Pittsfield Township officials to voters: Pass public safety millage or expect cuts
Weeks of door-knocking, public forums and appeals to safety-conscious voters will come to a head Tuesday in Pittsfield Township when voters decide whether to approve a tax increase for public safety.
Faced with an expiring 1.0 mill levy for public safety millage next year, voters will be asked to renew that amount and approve an additional .95-mill for public safety in the May 3 special election.
Matt Harshberger, Pittsfield Township Public Safety director, says public safety protection will suffer if the millage is not approved.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
But counting on those funds is no longer an option given the considerable losses in tax revenues for consecutive years and the loss of nearly $1 million in state revenue-sharing over the past decade, officials said.
Township Supervisor Mandy Grewal has not minced words during the campaign, promising layoffs without the voters’ support.
The numbers
If passed, the 10-year millage would cost the owner of a home with a $100,000 taxable value about $195 annually. That averages to roughly $3.78 a week or 54 cents per day for the typical resident, about double the current amount of 27 cents per day.
Mandy Grewal
The $3.3 million the millage is expected to generate can be used for operating expenses, equipment and training upgrades and capital projects. Both Grewal and Harshberger did not rule out making capital improvements including building a new police station and adding equipment, but those decisions would be made after voters decide what they want from their public safety department, they said.
“We have needs and have not established a list of priorities for them, but our main goal now is to maintain our current level of service and help this community continue grow,” Harshberger said.
If the millage fails, cuts will be necessary, officials say. Almost certainly on the chopping block would be pro-active enforcements Harshberger implemented since coming from the Ypsilanti Police Department two years ago.
June Kretzschmer, who manages the Spicetree Apartments along Washtenaw Avenue, said she and residents saw the impact of the designated community patrol units immediately and that the relationships built with the officers provide peace of mind.
“They’ve been a big help to us in dealing with crime but also the smaller, quality of life things that impact residents every day,” she said.
No organized opposition
Though they prefer not to acknowledge it publicly, supporters ranging from the rank-and-file officers to the administration have been pleasantly surprised by the lack of organized opposition so far.
No organizations or political action committees have formed to try to thwart the initiative.
The committee behind the millage, dubbed Pittsfield Public Safety First, raised more than $7,500 since forming in February and spent nearly $4,000 of it on literature, yard signs, mailings and voter lists, according to documents filed with the Washtenaw County Clerk last week. The contribution list is comprised almost entirely of township elected officials, public safety department employees and a few business owners.
Millage proponents acknowledge it’s never easy to ask voters for more money in Michigan’s poor economic climate. And early on, some officials expressed particular concern given the anti-tax outcry expressed during the Saline Area Schools campaign for a $22 million bond proposal, which 56 percent of voters rejected in February.
However, voters in all three of the Pittsfield Township precincts affected by that vote soundly approved the millage proposal, and turnout in each of the precincts ranged between 18 and 20 percent, results show.
Similar turnout overall is expected Tuesday when the only other measures on the ballot will be a countywide special education millage, police and fire millages in Dexter Township, a police protection millage in Northfield Township and a fire millage in Sharon Township.
Art Aisner is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
mg0blue
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 2:57 a.m.
I am voting YES on this millage and I pray that others do too. If this millage fails and the Township has to lay off firefighters and police officers do you know what's going to happen? I'm going to be spending MORE on the increase to my homeowners insurance with less police and fire then I would be with this small increase. I have dealt with Pittsfield police on a couple occasions and will say that I was VERY impressed with the quality of service and professionalism. Looking at what others pay for public safety I think we're getting a phenomenal deal.
Mick52
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 2:07 a.m.
New police station? I thought their current facility was not that old. Is there a problem with the station? I do not like millage requests like this - the headline is about layoffs but oh yeah we also need new digs and some new toys. I almost wish the ballot could be line a line item budget where you could vote to one part - personnel, but no to capital improvements, etc., so goodies are not piggybacked on to real needs. If there is a fiscal crises, do not include pork as part of the solution. This is why federal spending needs to be controlled. State and local govts need more revenue and with runaway federal spending people will hesitate to vote for tax increases. I think I will be voting no unfortunately because so many other costs are rising.
SalineDoe
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 12:07 p.m.
This has nothing to do with building a new police station. Ten years ago voters were promised a new station since the current one is about 30 years old, but it wasn't affordable. This is about keeping the officers on the ground. "Capital equipment" refers to fire trucks, police vehicles and weapons. Those things are not cheap.
SalineSoccerMom
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 2:23 a.m.
Oh no - did I miss something about a new police station and "new toys"? Hmmm...
SalineSoccerMom
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 12:50 a.m.
