Library, General Millage Questions Make the Ballot; Minimum Staffing Does Not

Dearborn residents will be asked to vote on adding 4.5 mills total to city taxes, but will not see any questions about minimum staffing for the police and fire departments.

November’s ballot for Dearborn residents will ask them to vote on an increase in taxes, but not on whether the city can eliminate police and fire minimum staffing levels.

The latter two ballot proposals died on the council floor during Tuesday night’s meeting at after receiving only three votes of support. The measures needed five "yes" votes to make the ballot.

Council President Tom Tafelski, as well as members Mark Shooshanian and Robert Abraham voted for both measures, while council members David Bazzy and Brian O’Donnell voted against both. Council members Nancy Hubbard and Suzanne Sareini were absent from the vote.

Two millage measures passed unanimously with all but Sareini present.

The first would add 3.5 mills starting July 1, 2012, with a five-year sunset clause. The funds generated–estimated to be about $12.5 million per year based on current taxable values–would go into the general fund to be distributed to various city services.

The second would levy an additional mill specifically to fund library services. That mill would bring in about $3 million per year, while the current library budget is $4 million. But it would not, Councilman O’Donnell pointed out, mean that all branches of the library would remain open.

Additionally, four advisory questions will be on November’s ballot, all centering around asking residents what they consider to be “essential” city services worthy of city funding. The questions will focus on leaf-removal services, city pools, the Dearborn Public Library system and the .

Minimum Staffing Debated, Then Dies

The heaviest debate happened between members of council, as well as members of the public, fire unions and police unions, centered around the possibility of eliminating police and fire minimum staffing.

The ballot proposals suggested that in both cases, the staffing mandates would be suspended “when the cost for pensions and retiree health benefits in the preceding year exceeds 20 percent of payroll.”

Currently, the levels are 50 percent for police and 40 percent for fire. Ten years ago, Mayor Jack O’Reilly contended, both percentages were in the single digits.

Council member Abraham pointed out that although the police department has consistently employed 20-25 officers less than the charter mandate, the city still has to budget for the full 205–a cost of $11-15 million per year.

“It makes no sense to fund positions that you know well and good aren’t going to be used,” Abraham said. “We’re forced to earmark that fund and we can’t use it for anything else during that budget year.”

“I don’t want to have to close another library to fund 10 positions in the police department,” he added.

Both police and fire union representation came to the meeting to speak out against cutting minimum staffing–the fire union, with about 30 to 40 union members and supporters.

“Allow us to negotiate this,” Police Officers Association of Dearborn President Gregg Allgeier asked City Council. “We have a proposal in to the mayor … that addresses, among other things, minimum manning.”

Council members Bazzy and O’Donnell agreed that union negotiation is the best way to handle cutting costs, citing the fact that a union agreement to allow the city to budget for less staff could supersede the charter mandate.

Council President Tafelski was skeptical that an agreement with the union could be reached in a timely manner. Moreover, he said, a union agreement to budget for less staff would mean that residents would have no say in the matter.

“The public isn’t getting what they paid for,” Tafelski said.

He maintained–and the council agreed–that the bottom line is to keep response times for police and fire calls as fast as possible. How many officers and firefighters are on the street day to day “is more important to me than 120 or 205,” he said.

But Dearborn Firefighters Association Secretary Joe Murray said that having 120 fire department staff is absolutely necessary to maintain the level of service they provide–including an average response time of under four minutes.

“Any alteration of our manpower will not allow us to be there within that four-minute mark,” Murray said. “This 120 number is what we need to keep the city safe; what we need to keep people alive.”

