Ypsilanti Township, Augusta Township residents to consider police millages Nov. 2
Passage of police millages in Ypsialnti and Augusta townships will help pay for regular police patrols. Deputy Dean Reich makes a traffic stop while on patrol in this file photo.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
Ypsilanti Township is putting a 1.5-mill tax levy in front of voters to sustain the number of deputies it has through fiscal year 2013. In Augusta Township, voters will decide on a 1.8-mill levy that would restore regular police service.
Both municipalities contract with the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Department for police protection.
Ypsilanti Township
The Ypsilanti Township millage would generate just over $2 million when levied on December 1, and mean the owner of a home with a taxable value of $100,000 would pay an additional $150 in taxes annually for the three year millage.
Township officials hope it will provide enough funding to add several deputies, but are hesitant to promise it will.
Ypsilanti Township Director of Police Services Mike Radzik said the township is confident it will generate enough funding to sustain current policing levels. But a combination of how far revenues drop and how much the county raises the per-deputy cost will determine how many deputies, if any, can be added.
The township has had to contend with sharp increases in the per-deputy cost handed down by the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners. The cost of one deputy has increased by 6 percent over the last two years, which is roughly equivalent to 1.5 deputies. That per-deputy cost has risen by 92 percent since 2004.
Concurrently, the township has been hit hard by a loss in its industrial tax base and a high numbers of foreclosures. The township assessor reported a 12 percent reduction in taxable value in 2011.
The township has been paying for its current level of police service with its police fund balance, which will be depleted by the end of next year if current staffing levels are maintained. The new millage will provide enough funding so the township doesn't have to pay for services out of its reserves.
In November 2009, voters rejected a similar 2-mill levy by a margin of 168 votes. That dropped the number of deputies patrolling the township from 38 to 31, not including command staff and the detective bureau.
"We reduced the millage (proposal) to 1.5 mills under the belief it might be more palatable to voters if it were a lesser amount," Radzik said.
If the millage fails, the township will likely lose seven to 10 more deputies over the next two years, officials said.
“We’re at a critical point where we can’t afford to go any less than that,” Township Supervisor Brenda Stumbo said.
Township officials are expecting their revenues to stabilize in 2013 when the millage would expire.
In the last year, the township has reduced its fire force, reduced township employees' workweek from 40 to 32 hours and contracted for seven fewer deputies.
Augusta Township
Augusta Township’s 5-year, 1.8-mill tax levy would generate $376,000 in its first year and restore two full-time deputies to the community. A home with an assessed value of $100,000 would pay an additional $180 in taxes.
The township has not had regular police coverage since voters rejected two similar police service millages in 2008. Because officials failed to notify the Sheriff’s Department that they would be terminating the township's contract after the millage failed, the township could have been forced to pay for two deputies for six months.
But the township was able instead to negotiate a one-deputy patrol for one year at a cost of $300,000 out of it’s $700,000 general fund. Since the contract for one deputy expired, deputies from the Sheriff’s Department and Michigan State Police troopers have responded to calls, but there hasn't been a regular patrol through the township.
Township Supervisor Pete Hafler said he has no statistics to indicate whether crime is up or down, but he said break-ins are the biggest concern.
Trustee Bill Tobler made the motion to put the question in front of voters. He said the township has very minimal coverage from the Sheriff’s Department and MSP, and residents will have to choose if they want expanded coverage.
“I’m aware that there are quite a few residents who feel very strong about the need for police service, although there are others who don’t,” he said. “But I thought it was important for citizens to have the opportunity to decide whether they want to purchase this service or not.”
Sheriff Jerry Clayton
"If we don't pass the millage then we don't have the funds. If we don't have the funds, then we don't have the coverage," he said.
Sheriff Jerry Clayton said any addition to the number of police officers in Washtenaw County is a positive development, and recent reductions have affected his at agency and surrounding departments.
"Those reductions continue to produce challenges to all of us," Clayton said. "As I said in January when reductions were made, it would contribute to us being more reactive than proactive.
Tom Perkins is a freelance reporter for AnnArbor.com. For more Ypsilanti stories, visit our Ypsilanti page. For more election stories, visit our elections page.
Comments
Michigan Reader
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 12:56 p.m.
@Mark Hergott--I think that it would be legal for the county to patrol the outskirts of the township, as the lawsuit against the county proved, it's not mandatory for them to patrol at all. A contract COULD stipulate that, but it doesn't seem very practical.
JR in Ypsi
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 10:21 a.m.
@Corby Spare me your condescension, please. I know full well what a police force does. Also, I don't believe I ever said "lock your doors and we'll be fine", so your use of quotes is inappropriate and misleading. Did our current level of police services help the Canton woman who tragically died when a drunk driver plowed into her car after running a red light the other day? You are using scare tactics, plain and simple. Rarely do police prevent crime, more often than not they respond to crime after it has occured. Random bad things happen in this world. Odds are the police will not be there to protect you.
Corby
Sat, Oct 30, 2010 : 12:03 a.m.
JR in Ypsi, How do you protect yourself and your family against a drunk driver or a reckless speeder? I'm just curious what you think a police force actually does, and how few officers (if any) you think are needed if everyone were to follow your "lock your doors and you'll be fine" advice.
