Mount Clemens residents and business owners assail proposed 38% property tax increase at budget hearing

Mount Clemens — Hundreds of pages of budget documents and a packed public hearing on May 4 produced sustained voter anger and a call for more scrutiny after city administration proposed raising the city millage from 15.9946 to 22.1274.

Rick Block, a resident who reviewed the documents with city staff, said the draft budget relies on optimistic revenue projections, especially for the city’s pension fund. “We’re supposed to take in $7,200,000 this year but through March we might only take in about $4,100,000,” Block said, asking where the missing revenue would come from. “I don’t see how we can make that up.”

Why it matters: The proposal would raise property taxes by about 6.1322 mils, which residents and some commissioners calculated as roughly a 38.3 percent increase in city property tax. That level of increase prompted repeated calls from business owners and long‑time residents for either rolling back the proposal or for commissioners to hold more public workshops before a final vote scheduled for May 18.

What residents said: Laura Fournier, a downtown resident, urged the commission not to approve a project that would use 11 acres and yield what she described as negligible tax revenue: “To take 11 acres and generate $3,200 for the income for this city is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life,” she said. Gloria Heller criticized use of public works staff to support downtown promotions and urged the commission to consider charter changes and alternative tax structures, including a city income tax.

Administration response: City Manager Steve Brown and Finance Director Marilyn DeLucci (introduced during the hearing) responded that the retirement/pension fund revenue is subject to investment returns and actuarial smoothing, and that the city is currently about 95 percent funded in that fund. DeLucci said the city uses recent performance and actuarial smoothing to project income and noted transfers from other funds contribute to the retirement fund’s balance.

Commission reaction and next steps: Commissioners acknowledged public concern and discussed convening an additional workshop rather than immediately amending the proposal. One commissioner asked whether substantive post‑hearing changes would require a second public hearing; the administration said the charter requires a public hearing was held and that further public meetings or work sessions could be scheduled to revisit specific changes. The budget adoption is scheduled for the commission’s second meeting in May (May 18). The administration also said it could bring back comparisons and more detailed line‑item explanations ahead of that vote.

What’s unresolved: Residents flagged several specific questions that remain unanswered publicly in the packet — how the retirement fund projections reach the proposed revenue numbers; which non‑general fund transfers are assumed; and whether the proposed millage increase can be phased rather than taken in full in year one. Commissioners asked the finance director and city manager to provide clearer breakdowns at follow‑up sessions.

The commission closed the public hearing after numerous residents spoke and agreed to consider additional study sessions before the May 18 adoption vote.