Editorial: Reserve Oakland tax increases for core services

Tax increases, bond plans should be reserved for funding core services, not luxuries in tough economy

The Detroit News

Since the state is cutting aid to public schools and communities, some school districts and cities in Oakland County are looking to make up for the revenue losses through tax increases. In this recession, tax hikes should only be approved to fund high-priority services and shouldn't be used to avoid making difficult budget cuts or adopting reforms, such as sharing services with other communities to save money.

With this criteria as a guide, here are our endorsements for selected Nov. 3 ballot measures in Oakland County:

• Berkley: Residents are being asked to approve a $15 million bond proposal for 20 years. About $1 million of the bond plan would be spent on improving park facilities and $14 million on replacing the small existing community center with a larger facility that would add a swimming pool and bigger meeting facilities. It would cost 1.15 mills to levy and an average of 2 mills to retire the bonds. At a time when cities are struggling to provide basic services, this is a luxury that residents don't need. Amending the charter to add 0.15 mill to operate and maintain the new facility and park improvements is also the wrong priority. Vote no on both the Recreational Facilities Bonding Proposition and the Charter Amendment Proposition .

• Clawson: In a drain millage proposal , the city wants to switch how residents pay for the sewer debt so they can deduct the payment from their state and federal income taxes. By paying the debt through a general property tax millage of 1.73 mills instead of a water bill payment, most residents could deduct the cost as part of their overall property tax payment on their tax forms. The switch does not increase taxes or the sewer debt. Since it would benefit most taxpayers, vote yes .

• Huntington Woods: The city wants to issue $7.5 million worth of bonds for 20 years to finance road repairs. Taxpayers would not see a net tax increase for two years. Taxes then would rise from 2012 through 2014 to help fund the street repairs, but the overall tax rate would decrease after that. The roads are in bad condition, and street repair is a core function of local government. Considering how short the tax increase would last, residents should vote yes on the General Obligation Bonding Proposition .

• Madison Heights:Proposal ALS would amend the city charter to increase property taxes 0.25 mill for 15 years to finance paramedic operations and fire-related expenses. This replaces an expiring 12-year millage that was used to upgrade emergency services. If paramedics are a core service, they should not have a separate millage. We could understand a special millage to finance emergency infrastructure improvements, but this effectively turns the millage into an operational tax. And 15 years is far too long to keep this tax from voter review. Vote no .

• Madison District Public Schools: The district wants a two-year sinking fund tax of 0.6 mill to deal with anticipated maintenace problems like replacing aging boilers. Vote yes on the Sinking Fund Tax Levy .

• Oxford Community Schools: Voters earlier this year defeated a $70 million bond to remodel facilities and build new schools in the growing district. The school district has scaled back its ambitions and returned with Bonding Proposal I , a $32.7 million bond issue for 30 years to improve school facilities. While the bonds would require 2.11 mills, they would not result in a net tax or debt increase. Since the school district still is projected to increase enrollment, residents should vote yes .

Bonding Proposal II would use a $635,000 bond to build a synthetic turf athletic field and a storage building. It would require 0.07 mills, but also would result in no net tax increase. A synthetic playing field could accommodate more sporting activities, but it is a luxury. Some residents have questioned the need for it. Vote no on Bonding Proposal II .

• Royal Oak: Some residents worry that too many liquor licenses are being transferred into Royal Oak and want a two-year freeze on approving new applications, contending there are safety issues in downtown because of the high number of bars and restaurants. The concerns about excessive rowdiness downtown seem overblown. Getting a liquor license can be a key money-maker for a restaurant or other entertainment venue. The city has worked hard since the late 1980s to turn the downtown from a sleepy area into an entertainment destination. The city shouldn't put an effective moratorium on its entertainment business growth. Vote no on the liquor license ordinance proposal .

• Royal Oak Township: This half-square-mile community is the most taxed community in the county and its most impoverished. To make matters worse, township leaders want to increase property taxes another 4.5 mills under Proposal G -- meaning residents would pay 73.4 mills overall and businesses 91.4 mills -- in the improbable hope that the tax hike could re-establish a police force. Township leaders earlier this year unilaterally slapped residents and businesses with a three-year 37.25-mill hike. No wonder the township is floundering. Residents should reject this request. Vote no on Proposal G .

• Sylvan Lake: Taxpayers of the 1,750-resident community are being asked to change their charter to increase taxes 2 mills for 10 years -- mostly to fund police. Officials argue that the tax hike would still leave Sylvan Lake with a lower overall property tax rate than its neighbors. Even with the tax increase, the Police Department would not remain fully staffed because officials project the higher taxes would generate the same amount of overall revenue as they collected in 2008. The community, which already contracts with two other communities for its firefighting from West Bloomfield, seems to have aggressively investigated privatizing or sharing other services with other communities, but it has yet to prove cost-effective. We'd prefer the tax hike be put to a renewal vote every five years for better taxpayer oversight, but we urge a yes vote.