John, thanks for your comment. You made a good point and we've updated the story to clarify the Headlee rollback clause.

This is false. This only happens if property values increase faster than inflation. And that's not individual parcels, it's the entire tax base. The value of your home could go up much faster than inflation, but if there's enough low value properties in the tax base, your tax rate will stay the same.

I'm also not convinced that house prices are going to increase faster than inflation any time soon.

One more truth the City has been stretching!
Do you really believe that the City assumes this tax increase will disappear in the next 3-5 years?
The City is putting this into the General Fund so they can't be held accountable.
It is 3x what is a projected shortfall in the budget

A Yes Vote WILL force more out of their homes.... What will more people losing their homes do to your home values.......

If the City wanted options they should have asked. Cut the DDA = 2 mils per year and 600k in the bank. Many Cities are realizing that in tough times a DDA is a luxury that can not be afforded. Not to mention when you compare our DDA's results vs others it is lacking

Brad,
I share your concerns, code enforcement is only part time in Berkley, by one person. I suggest that you look at the code ordinances listed on the city web site.The city has to enforce them.Noise, trash, side walks not cleared, etc.
Most is landing on our police, rather then DPW. No one likes to hear about problems, but there it is.
However, with the increased rentals that have cropped up with the foreclosures, I feel the city has been incredibly myopic of the effect on property values.The police are responsive, however the city has been less then.
The true test of leadership to to recognize a problem before it becomes a emergency. I fear greater cuts in our budget and I hope the city will be more proactive to the residential community needs, as we form the tax base of this city.
The rezoning and rentals have lowered property value, along with poorly planned new construction, aka, the ugly condos on Greenfield.The Master Plan, promised tasteful Brownstone, we got Home Depot on sale, yuck.
Don't vote no, Berkley's great. We just have to all get on the same page.

Thanks

Lianne .... In one breath you are telling us that Great Leadership has given the City the answer to its problems (by raising taxes) Yet it was the same Leadership that failed to follow through on half baked plans / promises.
They knew all this was going to be a problem 3 years ago when they wanted to replace the Community Center with a luxury resort. All on the shoulders of the Citizens.
We told them then why it was a big mistake and all of those things happening were the reasons. They told us we were just trying to win through fear tactics......
NO it was called opening our eyes and realizing that things were going down and fast.

Kurt, I have read all of your comments.I suggest you take Virginias advice and run for office if you feel the leadership lies.I have had many thoughtful, respectful conversations with many people.I don't feel that I can have one with you, so I will leave at that.This is a democracy and we all get one vote.If you THINK I'm rolling in dough, you are mistaken.I'm voting to maintain what I have come to expect, it costs money.

Lianne....... or you could try not too waffle so much and stick to one story either there is great leadership and they make great choices and follow through or it is one bad decision after another.

Further depreciation will continue and accelerate when more people lose their homes..... Or have you failed to realize that that was one of the reasons it happened to begin with.

Elected Officials extremely responsible ....... yeah some questions How big was that community center again? How much was it going to cost? How many over looked the fact that 12 mile light poles were going to be a strange blue, prompting a repaint after they were received. Ok made a mistake on the 12 mile & Coolidge bricks once is understandable but then they wasted almost 300k more to redo those same bricks. Only to see them crumble again. now it is being done a 3rd time.

The Headlee amendment was put in place to Keep Taxes from skyrocketing. They have helped in some ways.

Only so much they can do? Try disbanding the DDA (many cities are realizing this is a luxury) with the DDA gone that is 2 mils going to the City and 600k that is in the bank. Besides the results of our DDa is less than stellar when compared to other communities with actual plans and results.

Do you think it could disappear in 3-5 years ..... that is mathematically impossible. Meanwhile if the economy does turn around the City is going to once again allow payroll and fringe benefits to get out of hand.

The average taxable value is probably correct, ($58K x 2 = $116K home value).

