City of Plymouth Proposed 2022-2023 Budget - Flipbook - Page 275
facts. In most cases, communities that
currently face large deficits would in
contrast have general fund surpluses.
$8,440,088
Alpena
$4,371,700
Dearborn
$31,320,463
Detroit
Farmington Hills
Ferndale
$732,235,683
$20,488,283
$9,772,967
Flint
$54,868,096
Grand Rapids
$72,854,201
Hamtramck
$13,301,632
Lincoln Park
$17,147,092
Marquette
$6,907,445
Melvindale
$5,865,221
Pontiac
$40,533,681
Saginaw
$30,329,283
Southfield
$21,904,790
Traverse City
Warren
$4,307,187
$45,961,823
In fact, the state is trumpeting
its sound fiscal management and
admonishing local governments for
not being as efficient. What the state
fails to mention is that it balanced
its own budget on the backs of local
communities. This would be like me
taking your money to pay my bills,
and then telling you that you need to
be more responsible with your household budget. In fairness, the state did
experience revenue declines out of its
control, much like locals experienced
with property tax declines. It is different,
though, in one important way—local
communities couldn’t take money from
others and push those tough decisions
down to someone else.
What is most shocking is the
difference those revenue sharing
dollars would have made at the local
level. As I stated at the onset of this
article, we now have a record number
of communities facing financial
emergencies. It’s easy to blame local
leaders, but you must consider all the
So what does it mean to specific communities? For Allen Park, an $857,000
deficit in 2012 becomes a surplus of
over $5 million and would grow to a
projected surplus of $7.3 million by 2014.
Hamtramck’s deficit of $580,000 would
have been a surplus of $8.7 million. Flint
will have lost $54.9 million dollars by the
end of 2014. The deficit in its 2012 financial statements is $19.2 million. Flint could
eliminate the deficit and pay off all $30
million of bonded indebtedness and still
have over $5 million in surplus. In Detroit,
a city facing the largest municipal bankruptcy in history, the state took over
$700 million to balance the state’s books.
This data begs the question: did
municipalities ignore their duty to
manage or did someone else change
the rules of the game and then throw a
penalty flag at them? I see yellow flags
all over the playing field. Post-retirement
benefits are a huge expense and burden
to local government, but we must not
ignore the reality—the promises were
made with a different expectation from
the state as it relates to sharing sales
Anthony Minghine is the associate director
of the League. You may reach him at
734-669-6360 or aminghine@mml.org.
Cumulative Revenue Sharing Losses
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
20
02
/0
3
20
03
/0
20 4
04
/0
20 5
05
/0
20 6
06
/0
20 7
07
/0
8
20
08
/0
20 9
09
/1
0
20
10
/1
1
20
11/
12
20
12
/1
3
20
13
/1
4
Allen Park
Let’s Get Specific:
Four Cities’ Cuts
tax revenue with local government.
It’s a fact that the state has broken
that promise. State leaders excused
themselves from making tough choices,
instead using local money to pay
their bills. In the process, they have
created most, if not all, of the financial
emergencies at the local level.
The numbers don’t lie. Revenue
sharing is the only factor that anyone
has had direct control over during these
difficult financial times. It is time for the
state to shift gears and start investing
in local government again. Hardships at
the local level weren’t created by a lack
of cooperation or collaboration. I would
humbly submit that local governments
invented the concept and the state is
very late to the table. Local government
officials have done, and will continue to
do, their part to be prudent managers,
but the goal cannot be to hang on and
survive. Our goal must be to ensure that
our cities are vibrant places that people
will choose to live in, and that can only
happen if the state fulfills its promise
and responsibility to invest where the
rubber meets the road, and that is at the
local level.
February 2014
