Pittsfield Township officials say proposed public safety millage will still keep cost for services low
At the first of five community forums on a proposed increase to Pittsfield Township's public safety millage Tuesday night, officials said they are providing services at a cost lower than that of several surrounding townships.
Even if the millage is passed, the tax rate residents pay for public safety would still remain below that of many other area municipalities, Department of Public Safety Director Matt Harshberger said.
Officials are asking voters to support a renewal of and proposed increase to the township's public safety millage on May 3. The current 1.0 mill levy for public safety expires at the end of 2011 and would be replaced with a 1.95-mill tax starting in 2012.
If passed, the 10-year millage would cost the owner of a home with a $100,000 taxable value about $195 annually, or roughly twice what homeowners currently pay. Harshberger said the owner of an average home in Pittsfield Township with a taxable value of $110,000 would pay $16.66 per month instead of the current $8.54. When levied, officials expect the tax to raise $3.3 million.
According to Pittsfield Township officials’ data, Superior Township residents currently pay 4.99 mills, Northfield Township residents pay 6.42 mills and Ypsilanti Township residents pay 8.18 mills for public safety.
Harshberger stressed that the public safety millage in Pittsfield Township covers funding for police, fire and dispatch. The millage was first put into place into 1987 and its rate last increased in 1991.
“It is very important to identify that you are getting a full service, township supported public safety millage … that has not seen an increase in last 20 years,” Harshberger said.
He also said the cost of providing a full time public safety employee in Pittsfield Township is less than in several neighboring townships. When dividing the number of full time public safety employees by the public safety budget, an employee in Pittsfield Township costs $110,291, Harshberger said. Superior Township's cost per public safety employee is $147,106, according to Pittsfield Township's figures.
Harshberger said 88 percent of the township’s $7.9 million public safety operating budget covered salaries and benefits. Again, Harshberger said that figure is relatively low compared to some neighboring police agencies, and he said that affords his department the opportunity to implement new community-oriented programs and police proactively.
“I think this shows that we maintain a funding level that allows us to maintain many of the programs that I talked about tonight,” he said. “... We’re able to concentrate on problem-solving issues and improve quality of life for our residents, so for us it’s a fortunate opportunity that we have.”
Pittsfield Township Director of Public Safety Matt Harshberger discusses a proposed increase to the public safety millage rate on Tuesday.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
Last year, most township public safety personnel signed a five-year contract with zero-percent wage increases. The department has not filled four vacant positions, ranging from dispatcher to deputy fire commander, collectively saving $182,789 this year.
The current millage supports 33 positions in police, fire and dispatch. The millage covered five officers and a community coordinator position in 2003. But at that time the Public Safety Department enjoyed support from the township’s general fund, which is no longer feasible in current economic conditions, township officials say.
Land purchases from 2006 to 2008 depleted roughly half of the township’s general fund balance, and the debt from those purchases continues to burden the budget, officials said. Harshberger said the township is also continuing its transformation from a more rural to a more urban community, and calls for public safety service continue to rise as revenues decrease.
Township officials also pointed to the decline on the general fund's earned interest, which dropped from $799,583 in 2007 to $13,332 in 2010. Over the last 10 years, the township has also seen its state shared revenue drop by approximately $998,000.
Failure to pass the millage will result in cuts to police and fire service and staffing, Harshberger said.
“It will result in lay offs and we will have to sit down and figure out ‘What services do we cut and what sort of service level can we maintain?’” he said.
An audience member questioned what would happen if voters approved the millage and Pittsfield Township chose to partner regionally with a police department such as Ann Arbor. Officials there are considering more lay offs.The resident expressed concern that township police resources would be used to assist the financially struggling Ann Arbor Police Department under such an arrangement.
Township Supervisor Mandy Grewal said the township’s department is much different than Ann Arbor’s in that it’s force is younger and doesn’t face as many challenges with legacy costs. She said the township will continue to partner and engage with regional jurisdictions, but will remain committed to its own residents’ safety first.
Township officials scheduled four more meetings forums on the millage request:
• March 24, 6:30-8 p.m., at Carpenter Elementary School, 4250 Central Blvd.
