Re City Taxes/Millages

Versagi Voice

Royal Oak Taxes, Millages

Who paid for that full-page 911 ad?
An effective full-page ad in Sunday's Daily Tribune warned about the possible results of cutting personnel from Police and Fire. Calling the suggestion "dangerous," the ad lists the telephone number and email addresses of Royal Oak's elected officials and of the city manager. It urges citizens to communicate with those officials and to show up at and voice their concerns at the June 7 CITCOM meeting.

It is reasonable to conclude that some combination of Police and Fire interests (management? unions? individuals?) paid for the ad. Whether through oversight or intentionally, though, nowhere does the ad identify who or where to call or write for more information. All it does is lend credence to those skeptics who maintain that scare tactics are the strategy of all the parties involved in budget deliberations. Isn't there a danger, too, that when citizens hear what the politicians have to say they will not reach the same conclusions as have the ad's sponsors? (See the article immediately below.)

4 days later: Essentially the same information as contained in the newspaper ad appears in a slick 2-sided, 4-colored, 4-by-11card left at homes. This costs money. Once again, no information about specifically who is issuing this stuff, although the suspicion arises that the locals are getting help from their national headquarters. These are brave men and women, professionally, but there is no courage shown here. It differs little from anonymous blogging.

On city finances
The people are finally paying attention
Sample 900 people at the Historical Society's Memorial Day Pancake Breakfast, and you obtain a cross-section of opinion about Royal Oak's financial problems. As it happens, the range of opinions runs parallel, minus the cheap shots, to the 70-some posts which have so far followed The Daily Tribune's story about CITCOM's coming meeting, Thursday, to begin addressing revenues. There are two major differences between those posts and my conversations: (1) While my interlocutors can and do request they not be identified, there is no opportunity for them to conceal their identity, and (2) Face-to-face, they can be asked to clarify their statement and they can quickly correct me if I misunderstand what they say.

I can summarize the core-mindsets which long have been obvious to city hall observers and which will become equally obvious to those coming late to the party. No matter the details, the debate will have to deal with the following mindsets.

Strong distrust of government.
The distrust is selective. Some distrust City Manager Don Johnson and his crew. Others distrust the city commission. Still others distrust and disrespect the Police and Fire departments (Department Heads or Unions or both). There is tiny minority which goes beyond libertarianism to anarchy, distrusting all government. They admit, "Don't know how we could make it work."

That selective distrust combines with personal preference to generate statements like, "We don't need as many cops as we have" and "Come on now. You're going to tell me that a private EMS company which sends out one vehicle per run won't cost less that sending three vehicles when there's no fire?"

Questions about the reality of any crisis.
That distrust leads to responsible residents and a couple of past elected officials questioning whether things are as bad as they are described. "They're just trying to scare us." A surprising number of residents -- faced so far with nothing more serious than taller grass in some parks and inconvenient service hours at city hall -- say they won't buy the crisis until the lack of services really hurts.

The pros and cons of a dedicated millage.
Say "dedicated millage," and the discussion can become heated. Depending on which governmental entity is mistrusted most, we have "Give the city more General Fund money, and they'll spend it everywhere except on Public Safety, so I'd only vote for a Police Fire millage." Opposed, "You think the unions are hard-nosed now? Imagine what would happen if they had their own fund."

About the need for more taxes.
At the Farmers Market, I was told:
(1) "Until the Fire Marshall's pay is cut from $190,000 and the average Firefighter's pay becomes less that $100,000, I will never vote for a millage." "Some of us in the private sector have taken a 10% cut to keep our job."
(2) "We're already there. The City has to begin now explaining how much of an increase we need and why."
(3) "I'm just now beginning to pay attention. At this moment, I think I need more documentation before I'd vote for a millage."
(4) "Think how many times the city has had to cut in the past. Doesn't that suggest that government always over-expands when times are good?"

Unavoidable will be the personalization of the debate, something which has already begun in the newspaper posts mentioned above.*

* Three days later: The posts following the Trib's story about Fire Chief Wil White's retirement contain praise (a few) and vitriol (many), demonstrating the range of feelings and thoughts suggested in the paragraphs above.

City Income tax, anyone?
In 1966, Royal Oak voters shot down a request for a 3-mill increase by rejecting, 17,363-to-6,166 (2.8-to-1), a proposed Charter Amendment which would have permitted an increase in general taxes imposed in any one year to 14 mills.

