SERVICES:
Liquor Licenses
The State of Michigan requires that any establishment that sells liquor must acquire licensing through the MLCC that authorizes the establishment to sell liquor. Any establishment in the City of Ferndale that sells liquor to be consumed on-site must receive local government approval.
Zoning Determination Request
Prior to requesting approval from the City of Ferndale, it is highly recommended that all applicants complete a Zoning Determination Request (ZDR) with the Ferndale Community & Economic Development Department. This process will help the applicant determine the feasibility of opening a liquor-selling establishment in their desired location.
CONTACT
City Clerk
300 E Nine Mile Rd. Ferndale, MI 48220
248-546-2381 ext. 107
dlent@ferndalemi.gov
Application Process
All new Class C liquor licenses and new Development District Liquor Licenses in the City of Ferndale must be approved by the Ferndale City Council. As part of that approval process, the individual looking to obtain approval must submit an application to the City Clerk’s Office and pay the $500 associated fee. The application will be reviewed by the Liquor License Review Board, which consists of representatives from the City Manager’s Office, Community and Economic Development Department, Department of Public Works, Police Department, Fire Department, Downtown Development Authority (if the license falls within the DDA District), and one member of City Council. The City Attorney and a representative from the City Clerk’s Office will also be present. The Liquor License Review Board meeting must occur during an open meeting where a quorum of its members must be present. It is highly recommended that the applicant attends the meeting to answer any questions and provide clarification, when needed. In most cases, the board will make a recommendation to the City Council to approve or deny the request.
Any information submitted on the application will be made public. Prior to submitting, your application, please redact/remove any private information that you would not like shared with the general public.
If the proposed location for the liquor license lies within the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), members of the DDA may choose to review the application at the next regularly scheduled DDA meeting (note: the DDA meets regularly once a month). Should the DDA choose to review the application, a minimum of fifteen (15) days must lapse before their report is formally presented during a public hearing at a regularly-schedule City Council meeting.
Once the Liquor License Review Board has made a recommendation, and the DDA has reviewed the application (if appliable), the public hearing date will then be scheduled during a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Enough time must lapse so that the City Clerk’s Office can notify all residents within 300 feet of the establishment, as well as all existing Class C license holders within the City of Ferndale.
Additional Resources
- 2015 Resolution Regarding Approval of New and Transfers of On- Premises Licenses
- MLCC Common Alcohol Related Licenses
- MLCC Class C Licensing Requirements & General Information
- MLCC- New On-Premises Redevelopment (RDA) License – MCL 436.1521a(1)(a) Requirements & General Information
- MLCC- New On-Premises Development District (DDA) License – MCL 436.1521a(1)(b) Requirements & General Information
FAQs
Please explore the dropdown tabs below, where you will find FAQs regarding information and services from the City Clerk’s Office. For additional questions, not covered on this page, contact the City Clerk’s Office at 248-546-2381 ext. 107.
In 1978, the Headlee Amendment was passed to Michigan’s Constitution. In a nutshell, Headlee requires a local unit of government to reduce its millage when annual growth on existing property is greater than the rate of inflation. As a consequence, the local unit’s millage rate gets “rolled back” so that the resulting growth in property tax revenue, community-wide, is no more than the rate of inflation. A “Headlee override,” then, is a vote by the electors to return the millage to the amount originally authorized via charter, state statute, or a vote of the people, and is necessary to counteract the effects of the “Headlee Rollback.”
Proposal A
The taxable value of your home increases each year. The amount it increases is tied to the rate of inflation with a maximum annual increase of 5%. This is generally a good thing because it prevents people from being priced out of their homes by property taxes that rise faster than income. When homes are sold, the taxable value uncaps and is reassessed. This uncapping often causes significant jumps in annual property taxes for new homeowners. In this way, Proposal A incentivizes long-term homeownership.
Headlee Amendment
Because the taxable value of individual homes increases each year (either due to sale and uncapping, or annual inflation increases), Headlee mandates that the average increase city-wide cannot exceed the lower of the rate of inflation or 5%. If the increase exceeds the rate of inflation, then the millage rate must be reduced for all taxpayers so that the amount of money collected by the City is capped at the rate of inflation. A reduction of the millage rate is commonly referred to as a Headlee rollback. A common misconception is that due to the uncapping of recently sold properties, Michigan cities see a windfall of new tax dollars. However, because of Headlee limiting financial growth, this is not the case. Instead, the additional tax revenue collected from a newly uncapped property is often distributed to other property owners in the form of a millage reduction (“Headlee rollback”) rather than captured by the local government.
Proposal A + Headlee
On their own, both Proposal A and Headlee are reasonable ways to approach municipal taxation; however, there are challenges to the balancing act between them when there is a recession.
1. Prior to Proposal A, Headlee allowed tax rates to move up and down to try and provide revenue growth equal to inflation. When Proposal A was later implemented by the Legislature, they eliminated the ability for rates to move in both directions. As a result, rates can go down but not back up, eliminating any logical correction that was intended by the original Headlee Amendment. This makes communities and schools more vulnerable in a recession.
2. Home values pop up after a property is sold. However, conflicts between Proposal A and Headlee do not allow a community to benefit from this as they should. In fact, too much real estate activity can trigger a rollback (reduction) in a community’s tax rates. This is especially damaging following a recession. As a result, a community is never allowed to catch up and track with the economy during a recovery.
Pending