• April 14, 6:30-8 p.m., at Harvest Elementary School, 155 Campus Parkway.
• April 17, 1-3 p.m., at the Pittsfield Township Open House.
• April 26, 5:30-7:30 p.m., at the Pittsfield Township Parks and Seniors Building, 701 Ellsworth Road.
The township has set up a website with more information on the millage.
In the May election, voters in Washtenaw County will also decide on the Washtenaw Intermediate School District's special education millage, police and fire millages in Dexter Township, a police protection millage in Northfield Township and a fire millage in Sharon Township.
Comments
ClarkKent
Tue, Apr 26, 2011 : 6:09 p.m.
The news article states, the "First" of five meetings will be held starting May 23, Then we vote May 3. That is only 40 days. As a resident I only learned of the vote 4 days ago when I saw one single sign in a neighbors yard, and walked over to ask. This seems like a rush job, It should not be a special vote. The only people that know to go vote are the ones promoting the special election. My question : is their a minimum percentage of voters in Pittsfield Township required to vote before allowing taxation?
Mi resident
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 10:41 p.m.
Pittsfield Township is one of the best area's to live and that comes with a cost. I'm voting yes. The LAST thing we need is LESS fire and police services. To me this is a no brainer...
Rose
Fri, Mar 25, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
I can understand your not wanting taxes increased. Who does? The problem is there is no where else to get the money from. If we do not pass this then the reality is we will lose a significant number of police and FF. Our property taxes are still lower than most with the increase. I for one am more concerned with the safety of myself and my family. With the lack of officers and FFs I would like to know who of you is willing to risk your life for someone else because those of you voting no I would expect to be the first to step up and volunteer.
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.
Most tax money is fungible in that money is shifted from one budget to another. What Pittsfield is telling us is that some of the budget for public safety has come from the general fund budget but that is now being cut off so we need to increase the funding for the public safetly budget. Whenever the politician ask for more money they try to make it about education or public safety or "apple pie" but it is really about increasing property taxes to fund all of their budget priorities. My house is already over valued by the assessor to the tune of 15 to 20% so I am already paying more than my share of property taxes. I don't think we should look at the public safety budget in isolation from the budget as a whole. I will be voting NO!
Etail4
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
Owning a small business in Pittsfield and as a resident, seen both the police and fire crews in action over the years. Hands down quality officers. I am willing to pay an increase at both ends to maintain this service and keep the quality service I know they provide. Looked at the numbers and the books, and understand the reason and need. I am voting YES.
Townie
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:46 p.m.
I'm a senior citizen living (try to...) on a fixed income based on Social Security (with no COLA increases in the last 2 years despite a lot of sharply rising costs) but I'll support Matt on this. All my interactions with the Pittsfield Public Safety Dept. have been very positive (less positive under Phillips). Matt's doing a great job and needs some help. Couple of points: 1) this increase has to hold for like 10 years so there's a built in (wisely) inflation factor so keep that in mind, 2) hey, how about taxing the businesses that occupy a LOT of the police time (retail fraud, theft, etc.) -- why do we taxpayers have to pay for their issues (e.g. lack of store security)? You get what you pay for. You want less security then vote this down, but don't complain later about crime. And remember that the State has cut revenues to local government 40% (via tax cuts for the rich) and now we're paying for it so vote out the clowns in Lansing instead.
Basic Bob
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 11:39 p.m.
I'm not voting for this, just because Matt's a great guy, and he has a terrific bunch of guys working for him. The township's general fund has been diverted to pay for administration salaries for the supervisor and her clique. I notice they took down the org chart from the website, so we can't scrutinize their lack of restraint at hiring and promotions.
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 7:31 p.m.
Inflation is not an issue because the property tax is based on the valuation of your house so it has a built in inflation factor already.
DDubs
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:43 p.m.
I will be voting NO on this and all other tax increases until the Pittsfield Township assessor propertly values my property. My property is assessed at least 20% above it's current value. I will pay my fair share of taxes, but since the township is forcing me to pay more than my fair share, I will not voluntarily give them more.