But this average is just that: an AVERAGE. This is what will determine any Headlee amendment rollbacks. The value of your home could go way up, but if the value of the ENTIRE tax base does not go up, you will still be paying the full millage rate. Who knows how much shadow foreclosure inventory banks are holding in Berkley. House prices could very well go down again before they go up faster than inflation. Proponents saying that there's a "built-in" sunset provision are completely misleading voters.

Assessments
From City of Berkley's webpage:

"The Oakland County Department of Equalization provides assessing services for the City of Berkley and is responsible for appraising all real and personal property in the City. "

"Complete tax and assessing information can be looked up in person for no charge or is available on Oakland County’s web site for a fee."

"Your Assessing Questions Answered
Do you have questions about your property assessment? Beginning June 10th, our assessing representative from Oakland County will spend the second Tuesday of each month at Berkley City Hall. The assessor will be available to meet with residents in person (by appointment) or to take your call."

I know this is not in time for the election, but perhaps you can get a hold of someone. If you find the answer could you post it for the rest of us?

Call 248-658-3316 to make an appointment or leave a call back number.

Joshua Hunter:

I have lived here for 2 years. Could you please cite examples of the "ridiculous cash grabs" you reference? Also could you provide examples of "fear, misinformation and manipulation" you cite. Thanks

Joshua,
I have lived here for 25 years, I'm voting yes. If I have to put a tag on every bag of leaves in the fall, it will amount to the same thing, plus I like having the streets plowed.
Further,if you look at the sale prices of the houses on Realtytrac before they were defaulted on, you will see that people bit off more then they could chew.Paying 360,000 dollars in 2007 for a house that was valued at 167,000 in 2002 is not a smart move.
Personally, I am making a lot less,and I mean a lot, however, maintaining core services is high on my list of preserving my property value into the future.I'm also cognizant , that if the city doesn't do something with the rental houses in my neighborhood, I will be paying lower taxes, due to their oversight, but that's another argument.
I'm not sure what the 3 mils equates to you, but I know it's affordable for me, do I like,no, but I don't like filling up my tank in my car,no.

To Paul, in 2010 the Berkley schools asked for 168 million dollars which was met with a resounding no. So, you can see why some people might be a little suspect, however, we are talking apples and oranges here.

Hi Paul. Back in 2009, there was a proposal for 2-mills to build a new Community Center. There was also a proposal to amend the charter for a 0.15% tax increase for Recreation (would take $770K/year from taxpayers). There was also a similar millage proposal back in 2002 with the same dire predictions as we're hearing now. Both failed, but the city still stands.

This time however, the millage is titled the "Municipal Operating, Police and Fire" Proposal. This implies the funds will be specifically used to save public safety. This is false. The proposal is simply a permanent general revenue increase. There is no plan for this revenue until the city actually receives it. The city admits it.

Since public safety is fully funded now, it's unlikely any of the money will go towards public safety. If the city were being honest it would be called the "Library, Parks, Recreation, and Tree Trimming Proposal", or it would simply be a General Revenue Increase proposal. Of course, voters wouldn't be frightened into voting if it had those titles.

The city's projected shortfall is about $400K in 2013, yet they're asking for 3 times that amount every year since they don't want to have to go back to voters. It helps prevent corruption and doesn't punish long-term homeowners who have paid their taxes to the city for years.

My webpage discusses these issues and alternatives as well if you're interested.
http://huntersinberkley.wordpress.com/category/berkley/berkley-millage/

Joshua,
I went to your blog, then I went to Publius to see how it appears exactly as the voters will see it, here it is.

ERKLEY CITY
CITY OF BERKLEY
MUNICIPAL OPERATING, POLICE AND FIRE MILLAGE PROPOSAL

CITY OF BERKLEY
MUNICIPAL OPERATING, POLICE AND FIRE MILLAGE PROPOSAL
Shall the limitation on the amount of taxes which may be imposed on taxable property in the City of Berkley be increased by 3 mills ($3.00 per thousand dollars of taxable value), beginning in 2013 as new additional millage in excess of the limitation imposed by Michigan Compiled Laws section 211.34d, to partially restore City Charter millage authorization previously approved by the electors as reduced by operation of the Headlee amendment, to provide funds for municipal operating purposes, including police and fire, library, parks, public works and sanitation services? It is estimated that 3 mills would raise approximately $1,362,000 when first levied in 2013.
I will still be voting yes.