In a March 1967 Special Election, the voters rejected, 9,065 to 2,126 (4.3-to-1), a proposed Income Tax. Before that, in December 1966, the City Commission had adopted a "Uniform City Income Tax Ordinance" (Ordinance No. 66-18). Documents seem to show that some officials thought that CITCOM had unilateral authority to impose an income tax and were surprised when "sufficient signatures" were procured "to force this to a referendum." As part of the city's informational campaign re the income tax, then City Manager J. William Little stressed in a letter to the editor that "the vast majority of senior citizens would be exempt . . . since all pensions and Social Security incomes are specifically excluded," but warned "any future increases in the property tax will have to apply to all properties, even where the senior citizen has a partial exemption."

Fire and Police staffing needs were mentioned by several sources as major reasons for seeking increased revenue. The Fire Department wanted to hire 15 more firefighters "to develop a five-man squad per shift which would be used to supplement existing personnel at each structural fire" and an additional fire inspector and a mechanic. The Police Department was asking for "10 patrolmen with necessary equipment." Overall, City Manager Bruce W. Love explained, Royal Oak wages and retirement and pension plan provisions "lag behind a number of other comparable communities."

City Hall correspondence and related documents from that period show voter confusion over the position taken by individual commissioners, and there was Staff uncertainty about how to differentiate between (1) residential and commercial taxes and (2) on what basis (sales, profit, assets) to tax businesses. There was the problem, too, of distinguishing between Royal Oak residents working in the city and those working in nearby cities, including Detroit, which already imposed an income tax.

In February 1971, Finance Director George W. Tubbs was again seeking information about an income tax from the Citizens Research Council of Michigan.

The information above was gleaned from copies of city hall records in the collection of the Royal Oak Historical Society Museum.

Fast forward to recent budget discussions at CITCOM: From memory, only Commissioner Terry Drinkwine has so far been brave enough to say the words "income tax."

The more things change . . .

Commissioner Drinkwine makes his case
On August 11, 2005, the Royal Oak City Commission reluctantly approved a proposal to place on the November ballot a request to levy 1.75 mills on property for 3 years in order to balance the budget beginning 2006. This proposal was passed by a vote of 5 to 2. Commissioners Prentice and Ginotti voting no. After much reflection and thought I have come to the conclusion that I was in error to vote for the proposal and can no longer support it. I have decided to move to rescind the proposed rate of 1.75 mills until the commission votes up or down any and all proposals by all Commissioners that identify cost reductions and explain their effect on the City and hope other Commissioners will support my motion.

I do this knowing that even if the millage passes an additional amount would have to be cut from the budget to make up the difference between the 1.75 mills and the 3 mills requested by the Manager. I believe it is unfair and misleading to ask for any tax increase without knowing which services will be cut and what adjustments residents must make to their quality of life although paying more in property taxes, only to receive less than they are receiving today. I believe it is even more unfair and misleading to talk about cuts without identifying what they are and how they will affect residents. It’s like paying for groceries before you know what’s on the shelf.

I come to this conclusion after careful reflection on the City Manager's proposed budget which requires 3 mills to be levied in order to preserve services as we know them today and the revised budget should the 3 mills not be forthcoming.

As we have seen these past two weeks, good intentions don’t mean a thing; the proof is in the showing.

Terry H. Drinkwine

Royal Oak City Commissioner

NOTE: Drinkwine was unable to convince his colleagues to rescind the millage resolution. [See]

Gayle Chinn & Son enter the dialogue
My son, Wayne made a comment to me yesterday.

Dad, there has been a tremendous turnover as well as rehabilitation on housing in Royal Oak in the last few years. Combined with the amount of expensive condo's that have been and are being built, it would seem that there should be more than enough tax money to support city services. MY question to you, Frank, is how much tax revenue did we take in five or ten years ago versus what we are taking in now. It has to be a hefty increase and where did all that money go?

VV Note: Given all that has already been said about city finances and that city officials seem to feel that what they have so far said answers such questions as above . . . when a community leader like Chinn wonders, more clarification is needed.

Oakland Press chides Royal Oak
In the last paragraph of a 15-paragraph editorial suggesting reasons for Detroit's financial crisis, the Oakland Press says, " . . . if you can believe this, the city of Royal Oak and the Royal Oak School District are pondering increasing their property taxes to make ends meet! Development will slow and they won't comprehend why."

Not coincidentally, street talk has it that Ferndale, Berkley, Clawson, Birmingham are all hoping that Royal Oak increases its property taxes.