Frank Lee July 13, 2011 at 05:59 AM
So the four thousand members of SOP get shafted to pay for cops that don't even walk a beat or live in our city. Dearborn kiss your pools goodby. Dearborn kiss Esper branch goodby. Dearborn kiss your supervised summer Rec programs goodby. It seems this pathetic mayor only will cut revenue that benefits our cities children. Great screw the kids to pay for a police state where over 60% of the cops don't even patrol.
Outside looking in July 13, 2011 at 10:23 AM
“Allow us to negotiate this,” Police Officers Association of Dearborn President Gregg Allgeier asked City Council. “We have a proposal in to the mayor … that addresses, among other things, minimum manning.” It seems pretty clear to me that the Police plan on addressing a multitude of budgetary issues with the City, let's see what can come out of their proposal (which has been in the Mayor's hands since May) before we say that the cops are "shafting" anyone.
Leslie July 13, 2011 at 03:21 PM
If the City must include funds that WOULD pay the salaries of 205 officers, but the department has "consistently employed 20-25 officers less than the charter mandate," what happens to thoat $11-15 million in excess funds at the end of each year?
Dearborn Taxpayer July 13, 2011 at 05:13 PM
Answer to Leslie... They spend it, largely on post-employment pension and health-care liabilities! That's why we don't need a tax increase. Shame on Sarieni and Hubbard for not even bothering to cast their votes. This Council and Mayor want you to vote to increase the city tax millage rate by 30% in 2012 after a 12% increase this year! And yet we don't get the police staffing that the City Charter requires. So our Mayor and Council decide to "punt" on the "minimum staffing" issue (just as Bazzy's Charter Commission did), but ask for you to give them more taxing authority. How pathetic! Taxpayers need to send this mayor and council a message by voting NO on the tax increases and demanding that we get the police staffing that we should be getting. Then let's see what they do...
George99 July 13, 2011 at 07:35 PM
How do you equate your special interest group getting "shafted" because there won't be a vote to cut the police budget? Who says your cause would have been bailed out if the police budget were to be cut? Why don't you BUY the pools yourself and set up and MANAGE pool clubs like they have in Livonia? Why don't you subtract the county tax, school tax, etc., from your tax bill and tell us what you're paying for municipal services in Dearborn Frank? I'm a police officer who lives in Dearborn. I'll hook you up with a few ride alongs on an afternoon shift in Detroit and you can tell me if you think you're getting your money's worth after that. Frankly, (no pun intended) I think you're beginning to become a liability to your cause with all the whining and your amateurish attempts to play one side against the other.
Frank Lee July 13, 2011 at 07:55 PM
First offering children recreation is not a special interest. It shows just how perverted the entitlement mentality is with our public safety offices. Spare me the pity party and fear tactics of Detroit. If you have 192 police and only 90 patrol then it seems to me that you have 100 police officers who don't patrol. Great public relations plan you got there featherbedding your contract and then telling taxpayers to do more with less. I voted for the mandatory staffing levels, I support public safety officers, but I also support recreation opportunities for our children, and if it takes two less cops to save our parks, pools, and supervised Rec programs Wayne County is hiring Deps.
George99 July 13, 2011 at 11:18 PM
I don't work for this city. I work for our neighbor to the north. That's why I live here. For the schools, public safety and distance to work. Your children DO have taxpayer funded recreation opportunities. They're called Dunworth, Ford Woods and. the FCPAC Fitness Center. If you're not a special interest group, I guess you're advocating for every homeowner in the city to have a public pool available within two blocks of home? How many more pools will we have to build for every resident to have a pool as close to home as yours? Where's the closest pool to Tireman and Wyoming? Hemlock Park? That's over a mile and a half from Tireman and Wyoming. Don't the children in that area deserve the same recreational opportunities as someone who can walk to a pool a block away? Let's build a new one. You are advocating for a relatively small part of the population. A special interest. Get your neighborhood together to buy your local pool and manage it yourself. I'm sure the city will give you a good deal if they want to get out of the pool business. "Fear tactics"? If you say so. Roughly how much do you pay in municipal taxes? Minus county taxes, school taxes and the rest. Just City of Dearborn? Entitlement mentality? Is that like when someone feels they're entitled to have a pool within walking distance but others aren't? Is your house assessed at a higher rate based on its proximity to a pool?
Frank Lee July 14, 2011 at 01:08 PM
Yes I do believe that the current system of local small pools, small branch libraries, and supervised recreation programs bring more value to our community than bomb squad personal, special operations, dare, k9 units, and Internet crime detectives. These extra services were for the most part grant funded, and are not. These services should be provided at a regional level with the costs shared by the region. Dearborn needs officers on the street, and I believe that mandatory patrol levels would bring tremendous value. Simply requiring police staffing levels without any regard to what job those police officers do is simply wasteful. Dearborn citizens deserve well patrolled streets, but it should be done in the most efficient and economically cost effective way. The voters should decide if they want to continue with the mandatory staffing requirement, not the mayor.
Concerned Citizen July 14, 2011 at 02:31 PM
Dearborn Police do a great job and, if I'm reading this correctly, they have been doing a great job at 20-25 officers less than the mandate of 205. What if the citizens could vote to lower minimum staffing to 180 or 185 or whatever the current number of officers is? That way, no officers would be laid off, Council wouldn't have to budget for 205 and the citizens would be getting what they voted for.
Jane Ahern July 14, 2011 at 05:33 PM
Wait. There were 5 proposals. Will you be reporting on the 5th proposal?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something