Hi Lianne. I understand that you want to maintain core services. So do I, which is why I considered voting for the millage at first. But the city is asking for 3x more than they "need" (assuming there truly are no further cuts that can be made, which is false, but another story). It's also deceptive since its titled the Operating, Police and Fire proposal. But if it was just called the "general revenue increase" proposal (which is exactly what it is), people probably wouldn't be frightened into voting for it.

I'm A-OK that you support the increase. I just want to make sure that an alternative view is out there other than what is being provided from the city. Thanks for visiting my website!

Thanks,
I saw the numbers of the shortfall and weighed them with the potential shortfall+inflation. Also, keeping in mind upgrades to our streets,sewers and other "hardware",I think that the shortfalls will effect us in the long run, given my loss of income over the last couple of years, I choose to say yes on this one because I do not want to see what will happen if we don't.

I don't think it says anything about saving public safety. It doesn't say that police and fire will cease to exist without it.

To think that this tax increase would not include public safety simply because it's currently funded doesn't seem fair to me. The budget includes all departments and services and a decrease in money doesn't mean they should just cut everything in parks and rec and not touch public safety. It's a lot easier to say, buy a new fire truck when you have the money to do so. We shouldn't have to cut services to buy a fire truck.

Also, I don't believe the ice arena costs any money, based on what I'm seeing in the 2012 FY budget.

Expenses at the library have already been cut if I'm not mistaken and apparently 500 to 1000 people use the library daily which is a good thing for the community and a valuable service to those who do use it.

If we start cutting public services and quality of life, we start decreasing property values and no longer attract people to live here. You cite foreclosure, bank owned homes and homes for sale. We should be trying to attract buyers, not push them away.

Don't we already have a significantly lower tax rate than the surrounding cities? Am I missing something?

Finally, I don't care if they call it VAMPIRE ABATEMENT AND DRAGON FUND, it's still a good investment.

I don't vote on candidates based on their name, but what they are planning to do.

The city has included "Public Safety" as a service that could be "reduced or eliminated" if the millage isn't passed. That sounds like a threat/manipulation to me. Public safety is the most basic service people expect from their local government. It's like someone selling you a car and at the last minute saying you have to pay for the engine too.

There's no plan for this money (a permanent tax increase) and they're taking more than they need. But if everyone is ok with that, so be it. We shall see next week. Life will go on either way.

You know, i do appreciate you concern about there not being a published document stating what will be done with the money.

Regardless, I know that we can't meet the taxpayers expectations as things stand now.

I simply question you aversion to the tax increase and your argument about the title of the amendment holds practically no ground.

You seem to indicate that the title of a proposal encompasses the intention of the action without regard to the intention. This is meaningless.

Again, who the crap cares about what it's titled. If you have any interest in continuing services that members of the community have come expect or that have brought new members to the community, then the title of the freaking millage proposal holds no interest.

Who cares what it's called. If you are so incapable of reading beyond a title, you shouldn't be capable of voting in the first place.

Please drop you argument on the title. It's groundless, who the heck cares. A title of a proposal doesn't mean a thing.

WHO CARES WHAT IT IS CALLED. Care only of what it will bring your community. Politics is politics.

If you don't like the politicians who wrote the title, then vote them out of office. Until then, deal with the title that they wrote and realize that you should not judge a book by it's cover. Also, who cares, if you're so incapable of voting on something beyond the title of the proposal, you probably won't (shouldn't) vote in the first place. End of story.

Also, Joshua..why is it that you didn't respond to the content that I made, but rather responded with a blanket statement that you've already mentioned several times prior?

It seems you have nothing to say but blind arguments about how you don't want to pay an extra 200 dollars a year.

I'm not trying to incite a riot or anything, it just seems a bit odd that I discussed detailed information which you completely seemed to ignore, just to write additional rhetoric.

You simply ignored everything that I mentioned, and responded with a basic "note no because.