Corby
Fri, Oct 29, 2010 : 11:51 p.m.
Mark H. I think there could be a lot of advantages to a combined police force, both fiscally and in crime prevention given our intertwined jurisdictions. But many of us in the city are a bit nervous about joining services with a township that, from our view, has been unwilling to fund public safety at the same level we have. The most positive move to getting city residents to vote in favor of a merger of some services, quite frankly, would be seeing township voters better support public safety services. It seems the fear of some township residents is that combining services would cost them more. The fear of some city residents is combining services would mean a push from township voters for lower levels of service. I would gladly support combined services if it meant better public safety. I would hesitate if I thought it meant township folks where just looking for service on the cheap. Hope that helps!
JR in Ypsi
Fri, Oct 29, 2010 : 7:45 p.m.
@YpsiBronc As for the "insurance" argument, when money gets tight one of the first things people do is adjust their insurance coverage. It's a practical way to reduce spending. That is necessary here, no one can dispute the pounding that Ypsi Township propery values have suffered. Money is tight, and I'll bet a thorough audit of police services would uncover quite a lot of ineffeciency and waste. Also, don't forget this got voted down earlier this year. Rather than try to come up with an innovative solution the best our feckless leaders can do is ask for more money, again. That is poor leadership and I won't support it. And I don't agree that our lives are suddenly in mortal danger due to slower response time. I won't accuse you of fear mongering because you presented a rational rebuttal, but seriously, be smart, protect your family and property, and the odds of something sinister happening are reduced to a miniscule chance. A couple officers losing thier taxpayer supported jobs is no different than GM or Ford having to downsize to adjust to economic reality. It's sad, but what part of the community hasn't been touched by the economic mess we are in? Why should government be immune?
Mark
Fri, Oct 29, 2010 : 6:48 p.m.
All right. I don't know what Augusta Township cares to do, but I have a fair idea as to what Ypsi Township residents plan on doing. If so, then an Ypsilanti City / Township police authority is in the making. If the city department can provide supplemental service to the inner ring of the township, with the Sheriff's department running interference on the outskirts, we can assume that some (minor) cost savings will be achieved. The only question is whether or not two law enforcement agencies can co-operate in the same municipality, practically and legally speaking. Tom, do you know if it is legal for the Sheriff's department can only patrol certain areas of the township, or is it an all-or-nothing deal?
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Fri, Oct 29, 2010 : 6:14 p.m.
OK Ypsi Township - vote it down. Force the township to stop spending budget dollars on "non governmental" items and instead get back to basic government services. You can always pass a future millage.
YpsiBronc
Fri, Oct 29, 2010 : 5:11 p.m.
As Perkins points out, Ypsi Tsp. has been paying for current service levels from a reserve fund. When the reserve fund is exhausted we will then lose officers. Clearly, response times, if we get a response at all, will increase if the millage does not pass. Even if the crime rate were to remain level there would be a reduction in police response to those crimes. A merger with the city will not happen anytime soon. The cost of creating a new police authority with another administrative layer and infrastructure that the county already has in place would be fiscally irresponsible. We will be voting in favor of the millage for the same reason that we have homeowner's insurance. I don't need to wait for a disaster to help me decide what the right choice is.
JR in Ypsi
Fri, Oct 29, 2010 : 11:47 a.m.
A couple of noteworthy points about this re-tread millage that the people voted down last April... 1) In a letter sent to Ypsi Township residents, Brenda Stumbo claimed that part of the reason the millage needed to be passed was because services provided by the Washetnaw County Sheriff department were outrageously expensive, and needed the voters to pay higher property taxes for them. What kind of logic is this? Why should we continue to pay for a bloated, overpriced system? Merge services with Ypsilanti, analyze the needs of the new set up, AND THEN ask for a millage if you need one. All this millage does it ask us to waste our tax dollars on a broken budget structure. 2) Talk about being out of touch. Property values in Ypsi Township have plummeted and there is no hope for recovery any time soon. So how can she (Ms. Stumbo) in good conscience ask struggling families to pay another dime to support an ineffecient system? 3) I'm sick and tired of the fear mongereing coming out of the Ypsi Township government office. We had dire warnings from Ms. Stumbo last April about the consequences of rejecting the millage, which the voters smartly chose to do. Well...guess what? According to our very own annarbor.com, crime rates in Ypsi Township have held stable. Their fear mongering and apocalyptic rhetoric rings hollow, and has zero credibility. I truly hope the voters of Ypsilanti Township exercise the same common sense and good judgement as they did last April and reject this tax increase.
dading dont delete me bro
Fri, Oct 29, 2010 : 11:12 a.m.
@thakillabee, i sure hope your vote isn't influenced because you had a bad experience (and got a ticket).
ThaKillaBee
Fri, Oct 29, 2010 : 9:18 a.m.
I paid 3 times my annual share when they gave me a $300 ticket for going through a yellow light when I decided stopping would be more of a hazard than going through (it was icy). So, I'll be voting against this proposal. Though if it passes I hope they use the extra money to take some training courses, like "How to catch guys who rob banks" instead of hiring more officers.