Detroit News adds its 2-cents worth
The News's headline reads, "Proposed Royal Oak tax hikes are unwise." The following subhead: "November ballot proposals don't offer sound solutions."

One paragraph deep into the editorial comments: "To their credit, city officials are looking into selling city-owned property such as Normandy Oaks Golf Course and even considering a proposal to sell city hall and lease back space." -- 21 Aug 2005

To which State Rep and former city commissioner Marie Donigan, focusing on Schools, replies:
The Detroit News endorsed the school bond last February. They also endorsed the failed 2002 bond. They haven't even seen the current bond proposal, yet they've decided that it's unwise?? It's those kinds of inconsistencies that drive good people crazy.

And....hundreds of parents attend PTA meetings, meet with teachers and principals, make it their business to understand what the School Board is doing, meet with the Superintendent and Board members, ask questions and work hard to understand the district's issues. They talk with one another and meet in groups to further their understanding. And then they knock on doors, make phone calls and do their best to support their schools in every way. And then they read an editorial, written by an editorial board who hasn't even seen the bond proposal, asked one question, talked to one parent or met with decision makers or looked back at their past positions before they opined. It's really a sad thing for a newspaper to do. It's frustrating. Perhaps it's worth 2 cents. Perhaps not. I think they can do better. [See extended Schools dialogue]

Informed or ignorant --
Citizens have had their say about the budget
Faced with a mix of informed/uninformed, rational/emotional residents who unpredictably agree/disagree about specific matters, responsible city officials -- having listened -- must then exercise their best judgment, and that judgment more than occasionally won't agree with majority opinion. When that happens, it is usually because the citizens are not in a position to understand the interrelated complexities of a situation which looks black-and-white to them. It's tough enough when the objecting citizens have tracked the dialogue and are knowledgeable; it's almost enough to make officials want to resign when citizens have come late to the party and offer opinion and advice based on their feelings.

Below are almost a dozen paraphrased examples of what some Royal Oakers are saying, mostly about budget matters. "They," of course, is the term used -- usually derogatorily -- to identify the powers-that-be whom the speakers suspect of less-than-honorable motives. VersagiVoice readers are encouraged to (a) pick a favorite budget concern (Normandy Oaks, Restructuring, Taxes, City Department) and (b) while pretending they are city officials, make a decision knowing that such less-than-on-target statements are made by people on both sides of each issue. VersagiVoice's comments are indented and in italics.

1. They have already decided that their only real effort will be to get the millage passed. So, they have thrown up the sale of Normandy Oaks as a red herring. They have no intention of selling it.

VV: A perfect example of almost absolute distrust of elected and appointed officials. People who make this charge also allude to less controversial matters about which "the city pretends to seek voter approval, even though they have already decided the issue."

2. Which developer is behind the decision to move the War Monuments to the Library lawn?

VV: "Developer" is a 4-letter word to those with this mindset. In this case, apparently unaware or not believing that the project is almost entirely volunteer-funded, they suspect city officials of making a deal, an unsavory deal, of course.

3. Even so-called undedicated parks are public property, and they have no right to sell them without getting my vote on each one.

VV: This usually emotional approach to an issue is most often made by people who have come late to the party, who have never come to understand the distinction between the workings of a direct-acting republic and a representative democracy. That is not to disagree that it might be a good idea to hold an advisory vote on the sale of Normandy Oaks. It has happened before in Royal Oak that vociferous support at public gatherings didn't translate into a victory at the ballot box.

4. Royal Oak people hate condos and we've made that very clear, over and over. How did they sneak all these new condos by us?

VV: Those who say things like that have obviously never attended or watched a meeting of the commission, planning commission, zoning board and they must never read any of the three local newspapers. How can they not be aware of the long, tedious, contentious -- and very public -- procedures for getting a project approved?

5. What the hell is happening on Main Street? Who gave them authority to do all that ripping up?

VV: Again, this frankly surprising reaction reflects the mindset of people who don't attend, don't watch, don't read.

6. City Manager Tom Hoover is smooth, but he's sneaky.

VV: Hoover has made his mark in the short year he's been here. His 3-plus decades of public service shows. But his very unflappability in dealing with contentious commissioners, testy residents, uneasy city employees makes him seem snide to some, scary to some. VV's suggestion: Ignore Hoover's style; judge him by his actions.

7. Are the big shots going to take the same cut in fringes that they are forcing on the little guy?

VV: Readers, this will take some research. Which "three" of the 11 collective bargaining agreements have been modified? When will the others be addressed? Once again, suspicion clouds the picture -- justified or not.

