained
about the likely noise and con-
gestion from the amphitheater
and about the cost of the project.
Reaume's reply to Peters
angeredher, she said.
“Thank you for your email.
The architect has a contract for
their work, the soil borings have
already been contracted and
completed and the environmen-
tal evaluation has also be paid
for and is currently being evalu-
atedby theDEQ.”
TrusteeMikeKelly also ques-
tioned the project during a regu-
lar board meeting last week. He
described the amphitheater
project as “a bad fiscal policy.”
Kelly made an official motion to
delay the project until comple-
tion of public recreation survey.
“Just because we can spend
money without raising taxes
seems to ignore the basic ques-
tion we need to answer: What
do the people of the community
really want? Since this project
has not started construction yet,
it should be put on hold until we
complete the recreation survey.
To build projects and take on
added debt with no data show-
ing the people want these type
of projects is bad fiscal policy.”
“I move to place the
amphitheater on hold until we
have the results from the
Township Recreational Survey
showing the desire for this proj-
ect from the residents before
moving forward on the project.”
Township officials placed
Kelly's request last on the agen-
da on page 461 of the 536 page
board packet. Trustee Bob
Doroshewitz, noting the large
crowd of residents in atten-
dance, made a motion to move
the amphitheater discussion
forward, but it was defeated by a
5 to 2 board vote.
“We need to listen to the com-
munity…I've seen a public out-
cry like I've never seen before,”
said Doroshewitz in an impas-
sioned plea for approval of
Kelly'smotion.
“If we ask them…and put
together a credible survey, that's
the only way this controversy is
going to go away. We're up for a
fire and police millage next
year. There's no downside to
putting it onhold.”
Trustee Kay Arnold thought
differently.
Citing the past construction
of a play-scape, soccer field,
dock at the pond and improve-
ments to the golf course, Arnold
said, “Nobody complained
then.” Arnold referred to the
dissident residents as the “same
people who complained about
the fire department” and said,
“change is part of life in the
township.”
Edwards said he didn't see
any reason to “stop it.”
“There was a bond issue, and
no one opposed it…they could
have got signatures. We're mov-
ing forward…we've got the
money,”Edwards said.
Kelly's motion was defeated
by a 4 to 3 vote. Kelly,
Doroshewitz and Trustee Chuck
Curmi favored the delay while
Reaume, Edwards, Clerk Nancy
Conzelman and Arnold voted
against any delay in the project.
Arnold was later chastised by
Chris Hunter, one of the resi-
dents strongly opposed to the
amphitheater project. “I under-
stand change is part of life in the
township. I look forward to
change, and I look forward to
changing this board,” Hunter
said to loud applause from the
audience.
Don Howard
Staff Writer
A better ‘way’...
Plymouth Community United Way (PCUW) President Marie Morrow recently accepted a
$5,000 check from Robert P. Jones, AT&T Director External Affairs. The nonprofit provides
human services in Plymouth, Canton and Western Wayne County. AT&T is a strong sup-
porter of United Way at the local and national levels. In 2014, AT&T gave $5.33 million to
568 local United Ways across the country, Morrow said. "We appreciate the generous
support from AT&T," said Morrow. "In addition to the recent corporate contribution,
employees provide funding for PCUW programs through AT&T's annual employee giving
campaign." "AT&T shares United Way's commitment to strengthening communities and
improving lives, said AT&T President Jim Murray. "Plymouth Community United Way's
support for innovative programs with proven results improves the lives of residents by
connecting them with the resources and expertise they need." For information about giv-
ing and volunteering, visit www.plymouthunitedway.org. Serving the Plymouth and
Canton community since 1944, Plymouth Community United Way focuses on basic
needs, education and stability, according to Morrow.
Audit Manager Carol S. Taraszka
enclosed a 10-question form and a certifi-
cation document to be signed attesting to
the accuracy of answers to those ques-
tions.
The department was required to pro-
vide the identification of all affiliated
organizations and immediate family
members of senior officials or managers
to whom the Plymouth Township Police
Department has paid federal asset forfei-
ture or other Department of Justice grant
and contract funds.
The auditors also demanded to know if
any loans of asset forfeiture funds had
been made and, if so, to whom. They
required the department to identify any
expense paid for with federal asset or
grant funds “in whole or in part as an
accommodation to any party in return for,
or as an inducement for, any other busi-
nesswithany other party.”
The auditors inquired about any audit
that reported any deficiency or irregulari-
ty regarding costs incurred to the federal
asset forfeiture account.
A deficiency was reported in a town-
ship audit last year by outside auditors
Plante Moran who suggested the town-
ship accounting procedures were “mate-
riallyweak.”
The auditors also asked about lawsuits
against the police department with
descriptions of the litigation and to
account for any “personal benefit in
excess of $50 per year received by any
official or employee from vendors or
other companies working with your
agency that have been paid with federal
asset forfeiture of DOJ grant and contract
funds.”
The auditors have also requested
copies of both the police and non-police
budgets for the last three years and “the
most recently approved planned budget
for the next fiscal year, if available.”
The auditors are expected to return to
the police department next week for fur-
ther examination of records.
Audit
FROM PAGE 1
I understand change is part
of life in the township.
I look forward to change, and I
look forward to changing this board.
”