I fail to see the significance of anything you've said.

I mentioned several points, none of which you've addressed with your blanket statements.

If anything is manipulating, it's your complete ignorance of anything that i had to say.

I wasn't being argumentative by any means, but looking for some insight, which you seem to have failed to provided.

Basically, I said: Is you name Joshua?

You said: I hate pickles? Any questions?

Also, so that everyone is aware..I love pickles, I just ate one.

Joshua, I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but you keep misrepresenting this millage as a "21% tax increase." I believe you are mistaken. This millage represents about an 8-1/2% increase in our property taxes. If you're going to use numbers, they might as well be accurate. Thanks.

Tim, I think you're including city, school and county. I'm only talking about city taxes (like the city does in its Millage FAQ). The current city rate is about 14.49. 3 mills of 14.49 is 20.6%, so the increase in the city rate is about 21%.

I think the total rate is about 35? So yes, the increase in total taxes is about 8.5%. I'm only talking about city taxes though.

But thanks for pointing that out. I don't want people to think I'm talking about an increase in ALL property taxes. It's a 21% increase in just the city property tax rate. But that's still a ridiculous amount to demand without any plan, in my opinion.

I understand, Joshua, I just think that when people read that they are going to see "a 21% increase in their property taxes," they probably just do the math on what they pay in the summer and winter and come up with a significantly higher number than what they will really be paying. Seems reasonable that people should make the decision based on the correct number.

I respectfully disagree with you on the millage, but that's okay, that's why we're having the vote. Cuts have already been made and we will still be coming up short. I believe it is the responsibility of the city to not JUST provide the absolute bare minimum in terms of services and amenities, cutting each and every other thing that it can in order to survive. They need to at least maintain, if not enhance, what they offer, so as to keep existing and attract new residents.

Thanks for the civil conversation.

Joshua thanks for telling the truth. It is refreshing to see people that refuse to be lied to.

Jeff you can refuse to think all you want, But just because you are refusing to see real problems that real citizens have it does not make them non- existent.
There are people who every month are making a choice between this prescription or that utility every month. They are living on the edge because of the economic situation. Obviously you do not have this issue and for that I am glad!
The services do not have to be cut and they will not be. Those are scare tactics. They need to take the que from other communities and cut out the DDA. Oh wait now you are going to pretend that the services they provide are a necessity..... As many other communties have discovered they are a luxury and luxuries are the first thing that should be cut in hard times. It will be a smart cut IMO they do not serve a purpose in Berkley that could not be done by a volunteer. But it will save the City almost as much per year as this tax increase would gain it. Not to mention the 600k they have in the bank. (of our money)

Kurt, I agree that we can cut things such as the DDA.

Not once did I state that the DDA was a necessity, but that I would like to keep it.

There are few necessities both in life and the city as well. However, we have a choice of living only with the necessities or with additional "luxury" items and services.

I haven't seen any one here say that things can't be cut. It's about whether you want to cut things or not. We'll decide on Tuesday.

I don't see anything with the proposal to be a scare tactic or misleading in any way.

Trust them to do the right thing for who? For people to leave with good marks on their resumes is probably the only reason I can attest they would attempt some of the recent things they have tried. But the mistakes are consistently the same mistakes. At one point their motives have to be questioned.

I can guarantee you... if this passes with 3x the amount needed (an 800k surplus) when it comes time to renegotiate on the union contracts you can guarantee they will see pay increases. Where would they have bargaining power? The City will be sitting on a surplus.

Whatever their intent or reasons it does not matter. They were asked to put limitations on this proposal to protect the Citizens. Sunset clause, or only asking for what they really needed or make more cuts. They declined all because they want that big fat blank check I will leave you to decide on your own reasons but fact is they had the chance to put in protections to make sure this did not become an even worse or unnecessary tax burden within a few years after the economy turned around they chose not to.