8. What happened to the $1.5 million which used to be spent on the Library? Didn't that annual amount go to the general fund now that the Library has its own millage?

VV: The Library question pops up almost every time that citizens are commenting on why it should be so hard to understand city finances. The complaint is that every time a question is asked about a specific line item, the smoke-and-mirrors appear. "It can't always be that complicated," [See the DDA question elsewhere in numbered list.]

9. They lied to us about the Fire Fighters amendment. They didn't tell us that the city couldn't afford it.

VV: There's a flip-side to this. "We voted to add people to the Fire Department. Don't talk now about cutting people." Again we have to ask, "Were these people ever paying attention?"

10. That graph about the DDA. He said that if the city disbands the Downtown Development Authority, we would capture about $1 million in income, but that we would also have to assume the DDA's $10 million debt. What he didn't make clear is that the debt is to be paid off in15, 20, 25 years, and that the million dollars revenue comes in every year.

VV: Again, when dealing with specific numbers, citizens suspect skullduggery when the city's reply seems convoluted. Similar skepticism has been expressed about the bar charts showing Royal Oak in the lower or middle of the range, compared to other cities. One soul said, "Troy is less taxed that Royal Oak? But doesn't Troy have a volunteer Fire Department?"

The suspicion is that apples are being compared to oranges, and it has been raised by both the thoughtful and the emotional. The Town Hall format does not permit the kind of lengthy back-and-forth dialogue needed to allay suspicions.

11. All those people who eat and drink and cause police problems in downtown Royal Oak cost the city for services, but they don't put anything into city coffers. That's why we need a sin tax, entertainment tax, alcohol tax, whatever.

VV: This complaint is frequently phrased, "All the money goes to the business owners. Why don't they give the city some of it?"

Of course, if there weren't diners and drinkers, there would be no downtown restaurants and bars (which would suit some residents fine). All downtown businesses pay an additional Central Business District Tax above and beyond their property tax. And the same question is being asked about Dream Cruise services/expenses, with doubt being expressed about the Town Hall response that the city "breaks even."

Rational or emotional, informed or ignorant, the citizens have spoken. [Also see Civics 101] Some of the comments paraphrased above, heavily spiced with suspicion, and other more reasoned comments, have been repeated at city commission meetings and at the Town Hall meetings -- after having been voiced at Farmers Market, in restaurants and bars, supermarkets, commercial parking lots, encounters on the street, service club meetings, social gatherings, business exchanges, and in emails or telephone calls directly to one city official or another.

Politely and not, everything has been said.

For the city commission, decision-time is running out. -- FJV 11 August 2005

City Assessor James Geiermann provides his calculations
In a prompt follow-up reply, City Assessor James Geiermann clarified a point which his previous answer to a reader's question had left unclear in the minds of several readers. Here's the flow:

A reader submitted the original question, printed under the first red headline, below.
I summarized reader-reaction to that reply in an after-hours email to Geiermann, saying that the readers understood his message to be, essentially, that although the new condos will bring in revenue, that revenue will not be as great as some might think. Further, the City does not depend on property tax alone for operating revenue.
Those same readers, though, thought that Geiermann's reply did not really address the questioner's estimate of an annual $1,000,000 revenue flow once all the condos are built. I asked that the city assessor suggest what that number might be: $500,000? $100,000.

Early the next morning, VersagiVoice received the following email. One might choose to challenge Geiermann's valuation of the condos being built, but by providing his actual calculations he makes it possible for those who disagree to make apples-and-apples comparisons. His reply:

Good morning, I hope this helps:

The Skyloft's development has 70 units. They are complete and have a combined taxable value ( they are all assessed individually but for this exercise I have totaled them) of $11,071,100 for 2005. This equates to an average taxable value (T.V.) of $158,158 per unit.

$11,071,100 x 7.4806 (city operating millage) = $82,818.47 in tax dollars that the City realizes from this development.

(F.Y.I. the assessed value of the Skyloft's is $11,157,290. Not a large difference between A.V. & T.V. because it is new).

We currently have 11 more condominium projects under construction or planned and they total 430 units. Let's assume for this exercise that these additional units will be equivalent to the Skyloft's project and we will assume that they will have an assessed value of $160,000.

Adding the Skyloft's project (70) with the planned condos(430) gives us your reader's 500 new condos.

500 units x $160,000 avg.T.V.= $80,000,000 T.V.