ChrisW
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:11 p.m.
Pittsfield does a good job with our fire and police departments, but we're paying the price now for the previous administration's spending habits unfortunately. It's just like how the Ann Arbor School District is going to be paying off Skyline High for the next 25 years.
Common Sense
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.
The Pittsfield Safety team members are doing a WONDERFUL JOB. However, we all must make some small sarifice in these current times. I would support a continuation of the existing millage but CANNOT support an increase at this time. I also do not like holding special elections because they spend dollars that could be better used to support existing jobs. ALL millages, etc. should only be held in the regular November election cycles. We should rarely ever need to hold a special election in my mind. We need to conserve our financial resources.
Etail4
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 5:21 p.m.
I think they scheduled this one now because the county special ed was already holding a millage. A ballot was going to be printed regardless. I completely agree with you on sacrificing. But if this fails, I do not see a small sacrifice. Not with the state revenue cuts that have been passed down. Is public safety something you cut in half? Not by me.
joe
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.
I may have to pay a few dollars for extra SERVICE, but I know the police and fire will be there in 6 minutes or less during priority calls for my family and I. We must vote YES on May 3rd!
discgolfgeek
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:50 p.m.
I might have supported an increase of up to 40-50% but nearly doubling the current rate? Sorry, 'no' will be the vote I cast on the May 3.
MAS
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
Right now (without having gone to a forum and only reading what's posted here and on the Pittsfield website) I am leaning on voting no. I can understand continuing the tax or a slight increase but basically doubling it in this economy is just a misguided decision by town officials. Moreover, doesn't anyone else see the relationship between the lack of general funds going to police/fire and the town's decision to spend millions of dollars on land over the last decade? Seems to me that if the town was a bit more conservative in its financial decisions that there would be general fund dollars to pay for police/fire. Finally, isn't the general fund of a town suppose to go to police/fire? Those seem to be core services which are the reason why towns are created. I don't think local government is created first to buy property for nature preserves. Environmentalism goals shouldn't be accomplished through local tax dollars especially in this economy. If town officials believe in such policies then they should use their own money to buy land and persevere it for nature.
ksr48
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
@MAS: Read the below link's articles. Just because a previous administration spent so much and now the new board has no flexibility, should we just say "okay" and cut down to only what we can now afford? I think what they are asking us is to decide for them. If we want to maintain the same level of service, we respond one way. If we don't want this same level of service, we vote no. It ends up being our decision. If the money isn't there, it isn't there. I don't think general funds are only for police. Look at any neighboring government and you will see far greater special millages devoted to public safety. This one seems very reasonable to me. That is what I derived from the presentation. <a href="http://www.pittsfieldtwp.org/bondrating.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.pittsfieldtwp.org/bondrating.html</a>
trespass
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:49 p.m.
Give me a choice other than doubling the millage. Here we go again playing chicken with the electorate. They could have broken the vote into two parts. One to continue the current millage and one to add to the millage but they knew that the added millage would not pass so they gave us only one choice.
Stylery
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.
On the high end, Costco would bring in $30,000 or $40,000 a year in local taxes, tops. The rest goes to the state, county, schools. Look it up. Big box retailers don't solve every financial problem. Definitely no where close to funding an entire public safety operation.
ksr48
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:13 p.m.
Nothing a local government does in more important than maintaining the safety of our children and families. Nothing else even comes close. This is by far one of the best run local governments in the county. Not one public safety officer has been laid off as they stepped up to the plate to make sacrifices. To me that speaks volumes. Just look at the comparison with other locals to see how costly the service is there. It isn't even close. When you have one of the lowest cost services in the county that is well managed, you keep it that way. Seems that if the township still had that $5 million or so from fund balance reserves still in the bank from 2007, we would be talking about a very different picture right now. Keeping crime low is far too important to let this go. I still keep coming back to how an independent 3rd party came in and opened up the books and said the current administration is doing a great job. That says much more to me than any blog comment as an authority. <a href="http://www.pittsfieldtwp.org/bondrating.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.pittsfieldtwp.org/bondrating.html</a>
shaggy
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 4:17 p.m.
applehazar, where do you propose they find the funds? I think that the Township has been very transparent and forthcoming with information and monitary figures. If you have information of where there is more money, please share!
applehazar
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:32 p.m.
