GLADSTONE — Before a large audience of citizens, many of whom spoke in opposition of the idea, the Gladstone City Commission moved to approve a resolution establishing a special assessment district — the entire city — for the purposes of levying an estimated 4.5 mills to fund needs for the Pubic Safety Department and Volunteer Fire Department.

This is to be an “ad valorem” tax, meaning that the amount property owners will pay is based upon their property’s taxable value. The total amount to be collected is dependent upon price value for the specific items to be funded — in this case, a fire truck, a patrol cruiser, firefighter turnout gear, body cams and tasers, a new roof for the public safety building, a school resource officer and police academy training for new recruits. The funds raised will be earmarked for the purpose of police and fire; they cannot be used for anything else.

Though the city is taking this action in accordance with Michigan Public Act 33 of 1951, which allows municipalities to conduct special assessments in order to provide for police and fire protection without putting it to a public vote, many of the citizens who spoke said that they would rather have been presented with the question on a ballot — and that they would have voted in favor of it, because they believed that keeping the streets and schools safe was a worthy cause.

If the question of a millage had been put to a vote, “what would happen if it failed? We’re at a point now with public safety, if this community wants to keep 24/7 public safety, we need more money to support that,” City Manager Eric Buckman said.

However, some complained that the statement that the city “had not been able to save” (as was referred to multiple times in Public Safety Director Ron Robinson’s presentations on the department’s needs) was not an acceptable excuse to charge its residents, many of whom are on fixed incomes, and was indicative of poor budgeting by Gladstone.

“If we know we have a furnace coming up that’s gonna need to be replaced, or we have an emergency — car issue or whatever — we need to have been saving. If we can’t save, what we have to do is cut our budget back further,” said Barb Morgan.

Others suggested alternative options for obtaining the money, like grants or loans.

“Borrowing it or leasing it — we’ve looked at that in the city before, too,” Mayor Joe Thompson said. “Your dollar is not going to go as far if you borrow… so saving up is definitely the better way to do it. We just can’t save right now because just about everything we collect in taxes funds police and fire.”

Another concern raised was that special assessment districts are supposed to be done in certain areas to benefit that particular part of the city, and that simply circling the entire city and calling it a district was inappropriate. However, city officials said that they had researched options and conferred with lawyers, and that the proposed process was correct and legal. This structure also requires the situation to be reevaluated each year, as opposed to a regular millage.

“What this act allows you to do is not set a millage that’s just gonna go on forever,” said Thompson. “If we take 4.5 mills this year, we may be able to reduce that as years go on. We have to look at it every year. Hopefully it would go down until it’s no longer needed, and that would be in a short timeframe. But it’s kind of front-end loaded so that you’ve got this money there before you get to that point where you need it.”

Commissioners tried to address every concern that was raised during the hearing.

It was also pointed out that because the median income of Gladstone residents is higher than that of other places, the city was not eligible for certain grants, but they would apply when possible.

While commissioners thanked the public for coming out and encouraged them to attend other meetings and make their voices heard, people were left disgruntled and frustrated that the resolution was passed despite their voiced dissidence.

“I just want to say that being a commissioner is a position of trust,” said Commissioner Robert Pontius near the close of the meeting. “We were all elected here, not because we’re more intelligent or better qualified, but I think primarily because we’re putting in extra time to fully understand some issues that, frankly, I didn’t understand when I was just a private citizen and not on a commission. …So one thing I would ask for from residents of Gladstone is some degree of trust that we’ve done our due diligence (and) we’ve determined this is the best way.”

Pontius continued to say that if citizens, after doing their own due diligence, arrive at the conclusion that this is not the best way, there are courses of actions available to them. According to Act 33, if 10% of landowners sign a petition, the matter can be forced to a vote.

“One scenario could be — give a little grace this time, let this go through, and in the long term control, if we don’t do what we say we’re going to do, we could be recalled, we could be unseated, the 10% rule can be invoked — there are some additional controls in there as well,” Pontius suggested.

Tuesday’s hearing set the district, but it is not the end of the process. Another hearing on the matter will be upcoming; when it is scheduled, notice will be published in the paper and mailed out.

In other business, the commission tabled a digital marketing proposal for the city and reappointed Jay Bostwick and Robert LeDuc to the Downtown Development Authority Board.

The commission’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 10 at 6 p.m. in Gladstone City Hall.