$80,000,000 T.V. x 7.4806 (city operating millage) = $598,448

Now that total would be realized for next year if every condo was 100% complete by December 31, 2005. I believe less than half of the condos will be anywhere near completion by that date. Also remember that the millage will be rolled back by Headlee for 2006 due to the sales whose uncapped values are included in the formula for the Millage Reduction Formula.
Thank you for the inquiry and I hope this helps clear things up.

A reader asks a budget question
Mr. Versagi,
What's your understanding of the tax impact to the city when a vacant lot is replaced with a new construction? With +/-500 condos in the works, will the the city's tax roll increase(500condo x 300k/condo x 50%SEV x $12/Mills) well beyond the rate of inflation as prescribed by Headlee, or will the budget always be limited by Headlee regardless of how much new construction occurs here?
If the former is the case, then it appears the city will reap a painless million dollar revenue stream that should start flowing sometime next year.

Anticipating your words of wisdom, I sincerely remain . . .

VersagiVoice reached out to Deputy City Manager Tom Trice, who asked City Assessor Jim Geiermann to reply:

New construction always has a positive impact from a tax perspective. But there are several items that need to be understood in the big picture of municipal finances.

1. All of the proposed condos will not be started and completed within one calendar year. Those anticipated values are spread out over several years as partial assessments until the project is completed. By law, we must assess what is there as of December 31, tax day.

2. The City will benefit from the new construction but not as it should. Though the new construction is exempt under the Headlee Millage Reduction formula, the uncapped values from the approximately 1,200 residential home sales that we have annually are not exempt. If we were allowed to exempt the uncapped values from the formula, we would not experience a Headlee Rollback and could collect tax at the same level as last year.

3. You must remember that the City is not funded entirely by property tax revenue. As the City Treasurer demonstrated at the Town Hall Meeting, the operating tax revenue increased about $1.4

million over the last 4 years but the State shared revenue decreased almost the same amount. The City has been essentially revenue neutral with expenses steadily escalating.

Yes, the City will benefit from the Condominium developments but not as a windfall to cure our financial woes.

============= 27 July 2005 =============

Well, a little talk about the budget
A city income tax is one of the revenue enhancements tossed into the pot of ideas for solving Royal Oak's financial problems. People who work but don't live in the city would pay half as much as residents.

VersagiVoice has previously stated that anyone who pays property tax in a city should have the right to vote on local issues. In the Detroit News, columnist Daniel Howes makes a similar point when he mentions that "[Most of the people reading this newspaper today can't vote [in Detroit's mayoral primary]. "They may work downtown, meaning they pay taxes to a government they don't elect (but as taxpayers, arguably should)," Howes concludes.

Related events:

One news item reports that "several states allow nonresident property owners to vote on some local matters" but was unable to find an authoritative listing of such states.

Mountain Village, Colorado, allows all landowners, including people living elsewhere, to vote in local elections. Full-time residents sued in federal court, but lost.

Years ago, reacting to complaints from nonresident property owners in Lake Leelanau, a Michigan legislator unsuccessfully proposed a constitutional amendment to address such situations.

"No one claims the right to vote two or three times for President or Senator," said one Washington, D.C., attorney who owns a second home in Vermont, "but in some of these towns, you have a majority of property taxes being paid by nonresidents, and these people have absolutely no say in how their tax money is being spent."

Years ago, though, a University of Michigan researcher declared: "I understand why people are sore about it, but there is no general legal right to vote where you pay taxes."

Well, there should be.
Taxation without representation is tyranny, you know. -- FJV 28 July 2005

First- third of Budget meeting goes well
Coming half an hour late out of a closed collective bargaining session, the commissioners looked a bit harried and hurried, but for the hour-and-a-half I watched, there was none of the anger and sourness which were displayed in last week's budget meeting. Instead, there were quiet, steady questions and comments -- sans speech-making.

Three citizens spoke during Public Comment: one offered generic praise for Commissioner Capello; one urged the commission to authorize a referendum to override the Headley Amendment's tax limitation; and one recommended using City Manager Hoover's proposal to balance this year's budget by drawing on other-than-general-funds. Speaking of Hoover, VersagiVoice has been told that department heads were invited to a "rehearsal" of sorts, during which Hoover, Deputy City Manager Trice, Interim Finance Director Hunt, and Deputy Finance Director Winter alerted the department heads to what and how the budget meeting would flow -- less the questions and comments by the commissioners. "First time this was done," says one experienced source.