Wow, after reading the article about the millage proposals in Dexter - I am happy to vote Yes for this millage. Dexter Millage information - "If both millages are approved, a homeowner with a $100,000 home would pay about $318 per year" I was kind of skeptical at first, but now I realize what a bargain we are getting - and type of service! How can you complain after seeing what others with less service will have to pay...
ksr48
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 12:14 p.m.
@SoccerMom Dexter is nothing. You should see what Ypsilanti Township is paying for their police. And Pittsfield's millage also covers its fire department. Dexter's is only for their police operations.
SalineSoccerMom
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 11:49 a.m.
Mr. Ed - that's a great point. I would guess that they have less police and fire responses also? Probably less employees too? Not sure but I don't think that Dexter is very busy. I'm just gald I don't live there because no matter what the population - a millage is a millage is a millage. I won't be paying $318 per year!
Mr. Ed
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 2:29 a.m.
The population in Dexter Twp is no where even close to Pittsfield twp.
DwightSchrute
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:45 p.m.
I find it ridiculous when people in $200,000+ houses say they can't afford an extra $90-100 a year in taxes for vital services that keep the place growing. Pittsfield Twp. is one of the faster growing areas in the state over the last 10 years, "lost" tax revenue or not as result of economy.
Mr. Ed
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:45 p.m.
My comment was removed so I'll post it again. Why not contract with the Sheriffs for [police services. The sheriff can save us money and we could move forward with no millage increase.
RTFM
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:21 p.m.
I am really in the mood to sell my place in Pittsfield and to get the heck out. After the bismal history of Pittsfield's pet projects and self granted royal status of former Board of Trustees, it is about time to live where officials actually honest and not out to promote themselves or social ideas. I still would like to see a dump or sewage treatment plant in The Pittsfield Preserve as an act of poetic revenge.
lynel
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.
welcome to our world in AA
Etail4
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 4:55 p.m.
When it comes to finances and deciding on a millage increase, I look at how the new group manages our tax dollars compared to the previous folks. The previous admin spent on outrageous land purchases and didn't manage our money well, as shown below: <a href="http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/08/senior_citizens_group_protests.html" rel='nofollow'>http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/08/senior_citizens_group_protests.html</a> The current group had an independent third party come in to scrub the books and said they were doing things the right way: <a href="http://www.pittsfieldtwp.org/bondrating.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.pittsfieldtwp.org/bondrating.html</a> That gives me enough confidence to vote yes.
Driven
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.
Who is the source of this information? The new group?
stunhsif
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.
Perhaps if this millage fails, then someone will ask the Fire Chief to stop driving the Ford Excursion home every day for lunch in York Township , a round tripper of appx 11 miles. This truck gets 10mpg and is not equipped with safety equipment that might be needed on a "run". Why does the Fire Chief have a "company car/truck" in the first place, seems an abuse of taxpayer money in this day and age. Vote No Don't Be A Chump
T
Mon, May 2, 2011 : 6:20 p.m.
I'll start out by saying that I do not live in pittsfield township, so my life will not be affected by the outcome of this vote in any way. I had to chuckle at the nit-picking about the chief and the company truck though. No – there's no 'chief', but I'm pretty sure that I know the man you're talking about. He is nothing but an asset to your township's public safety department. He has spent his career serving others, and has risked his life to keep others safe – and would still do the same for you and your family. By the way, the truck is equipped with things that his personal vehicle is not. You should stop out there and check it out if this is such a bother to you.
Driven
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:26 p.m.
Perhaps he was forced out.
stunhsif
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:01 p.m.
Then this is even more troubling because I still see the Excursion being driven home for lunch , always see it coming and going appx 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. So if not the Fire Chief, who else gets to use this large vehicle as personal transportation ? Vote No Don't Be A Chump
SalineDoe
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 4:48 p.m.
You do know that there is no fire chief right now as he resigned a few months ago, right? That is one of the positions they cut and left unfilled to save money. Or maybe you don't.
Basic Bob
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.
With the hit people took on their property values, most people would expect that Pittsfield's property tax revenues have decreased. I know I did. That turns out to be a false assumption. 2001 $5.59 million 2002 $5.97 2003 $6.85 2004 $7.23 2005 $7.77 2006 $8.40 2007 $9.04 2008 $9.53 2009 $9.52 2010 $9.54 Everyone supporter of this political action committee stands to gain financially from the millage through raises and benefit increases. Please make your own conclusion about the financial hardship faced by the township administration, relative to your personal financial experience in the last ten years.
andys
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:37 p.m.
Tax revenues increased 70% over seven years between 2001 to 2008, what is that about 7% or 8% annual increase compounded? Then when things plateaued they need a tax increase to sustain the apparent parallel spending trajectory. I'll bet Ann Arbor has a similar story. I can see this millage failing.
blahblahblah
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 4:05 p.m.
Any voter still on the fence on this issue should pay close attention to the vote tonight on the proposed Menard's development. Tonight the trustees will decide whether they are interested in securing the additional tax revenue such a development would bring (along with jobs, etc.) or rather just rely on raising taxes on township residents.
