The assertion that Ferndale has acted in a financially irresponsible manner over the last 10 to 15 years simply ignores the facts.

Over that period of time the tax rate used to fund city operations has dropped dramatically. The only tax increases for Ferndale residents were approved by a citizen vote. During that time we refinanced several bond issues to secure lower interest rates and savings to residents. Also during this time we actually grew our un-designated, unreserved (general) fund balance to an amount beyond what our financial advisors recommended or is typical for a municipality.
Finally, Ferndale has made the tough budget decisions which have included deep cuts and layoffs.

If City Council had followed Mr. House's advice we would have cut our budgets and laid off personnel while tax revenues and state shared revenue payments were INCREASING. As for the Financial Advisory Board appointed by Council there is one member from every voting precinct of Ferndale and the members come from a variety of political persuasions as self reported. Claims that they are not representative of the residents of Ferndale is not accurate.

Any decision to increase tax rates and return tax payments to pre-2008 levels will be made by the voters of Ferndale. If citizens want to maintain service levels near what they are today they will approve the millage increase. If not, then services will be reduced to balance the budget.

As a point of clarification, the tax increases approved by voters were for capital improvements such as the schools, parks, water, sewer and roads infrastructure. None of those citizen approved tax increases were used to fund city operations (e.g. to pay salaries or post-employment benefits).

The millage rate for city operations is now approximately 14.5 mills down from a high of 20.0 mills as a result of Headlee rollbacks achieved while property values were increasing.

Perhaps Mr. House would feel more comfortable living in Hazel Park or Royal Oak Twp., because the types of drastic cuts and eliminations he proposes would turn Ferndale into a community that is unable to balance its budget and decrease the quality of life comparible to those cities.
I am a member of the Financial Planning Committee and I worked hard with my fellow members to determine where cuts could be made that wouldn't impact the quality of life for our residents. In the end, even with major cuts across the board, the city would need to raise taxes in order to keep the level of services that make our city desirable new and current residents.
The suggested tax increase made by the committee is for 5 years. What many people fail to realize is that property values will continue to go down over the next 2-3 years. Because of this, tax revenue will continue to decline as well. The tax increase is just a buffer to off-set the decline in taxes being paid by property owners. Based on projections, most home owners will not be paying any more taxes over the next 5 years than they have been paying since 2008.
I support Mr. House's efforts to form his own committee to investigate possible cuts in spending, balance the budget for the next five years without raising taxes, and still retain the quality of life, safety & security Ferndale residents expect. I doubt their findings will be much different than those already identified.

Greg Pawlica
Proud Ferndale Resident

I'd like to correct a comment Mr. House made regarding the City Hall project. In 2008-09, Council investigated spending $7-9 million on a Municiple Building project which included building a new Court House and renovating the Police Station and City Hall. When I ran (and lost) for Council in 2009, I fought long and hard against the project because I knew we were heading for an ecconomic hardship with decreases in tax revenues and didn't want to see our residents being over-taxed for a new complex that the city wouldn't be able to afford. And, I am offended by Mr. House's insinuation that I am a 'council crony' considering the fact that I ran for office against two current members of Council.

Those who commented (as well as anyone else who has something to say about this issue): Feel free to send in your own letter to the editor at Terry.Parris@patch.com.

I am curious as to the cost of running the DDA, the consequences of reducing its budget, or eliminating it all together? Could it be funded privately? Just thinking out loud here - I think tax increases are inevitable but I also want to make sure we have cut everything that can be cut, or if it has been cut already, can it be cut even more?

I believe that eliminating the DDA would bring slightly more money into the general fund while eliminating significant matching funds from the county. The DDA could not be funded privately.

The Headlee override will, most likely, be on the ballot in May. Whether it passes or fails the City will balance its budget as we are required by law to do.

If it passes then the City will have 5 years (as the proposal will most likely include a sunset provision) to realize service delivery efficiencies through inter-governmental agreements (e.g. fire district). Such negotiations are complex, involve many players and are not achievable in the course of weeks or months. A temporary tax rate increase would allow the City time to rationally and incrementally transition into the new reality of smaller budgets and greater austerity. It is important to realize that the budget picture is unlikely to improve any time before the middle of the 2020s.

If the Headlee override fails likely budget scenarios include closing the Kulick Center, eliminating all recreation services, reducing DPW services, and laying off more City employees. Additional cuts will also take place, but because salaries and post-employment benefits make up the vast majority of the City budget, there is no way to save millions except to eliminate positions. I don't think any of these cuts are a good idea, but ultimately it is up to the citizens of Ferndale to decide.