The DDA's Barbara Bos, Bill Harrison, and Tim Thwing, reminded the commissioners of how many millions of dollars the DDA has contributed and will continue to contribute to the City, while stressing the wisdom of permitting the agency to keep its own reserve funds. The DDA reps also provided data which, they contend, show that the city would not benefit financially from either reducing the scope or eliminating the DDA. One troublesome factor: Because of the legal procedure by which the DDA collects some funds only to transfer them to, say, the School District, DDA leaders dislike publicizing what seem to be millions of dollars in the DDA's budget. But citizen-speculation caused by "hiding" that number is part of what damages DDA's image on the streets.

District Court Administrator Kevin Sutherland handled his Q&A so well that Commission Capello praised him for making the City-Court financial relationship clearer. As with the DDA, there are misunderstood details about something as simple as whether the court had generated its capital fund by raising specific fees and whether such fees could realistically be projected more than a decade into the future.

During discussion of the Auto Parking Fund, DPS Director Rassell reminded the commissioners of the real-world fact that, if parking fees are raised (or changed in either direction), the city would have to replace 900 or 1,000 existing mechanical meters which are no longer being manufactured and for which no replacement parts are available.

The online minutes show that Commissioner Drinkwine voted the lone-no on several Revenue Enhancements (read, tax increases disguised as user fees). Drinkwine, in an earlier commission or budget meeting had proposed an income tax, but he has expressed unhappiness with enacting a bunch of user fees which would have the effect of "building a fence around Royal Oak."

The online minutes show that the meeting went on till 11:23 p.m. -- FJV 16 June 2005

Is there something about governmental accounting . . . ?
Royal Oak isn't alone in experiencing accounting practices which prove to be questionable though apparently legal. Poor Pontiac, going through the same trauma as Royal Oak in balancing its budget, discovered that perhaps $10 million of its $20 million deficit may be the result of "the way accounting was done . . . in the mid-1990s." Something about funds which were anticipated but not collected being counted as revenue.

Coincidentally, City Commissioner Mike Andrzejak found occasion to mention how difficult it was for him to locate the now-infamous Water Department IOU even when he knew what he was looking for in the 2003 Audit. That IOU, remember, came to light as a surprise increase in Royal Oak debt. [Since this was first written, former commissioner Laura Harrison has described the city's budget process as full of "smoke-and-mirrors."]

Then there are the federal arguments, essentially accounting disagreements, about the viability of Social Security. I have previously commented that individuals seem to change when they sit at the City Commission high table. In a wider arena, another writer has noted, "Groups of men, even small groups, act strangely differently from individuals." To which I would add, "especially after they enter government." -- FJV 16 June 2005

Budget meetings are instructive, informative
In sharp contrast to the mood swings which emerged during the City Commission meeting which followed (see above), the budget meeting was business-like and emotionally relatively neutral.

Interim Finance Director Janice Hunt, during these budget meetings, is doing an outstanding job of providing a concise overview of each department's proposed budget, preceding the department-head's Q&A session with the commissioners. Hunt quickly explains why specific numbers change or remain the same.

Dollar issues aside, residents benefit from attending or watching these budget sessions. One learns about job descriptions, staffing levels, vacancies, interdepartmental operations, costs, legal considerations, management styles. On deck In the 06 June 2005 budget session, for example, were the Library, the Department of Public Services, and the Engineering Department, so one learned such facts as:

The Library budget had to be revised after the decision was made not to use Kimball High School as a temporary site during the several months the library is being renovated.
The concept of a district- or regional-library is being given serious consideration.
The short-staffed DPS is being forced to become "reactive instead of proactive," and there have been complaints about service.
Two electricians maintain 400 streetlights throughout Royal Oak and another 400 in the Central Business District, plus all the traffic lights, plus the electrical systems in city facilities.
Funding and management of capital projects differs between "main streets" and "local streets."
Governmental bookkeeping being what it is, outsiders -- residents and commissioners alike -- sometimes get confused over how the many line items in each department's budget relate, or don't relate, to the city's General Fund.

Predictably, understandably, the department-heads stated or implied that they are doing more with less and that if it were not for the city's current budget woes the departments would reasonably request greater funding.

[Earlier, VersagiVoice published "God bless 'em" praise for the city commission's willingness to look at everything while addressing budget matters. In its 08 June 2005 issue, the Detroit News praised Royal Oak for "pursuing innovative options." Let's hope all this praise doesn't go to their heads.] -- 09 June 2005

The reports and comments on this page appear generally with the most recent items at the top, and some readers may choose to work from the bottom up. Some items are as early as 2003. The links below make it easy to select from the growing list. Also see