Driven
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
Should you look carefully, you will find that the planned uses of current millage money were sold to the public as being for technology and equipment. There was millage money set aside for the new building dating back to the original 5-year millage that you approved 15 years ago. Now the money for the building is gone, and the millage funds are being used almost exclusively for personnel. The general fund budgets for police and fire were reduced and that money went elsewhere in the township budget.
Mumbambu, Esq.
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
I don't understand the "we need this to avoid layoffs" when in the same breath is "and maybe a new police station". Why? Health concerns? Comfort concerns? Building safety concerns? Also, the concept of "doubling taxes" is confusing a lot of voters. It is double that of today, but today is a heck of a lot less than a few years ago. I can't think of an area in the township where home prices haven't been hit big time. It also seems like this was a shoot for the stars idea. Either vote for a doubling for ten years (if housing prices approach where they were before we might get a solid gold police station) or... or what? The new police station is the most concerning part for me. Just for officers and new officers and vehicles/equipment - cool. heck- give them raises. new station...not cool.
DB Holden
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:10 p.m.
I will be voting YES in support of the Pittsfield Township Public Safety department. Unlike other government entities and school districts Pittsfield has demonstrated sound fiscal management since 2009. Costs have been controlled and savings implemented. The police and fire contracts have been secured to 2014 with costs clearly identified and controlled. Pittsfield pay rates are well below the average of comparable communities. Pittsfield personnel is in line for the size of community and square mileage covered. Pittsfield Public Safety is performance oriented reducing crime and response time (less than 6 minutes). Voting YES on May 3rd maintains one of the key functions of local government enhancing quality of life and property values. David Holden
ksr48
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 1:35 p.m.
Vote no and live within your means? My guess is that going by that concept means you either don't live in Pittsfield or you don't care about how safe your community is. Sure the township can live within its means and layoff firefighters and police, but what is the greater cost to everyone? If you can get a police officer to your house right now in 5 minutes, isn't that a good thing? If they cut police/fire and that 5 minutes becomes 10, I guess people need to decide how much can happen in that extra time. I don't know. Does 5 extra minutes matter if a house is on fire or if someone has a gun and is breaking down the door? Probably makes a huge difference. But then again, we can always "make the cuts and live within our means" if a slower response time is acceptable. At least the township is asking us to make the decision and not imposing it on us. Personally, I am voting YES. Not taking the risk like Ypsilanti has done. I don't want to be like other communities. Not when the cost increase is much less than other towns are paying.
annarboral
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 1:30 p.m.
If they cut police and fire if the millage fails then they won't be re-elected. There is no need for a tax increase. There is a need to cut spending on all non-critical items. Human resources should be eliminated as charity isn't the business of Pittsfield Township. Salaries and benefits across the board should be reduced significantly. This is just the same old "democratic" gamesmenship. We'll cut what's important if we don't get another tax increase.
AA
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 1:04 p.m.
VOTE NO. Make due with the budget you have even if it means deep cuts. Whats the difference?
neel125
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 12:47 p.m.
I say, "vote yes!" Please review what is happening in the city of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti Twp. and other communities that are working with less police and less fire. I like our standard of services that are provided now with the current level of staffing.
wlinsenbigler
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 12:46 p.m.
Come on, the police need new $2000 M4 assault rifles and Suburban and motorcycles and Challengers and Chargers. You know the off road driving they have to do to get to some address's in Washtenaw County and police motorcycles are very useful I just don't know how yet. Also using "Take home" vehicles all during the week and weekend, I've seen city cars at Kroger and at school picking up kids, instead of doing mile reimbursement is highly logical. The problem is not lack of money it is misappropriation of funds. Typical, throw money at the problem and it will get better. This isn't just Pittsfield that I am speaking off, this can apply to Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti as well and I am sure many other cities also fall into this category.
andys
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 1:49 p.m.
"The problem is not lack of money it is misappropriation of funds. Typical, throw money at the problem and it will get better." Yep, can you say Pacific Education Group? There's $345k down a rat hole!
trespass
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 12:32 p.m.
Whenever government officials want to raise taxes they make it about schools or public safety. It is just a gimmick. It is up to our elected officials to decide where to make the cuts. If police and fire are not the best places to make cuts then make them elsewhere in government. I will vote no.
SalineDoe
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 12:26 p.m.
