November Millages

I just sent this email to all of our Council. Thought I'd share it. Comments are welcome.


Mr. Johnson gave a very clear and compelling presentation last night. But I saw nothing that made me change my mind to voting NO on both millage proposals in November. Here’s why:

The police and firefighters have a VERY lucrative contract. Their benefits package is even better than our reps in Congress. That is the city’s fault. Their negotiators were far better than ours. And their labor leaders looked out after their members far better than our leaders looked out for the city. But that is done. Except for not taking their recent 3% pay raise, the “concessions” they made were concessions by the unions, not by their members. Fewer union members mean less union dues. The police and firefighters have the same pay and super-benefits as always. If they cared about the city, they would all have taken pay and benefit cuts and leave the manpower levels the same. This is better for the city. But like all unions, they chose to layoff the low seniority people instead, even though that would mean less protection for residents.

If they want my vote (and that of any family, friend, or neighbor I can convince), the police and firefighters need to take an IMMEDIATE 20% cut in pay and start paying 20% of their benefit costs, for health care, insurance, and pension. This is what Governor Synder proposes for all public service employees, and I agree. This needs to be done within the next week. The new contract change has to be signed and ratified by all parties weeks before the election. I want time for the people on my side of the microphone to analyze the changes and make sure there isn’t something in the small print that gives it all back some way.

As for the other millage, this property needs to be sold as soon as possible, for whatever we can get for it, with the only provision that it must be sold to someone who will develop it within a reasonable time (6 months to a year), not to some speculator who will let it sit vacant until real property prices go up. No city should be in the commercial property business. Forbes magazine calls this one of the riskier investment types. When it is sold, I will gladly vote for a millage to cover the difference for the bond payments for property we “use to own”, and write it off, hopefully, as a “lesson learned”.

These things need to be done immediately. As much as I don’t have confidence in our current Council, I surely am not going to give millions of dollars in new tax revenue to a new Council filled with people I never heard of and who have no track record of spending my money. Trust is earned. Then you can get my money.

Even after the presentation last night, the Council doesn’t seem to recognize the urgency of the situation. If you did, you would not be waiting until next Tuesday for your meeting. Why did no one propose that it be sooner? You might have found that you all would be available Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. But no one thought to even ask. Was it just an example of doing things the way we have always done them? We always meet on Tuesdays, so that’s Ok for this, too? Basically, you have wasted a week at a very critical time.

I am not fearful of an EFM. He or she would do what I want done anyway.

Sincerely,
Bob Rejefski

PS. Feel free to forward this to any interested parties you like. I am just an average Allen Park resident, and there are many more who feel as I do.

There is no doubt an EFM would get things done that the council is too timid to do, but the citizens would have absolutley no say and no voice when an EFM makes his decisions. Like them or lump them, we will be stuck with his decisions; and, AP will be forced to come up with another $100,000-$150,00 to pay the EFM's salary. (The state of Michigan does not pay his salary, we do.) The council really shows its incompetence by dawdling on these important choices.

We citizens have no say now. We had no say when they negotiated and approved the super-contract for the police and fire fighters. We had no say in buying the studio property. We even had no say in the contract recently given to our new deputy chief, the one with 90 sick days. Voicing our opinions at the meetings after the fact is not the same as having a say. Counting benefits and pension, we will pay more for the deputy chief than for the EFM.

I agree with you that the current Council - as a whole - is not competent to run the city. So why give them another $5 million in the new millages to mismanage?

I've been watching the meetings on TV for years. Burtka, Lalli, Tucci, and Kelly always seemed to vote as a block. What will happen if our new Council is made up of Babbage, Lalli, Tucci, and Keenan? I can easily see another block in favor of the fire department.

Our new city manager seems to be good, but there is no guarantee he will be here after November.

But I'm glad someone commented on my letter. This site started out as a forum for discussion, but no one has commented on anything in months. And in an election year, no less.

I just watched the video of the first of the latest two town hall meetings, and was surprised at some things that were said. The questions were better than those at the second meeting that I attended.

Even if both millages fail, we will probably NOT get an EFM. This is because the recent budget passed by the council, the one with closing the Community Center and cutting police and fire by half and making all full-time city hall workers part-time, will be enough to pay our bills, including the debt payments. So we would not meet the requirements for an EFM.

If either one passes but not both, then there would still be massive cuts, determined by the new mayor and council. But not quite as bad as if neither passes.

The 3.3 mills in Proposal 2 is enough to pay the principle and interest payments for the property if it is empty. It has always been said that the actual levy would be less, depending on such factors as home values and occupancy. But at the meeting it was said that the council, if it wanted, could keep the levy at the maximum of 3.3 even if it was fully leased and just put the rent receipt money into the general fund for whatever the council decides. That was a shocker.

Keep in mind that the property takes money from the general fund besides principle and interest. The city still has to pay maintenance, utilities, and taxes. Proposal 2 does not cover any of those.

Also keep in mind that even though the bonds are for $30 million, due to interest we will actually be paying back over $60 million over the life of the bonds. Not accounting for businesses, that over $5,700 per household.

All of the levy for the first fiscal year will be on this year's winter taxes. The timing for future levies will be up to the new council.

If you watch the video, the questions don't start until the 55 minute mark. But then it stopped abruptly at 2 hours in mid-question. Must be a limit of some kind. It was on later in the evening. I don't know if it is also shown during the day.