I respect your opinion. I still will vote no additional taxes - find the money elsewhere - its simple as that
ksr48
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:22 p.m.
So applehazar, what state and national news have you missed? What about the constant stream of revenue cuts that local governments have faced over just the last 3-4 year let alone decade? Do you think public safety cuts across the state are folly? My safety matters. If it doesn't to others, then they can vote to reduce the service. Simple as that.
applehazar
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:17 p.m.
as the link states - pittsfield is managed so well. Pittsfield will save thousands of dollars - so a double tax increase is not needed and not fiscally responsible.
Evergreen
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : noon
How much of the increase would a direct proportion of the Costco taxes cover?
PittsfieldTwp
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : noon
Comparison to other munincipalities is not the justification to double the rate. We have had great law enforcement at a good tax rate. What if anything, has changed that situation? That is the question. I want to vote for a continuation of funds, but double the amount? Tell me why?
Pitts Res
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 3:04 p.m.
You should go to one of the forums and see there presentation. Ask questions.
ksr48
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:35 p.m.
@ MAS It makes perfect sense. You are comparing # of people and assuming that means double the number of houses paying property taxes. Taxes are paid by the house - not the person. I doubt the number of houses has doubled. Not even close. A lot of new residents live in apartments. A lot of apartments have higher crime rates. Very much higher in some cases. That crime spreads to other parts of a region, impacting everyone. Just ask Ypsilanti.
MAS
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.
Responding to Ksr48. Your answer makes no sense. Doubling the people means that there are more people paying the same tax. That doesn't necessarily mean that the tax rate has to be doubled. It's a huge logical fallacy to assume so.
ksr48
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:51 p.m.
I found the answer when looking through the web pages. Looks like when the original 1 mil was used a couple decades back, the population was half the current size. Take all of the state funding cuts and no fund balances reserves to use anymore and it gives the answer. I agree comparison rates don't justify, but it did help me understand the value we are getting and that the operation isn't overly cost heavy. Particularly compared to places like ypsilanti. Man, they are getting hosed! I just wanna keep a good thing going and I'm willing to pay a couple bucks more so that we don't become like those comparison towns.
Huron74
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 11:55 a.m.
Pittsfield Twp is digging it's own financial grave. As the PO's and FF's hired when the PS force was originally formed start to retire the Twp is going to be on the hook for 30 years or more worth of pension and healthcare costs for people retiring in their forties. Add a few lawsuits against the PD for wrongful shootings (in the news lately) and PTwp could easily find itself like Highland Park or Hamtramack and some other smaller Michigan localities that end up with as much or more of their tax money going to retirees as it does for those actually working. Follow Director Harshberger's "advice" and a decade or so down the road and there will likely be an Emergency Financial Manager in the Township's future. And they as we know don't require voter or board approval for whatever they want to do. Act now while you still have options, eh?
Pitts Res
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.
Pittsfield uses MERS (Municipal Employees Retirement System). There are no post retirement pension costs for the township. Also, the fire department has no retirees at the moment and they can't retire till age 55.
applehazar
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 11:51 a.m.
No No No additional homeowner taxes. Get the money from the Costco property tax - oh - I forgot Mandy Grewal is blocking that project.
bob
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 11:27 a.m.
@braggslaw - WHERE does it say that public EMPLOYEES are asking for more money. The article states that the "Last year, most township public safety personnel signed a five-year contract with zero-percent wage increases." The money the township is asking for is to cover other declining revenue in the general fund such as interest and state shared revenue. The benefit of a public safety millage is that it guarantees that the monies raised from the millage be used for public safety and not other general fund activities.
braggslaw
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:54 p.m.
I guess that there is no need for the millage then...
braggslaw
Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 11:08 a.m.
As people flee the state and middle class tightens its belt, public employees ask for more money again.... How many times do the taxpayers have to say no?