Claims that the current township administration is spending lavishly on salaries is completely unfounded and politically based. People who make that claim know this. What isn't being said is that any salary levels for elected officials was approved and set in place by the PREVIOUS administration. The current elected officials have refused salary increases every year they have been in office. Let's get that fact on the table. There are fewer township employees now than there were three years ago. People are doing more with less and bringing in far more in grant money than ever before to help make ends meet. No outrageous land purchases have occurred under the new administration. In fact, if the township hadn't drained its reserves to buy land the past several years, there wouldn't be a need for a millage increase. What people need to realize is that the current 1.0 mil isn't enough to sustain the current public safety forces without major cuts. That is why 1.95 is being requested. All that is being asked is for voters to decide if they want to have their response times and police/fire services reduced or maintained at current levels. Simple as that.
MAS
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 12:10 p.m.
I'm voting no. They should have given us a second choice...maintain the current rate.
SalineDad2
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 12:09 p.m.
Pittsfield Township is asking the residents what they want to do. I am confident that if the vote fails, they will have to cut services across the board. This will include the parks, recreation, public works, fire, police, and administration. I am the last person to support raising taxes to be squandered on useless or grandiose projects (can you say Pittsfield Preserve). Do you realize the Township has a $19 million debt for that project? This administration has been very conservative with their spending and have demonstrated the ability to manage the township during a time of declining revenue and increasing costs. I do not want to find Pittsfield in the same dilemma as Ypsilanti Township or City where they are fighting to keep enough officers on the street to adequately protect the citizens. Pittsfield is an attractive community to the bad guys and someone needs to protect it. I would not support this if Pittsfield were looking to add to the legacy costs by hiring more people. But, at some point there needs to be the understanding by all of us that it simply costs more for the services we receive. Do you not buy gas because it costs over $4 a gallon? Do you refuse to buy milk because it costs 50% more today than it did 2 years ago? Pittsfield should be considered a model of how to do things right with a budget, in these economic times. I am sure the Township will get through this if the vote is no. However, what will the quality of life be for everyone if that is the case? I encourage everyone to vote Yes!
bob
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:10 p.m.
@MAS - the current administration has not made land purchases. They are just dealing with the debt of the land purchases by the previous administration.
MAS
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 12:11 p.m.
A model? The town has over spent on administration salary and land purchases. It's time Pittsfield citizens say enough is enough.
tdw
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 12:06 p.m.
Typical...raise taxes or cut.BUT give Costco ( ? ) and Menards a hard time ( big tax payers ).But I don't live in Pittsfeild so i really don't care
Common Sense
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 12:01 p.m.
While our public safety personnel do an excellent job, I am on a limited income and cannot afford a doubling of my taxes! I would happily support a continution millage but times are tough on all of us!!! I will be voting NO on this proposal. Perhaps it is time to look at at intergrating all of our local public safety programs into one county wide program like many other states have in place.
applehazar
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 11:45 a.m.
I do not respond well to threats. Figure it out with what you have - we all have to do that in business every day.
Will
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 11:22 a.m.
Pittsfield has outstanding police and fire departments. They are visible and pro-active in reducing crime in the community. I'd hate to see the result if officers and fire fighters are cut.
mojo
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 11:13 a.m.
I expect cuts - Property values are down by 30%-50%. Incomes are down 20% - Everything is down. Public managers (police included) need to open their eyes and deal with this situation. Lower taxes now. Vote No. Expect cuts - salary cuts!
braggslaw
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 11:08 a.m.
Vote no
Basic Bob
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 10:29 a.m.
Pittsfield spent the general fund on salaries for the administration. We have the highest paid supervisor, clerk, and treasurer in the county, a deputy supervisor (why?), deputy clerk, deputy treasurer, and seven directors, plus consultants galore. If we send them more money for public safety, they will have more available in the general fund to give back to themselves. That is their track record.
racerx
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 10:15 a.m.
$7.9M for 33 employees? If there is such a loss of tax revenue, assumingly from homes, I would think there is less people? Cut. I live in Pittsfield Township and their officers are unprofessional, leadership is poor, so maybe without the millage passing some other changes might be beneficial.
JB
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
No, it's not substantiation. It's anecdotal evidence and they're not the same thing. I never said that people haven't had bad experiences. What I sad was you're attempting to smear the entire department over a few negative experiences, some of which it doesn't appear that you have the complete facts on. That's why it's a cheap shot.
racerx
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 8:24 a.m.
@JB, just ask the unarmed man who was shot in the stomach recently, or why the PD couldn't provide the video tape, or why some officers calls your teenaged daughter scaring her into a confession for a crime she didn't commit and charge her for it, but if they had video proof not arrest her at that time? Without getting into any more specific's, yes, several people in the township have had bad experiences. It's not a cheap shot. My facts are just different than yours. Hope this was enough substantiation for you.
JB
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
" I live in Pittsfield Township and their officers are unprofessional, leadership is poor," Perhaps you could provide some evidence to back up these unfounded assertions. I also live in the township and I've always found the township officers to be completely professional. Maybe you've had a bad experience but your anecdote is hardly representative of the professionalism of the department. It's a cheap shot that you fail to substantiate.