Home » News » Comment » Woods recall misguided, short-sighted

Woods recall misguided, short-sighted

In May, the Grosse Pointe Woods City Council voted by an overwhelming majority to adopt the proposed 2009-10 budget and the millage resolution funding the adopted budget. Six members voted to maintain city services, and one voted to put at risk the city’s ability to maintain current levels of service. Since the council previously voted to hold a public hearing and recommend adoption, the outcome was never in doubt. The sole dissenting vote was simply a political statement. Deciding to create an issue out of the council action, Nancy Hames and a small group of political opportunists initiated a recall campaign aimed at two sitting council members, Art Bryant and myself.

The reason for the recall is found in the petition language, “raising property taxes on the residents of Grosse Pointe Woods.” This is simply not true, as residents will discover when their summer 2009 tax bill arrives. We adjusted two rates in an effort to stabilize tax revenue coming into the city. Our intent was not to raise the property tax residents pay, and in fact we did not. The total amount billed to residents on this summers’ tax bill is $20,608,500. or $278,512 less than the 2008 summer tax collected. The accuracy, truth and completeness are irrelevant only the clarity is important, accurate or not. I am concerned voters will not get a complete picture of my actions in the context in which they occurred.

Unfortunately the petition language does not inform readers of seven local millages, and the fact the council voted to adjust one up and the other down. The other five were left unchanged.

When asked by Judge Milton Mack, the chairman of the Wayne County Elections Commission, why the language did not address some of the issues raised, Hames responded that it was too complex an issue to cover in a few words, that she would need to “write a book” to cover everything. The issues involved in creating a municipal budget are many and the processes complex. In the end the budget should reflect the priority of residents. This involves identifying the array of services offered and the level of each, determining the cost of delivering services and finally matching expenditures/costs to available resource streams and adjusting as needed. Sounds simple. It never is.

The 09-10 budget is nearly $1 million less than the previous year’s. Wages are frozen at current levels except for those covered by union contracts. Negotiations with all bargaining units will begin soon, as all employee union contracts will expire in a year, June 30, 2010. Vacancies will not be filled without specific council approval. The past practice of using rainy day funds to support the regular business of the city, will be eliminated, effective in the 10-11 fiscal year. Fund balances are to be protected.

Finally, we reviewed all local millage rates. The administrative staff and council projected the impact of falling tax revenues on the city’s ability to maintain services and determined millage rates should be adjusted now to in order to slow down the continuing erosion of tax revenues.

I take issue with the petition language, which makes it easy to infer I voted to raise everyone’s tax. I did not. We adjusted two rates in an effort to stabilize tax revenue coming into the City. Our intent was not to cause in rise in the property tax residents pay, in fact we did not.

The city assessor reports there are 6,575 residential parcels in the City. Of those, 82% or 5,397 parcels will see a reduction in this summer’s tax bill, due to falling property values and assessments, a fact all over the city, suburbs, state and, in fact, the country. I am not one of those. My assessment went down, but my taxes went up, a Proposition A phenomenon. Others may see a tax increase because their home value/assessment increased. Hames is an example. Her home value increased along with others similarly located near the Lochmoor Country Club.

The finances of the city are complicated. I, the majority of the Council and top appointed officials did what we believed was necessary to survive in these challenging economic times.

Simply put, the Council had one major decision to make, from which the four policy decisions mentioned earlier flowed. Do residents want to maintain Grosse Pointe Woods as a destination city for home buyers? We provide above-average services to residents in the basic service areas, plus outstanding recreational opportunities and other neighborhood services too numerous to mention. The costs of service have to be understood and matched to the availability of required funding. Maintaining, not increasing revenues is the goal. We have a multi-year financial plan starting with the 09-10 budget.

I have a proven history of service to this city, serving four years on the Recreation Commission and almost 10 on the Plan Commission. I am serious about my council responsibilities.

I do not understand what motivates people to seek public service opportunities without being prepared to make the required sacrifices that go along with it. The job requires making sometimes unpopular but necessary decisions. Unfortunately we have a small group of power seekers in this city seeking to promote personal agendas at the expense of good government. This recall campaign is but one example.

Judge Mack told Hames at the conclusion of the second clarity hearing that he wished they would change the law so that recalls could only be used in cases of misconduct in office, and not for political purposes. He knew. He said his hands were tied and had to follow the law, one he did not agree with.

Back to