A sunset clause would have given the residents a hope that if some of the worst concerns did become reality they could reassess 3 or 4 years down the line. Maybe the economy turned around and the tax was uneeded. Once they realize keeping the City Services at certain levels really had no bearing on there homes taxable values. (If the economy tanks further in Michigan or the US noone would care that Berkley kept their services the same. It has not kept our home values up the last few years & it will not raise them artifically)

You may not think that their past mistakes were decisions made with malevolence. But the Community Center is just one example where MANY residents spoke out against it. They claimed bankrupting the city was in our best interest. The majority of the residents were branded as people who did not care about the future of Berkley. In fact as has been proven true they cared far too much to allow such a blatant waste of tax dollars.

There were other options back then and there are other options now.

@Lianne Mathie, Jeffrey Weitz & Virginia, I hear Lianne & Jeffrey saying "I want" and I hear Virginia saying "I don't want".....hey people please get a grip on the realities of our economy. We don't have the luxury of our "wants" anymore. The reality is that there simply is not enough money to go around now. Please explain how you get more money out of people that already don't have enough for our own expenses? We can all debate what services have what value and what importance until the cows come home, but that won't change the fact that most people simply don't have any more money to pay for higher taxes. Please stop thinking only of what you want and start thinking about those of us who are seriously struggling. This is not the time to force even greater hardship onto people hardly hanging on as it is. Please vote NO to higher property taxes.

They're also sending our Public Safety Officers to fight giant fires in Highland Park (at least twice so far I think). The cost is one thing, but people don't want their taxes going to fight fires in HP. What if they're in Highland Park and there's a fire in Berkley that requires all the resources? It's just another case of how the city is betraying the trust of the voters.

Sooner or later you need to return from your dream world and PAY attention to reality or at least try to undertstand any facts of what you are spewing forth. You simply make yourself look bad. Good luck

Kerby my first response we deleted so I re-typed it. I missed a few things obviously but what ever. If you want to debate it with your opinion and facts that you have independently verified and declare true I am ready anytime. Problem for you is you have no facts that you have verified. You are going to rely on what the city has supplied and you will stick to the wording that is supplied in the brochure.
And scrolling back you made one post about how you agree with the mayor ... way for you to really step up and show some facts

Yes, unfortunately.

http://berkley.patch.com/articles/mutual-aid

This is just awesome not only do we give services to Hunting Woods and Pleasant Ridge at rock bottom prices (while letting the ctizens carry the tax burden on their shoulders) Now we have resources to send our trucks and staff to fight fires in booby trapped crack houses. But the residents are made to fear that our public safety is going to be taken away.... way to go Berkley City Council

Bill, thanks for attending those meetings. The city didn't even seem to give much notice for the "town hall".

Bill also strongly voiced his desire to be placed on this "committee" but as I said before they only wanted people who they thought they could count on to say yes with very few or no questions

Now they're more in line with the private sector.

Maybe it was a start in the right direction but IMO it needs to be more. And personally I would rather they consider suspending the DDA for the present and get rid of the NEW hire they made for the City Manager's assistant. Tough times means she needs to put her salary to good use. If she is unable to handle all of her duties then maybe she should give up her job.

I think that's another good question for the city and proponents of the $1.3M tax:

What do you expect CITIZENS to cut if they can't afford the tax increase?

It's all backwards. The city should be cutting before the citizens have to. And the city doesn't even need to cut critical services. It's all fear-mongering to get a permanent increase in revenue.

Yes, they've saved by reforming medical and pension benefits. Now they appear more in line with the private sector. But just because they're more in line with the private sector doesn't entitle them to a medal, or $1.3M per year. I'm sure a lot of homeowners in Berkley are unemployed and struggling to pay their family's COBRA and house payments. What exactly does the city expect them to cut?

Unfortunately the City Council and obviously YES voters do not understand these situations. As much as they want to say they have struggled or have had hardships the fact still remains if they were at the point where they had nothing left at the end of the month they would know that there is no other choice but NO on this Headlee override. It is no different now as it was with the Community Center and the School Millage votes. So regardless of what their response may be if they are voting yes for the Headlee override they are not facing the same problems and they do not care about the people who are.

