Council OKs ballot language for police and fire millage

ST. CLAIR SHORES — In November, voters in St. Clair Shores will be asked to consider whether they are willing to pay more for police and fire protection.

On July 21, the St. Clair Shores City Council voted 5-2 to approve language asking voters for an increase and to add the police and fire operations millage question to the November general election ballot.

Councilman John Caron and Councilwoman Candice Rusie cast the opposing votes.

Mayor Kip Walby said there were three options presented to council on the night of the meeting. According to a presentation at the meeting, one option would renew the currently existing millage of 4.4192 mills, raising around $9,837,670 in the first year levied. A second option would increase the currently existing millage by 0.50 mills for a total of 4.9192 mills, raising around $10,950,730 in the first year levied. The third option would return the current millage to 5 mills, raising around $11,130,600 in the first year levied.

Walby said the current millage started at a little under 5 mills back in 2017. Due to the Headlee amendment, the millage was rolled back. This millage is voted on every three years.

Matt Baumgarten, assistant city manager, said the previous authorization in 2022 expired with the previous levy in July of this year.

Walby said they started levying the millage in 2004 and the people have voted on it seven times over the years. In 2016, the millage jumped from 2 mills to 5 mills.

Mayor Pro Tem and Councilman Dave Rubello said he thought long and hard about his decision. He said the people want the most protection by their police and fire departments and he made the motion to adopt option B.

Both Caron and Rusie had multiple issues with the increase in the millage.

Caron said they faced the decision in 2013 to increase the millage, ultimately deciding against it because “people were hurting.” He said people are hurting right now due to inflation. He recalled that in 2016 they looked at all the data, the finances and more to inform their decisions. He pointed out in 2016 that the city’s fund balance stood at around $7 million while its fund balance stood at around $15 million in 2024.

“I don’t see the financial emergency to ask for an increase,” Caron said. “And, oh, by the way, as I pointed out before, it has been increasing. It goes by the rate of inflation, by the record inflation we’ve had. People have been paying more.”

He went on to say the millage brought in around $400,000 this year.

“The revenue goes up, what people pay goes up and this council wants to ask for more after we’ve increased their water rates by over 5%, we increased their sewer rates by over 5%, we increased the storm water rates over 5% because the data said we had to,” Caron said.

Caron also cited a lack of data to back up the need for an increase.

Rusie said she agreed with Caron’s points. She said there were transparency issues with the millage increase. She said the topic was discussed at a study session that was not televised and that the first two options were presented to council members in what she called a “blue paper,” while the third was emailed to them later.

The online meeting packet did not include the options at press time for the Sentinel.

“This was not out to the public for viewing or discussion or anything,” Rusie said.

Rusie said she reviewed discussions in 2016, stating the 5 mills was supposed to be temporary and repeated what Caron said about the fund balance being half what it is now at that time. They also had options in 2016 and financial projections to discuss their options, something Rusie said they don’t have now.

Rusie brought up a library millage. She said the prospect of it was “killed behind the scenes.” She said council members stated they didn’t want to increase taxes on residents. Rusie said a library millage could be justified to update the building, increase services and more. She said voters don’t have a real choice in the fire and police millage with the choices being 0 mills, 4.9 mills or 5 mills.

“Voters keep approving and increasing millages in the city, but the response to that should be forbearance and gratitude for the financial sacrifices people have made at the ballot box not (an) ever-increasing ask from the city,” Rusie said.

She said she doesn’t think the increase is justified.

Councilman Ronald Frederick said he thinks council members know that this millage does not cover the whole budget but a small part of it. He also said it’s up to the people to decide and that they want a strong Police Department and Fire Department. Frederick said he’s taken aback by council members opposing things about the new police and fire buildings.

“I don’t understand why I hear everybody saying up here, ‘Oh, I’m for police and fire, I’m for all of that.’ But when it comes right down to where the rubber meets the road, you’re not,” Frederick said.

He called it disingenuous.

“Then throwing in the library thing to confuse the issue. The issue is police and fire. The issue is we haven’t increased this millage since 2016. The issue is it doesn’t even cover the entire police and fire budget,” Frederick said.

Walby said the police and fire budget was around $18,000,000 in 2017 and today it is around $23,000,000. He said the millage has gone down while the budget has gone up due to increasing property values.

“It’s basically the same department. We have not increased it. We’re still paying SERESA. We pay animal control,” Walby said. “So we have stayed flat basically with this personnel all these 21 years so the cost has gone up.”

Councilwoman Linda Bertges said she is for the second option and that it is a modest increase to continue the quality of the service.

Caron agreed with Rusie’s point that there is a lack of transparency in the whole process including changing the language in the agenda.

He also stated there is no choice for the residents, but an ultimatum and blackmail.

Rubello was extremely against the use of the word “blackmail” to describe the situation, saying he doesn’t blackmail anybody.

“If a voter doesn’t want to vote (for) it, don’t vote for it. If they do, vote for it,” Rubello said.