Just tell me Lianne, exactly where am I, and all the struggling residence supposed to come up with more money for more taxes? Don't avoid the question with more ranting. Please just answer it, the Mayor and City Council certainly don't care to. Their narrow-mindedness has prevented them from actually concerning themselves with this very basic problem.

Funny Daryl, talk about ranting.Like I said, you have your point of view and I have mine. I have to come up with the money too if it passes,that is why you get one vote and I get one. Vote how ever it please you, but don't rant at me.

@ Lianne, No...I will not let you or anyone imply that there are financially struggling people here to be simply my "point of view". It is not a point of view, it is a FACT, plain and simple, and there are clearly thousands in Berkley. It is also a fact that those who are supporters of increasing our property taxes chose to only consider Berkley's finacial struggles while ignoring those of the residents, which of course includes you.

Lianne obviously supports this because she cares only for herself and that she can afford it. Sadly many yes voters are the same way ...SELF ABSORBED. They think because they can give up one Starbucks trip a month and cover this tax increase that everyone else should be able to do the same

Let me see Daryl and Kurt, because everyone doesn't agree with your point of view, then by default theirs doesn't matter, right?
Between the two of you, you have two no votes to cancel out my single yes vote, is still not satisfying enough?What if? it gets voted down?
Kurt and Daryl, I'm voting on this because not only willI have to potentially pay for every bag of leaves that I put to the curb, but I will also figure out how to pay someone because on a good day I can stand for four hours and on a bad, 10 minutes. The degenerating disks in my back cause my sciatica to bring me to my knees. From 30 years of standing at my job.
Let me get this straight,I will not be able to count on either of you fine gentleman to come over and help,right?I thought so, oh, the irony. Hey, maybe you can fix my 21 year old car? hum? No, how about the compressor in my fridge?Not that either? I'm shocked I tell you!
Hey, here's a better idea, blame ME for those two home runs Benoit pitched at the top of the 10th today, yep, that was me.I also wrote all of the language in to the millage.I was all 14 citizens votes that voted yes to put it on the ballot. Yep, it was all me, me, me, because that's ALL I can think about.
Have a great day.

Technically it is a new position previously there was no "Assistant" it was just an office worker that happened to handle alot of the errands. This is a new fulltime position with a title. I bet they move a part time worker in there at some point.

@ Michael Baker this is another responce for you and your "half truths"
Oakland county election division ,12000 telegraph,Pontiac, they said a person can produce his/her own flyer, advertisement, etc, against a ballot proposal. Staying under $100, not $101.00 means NO NAME/address needs to be on the flyer. That person needs to spend less than $100, above that amount they needs to file paperwork with oakland county as a group. Also people can not produce same flyer, etc & distribute it-say 7 people distribute the same flyer then they would have to file as a GROUP. The flyer needs to be different.
This would not apply to the YES group because you are a group that is obviously well funded.
I do know of an individual who was handing out his own flyers. I will let him know. That they are to go into the doors. People involved in previous issues knew of this because the YES voters got a pat on the wrist for doing the same thing. But he is not a group he is one person.

Perhaps Michael Baker is the person in the YES group that got his hand slapped the last time? It is also possible he is lying and saying it was in his mailbox. He does support passing taxes with lies why not lie about where the document was placed?

You are correct sir!
Are these other thugs supporters of yours? I took the time to hit your site and do appreciate you running for GOP delegate in my precinct. Just wondering the type of person I am voting for. I have little tolerance for people who reduce debate to personal attacks. You and Bill appear to stay above it.

I've met a lot of people around the neighborhood the past few months since my wife and I decided to run as precinct delegates. I don't know who exactly you're referring to, but I have met Kurt to get a "No" sign and he provided some facts about the city and the DDA I wasn't aware of. But I try not to argue too much over the internet (arguing doesn't help if you're running for something, lol). All I can do is give my view and any supporting facts. If people want to find out more they can ask. Thanks for visiting my page. If you have any questions just let me know.

Joshua I really like the way you have tried to approach everything. I hope that one day we see many more people that carry themselves in the same manner as yourself. Politics would be a much better place. I will continue to monitor your blog because I really appreciate the way you and your wife try to consider all the facts.