Here is the road millage language as it will appear on our Tuesday, November 8, 2005 General Election:

I have bolded certain phrases that concern me.

(6) The number of mills permitted to be levied in a tax year is limited as provided in this section pursuant to section 31 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963. A unit of local government shall not levy a tax rate greater than the rate determined by reducing its maximum rate or rates authorized by law or charter by a millage reduction fraction as provided in this section without voter approval. (7) A millage reduction fraction shall be determined for each year for each local unit of government. For ad valorem property taxes that became a lien before January 1, 1983, the numerator of the fraction shall be the total state equalized valuation for the immediately preceding year multiplied by the inflation rate and the denominator of the fraction shall be the total state equalized valuation for the current year minus new construction and improvements. For ad valorem property taxes that become a lien after December 31, 1982 and through December 31, 1994, the numerator of the fraction shall be the product of the difference between the total state equalized valuation for the immediately preceding year minus losses multiplied by the inflation rate and the denominator of the fraction shall be the total state equalized valuation for the current year minus additions. For ad valorem property taxes that are levied after December 31, 1994, the numerator of the fraction shall be the product of the difference between the total taxable value for the immediately preceding year minus losses multiplied by the inflation rate and the denominator of the fraction shall be the total taxable value for the current year minus additions. For each year after 1993, a millage reduction fraction shall not exceed 1. (8) The compounded millage reduction fraction for each year after 1980 shall be calculated by multiplying the local unit's previous year's compounded millage reduction fraction by the current year's millage reduction fraction. Beginning with 1980 tax levies, the compounded millage reduction fraction for the year shall be multiplied by the maximum millage rate authorized by law or charter for the unit of local government for the year, except as provided by subsection (9). A compounded millage reduction fraction shall not exceed 1. (9) The millage reduction shall be determined separately for authorized millage approved by the voters. The limitation on millage authorized by the voters on or before April 30 of a year shall be calculated beginning with the millage reduction fraction for that year. Millage authorized by the voters after April 30 shall not be subject to a millage reduction until the year following the voter authorization which shall be calculated beginning with the millage reduction fraction for the year following the authorization. The first millage reduction fraction used in calculating the limitation on millage approved by the voters after January 1, 1979 shall not exceed 1. (10) A millage reduction fraction shall be applied separately to the aggregate maximum millage rate authorized by a charter and to each maximum millage rate authorized by state law for a specific purpose. (11) A unit of local government may submit to the voters for their approval the levy in that year of a tax rate in excess of the limit set by this section. The ballot question shall ask the voters to approve the levy of a specific number of mills in excess of the limit. The provisions of this section do not allow the levy of a millage rate in excess of the maximum rate authorized by law or charter. (check this out)-> If the authorization to levy millage expires after 1993 (which ours has) and a local governmental unit is asking voters to renew the authorization to levy the millage, the ballot question shall ask for renewed authorization for the number of expiring mills as reduced by the millage reduction required by this section. (I have a question about this last sentence: Mayor Brown said we could NOT use the term Renewal....well this says (see the red renewed text) we can doesn't it?) If the election occurs before June 1 of a year, the millage reduction is based on the immediately preceding year's millage reduction applicable to that millage. If the election occurs after May 31 of a year, the millage reduction shall be based on that year's millage reduction applicable to that millage had it not expired. (12) A reduction or limitation under this section shall not be applied to taxes imposed for the payment of principal and interest on bonds or other evidence of indebtedness or for the payment of assessments or contract obligations in anticipation of which bonds are issued that were authorized before December 23, 1978, as provided by section 4 of chapter I of former 1943 PA 202, or to taxes imposed for the payment of principal and interest on bonds or other evidence of indebtedness or for the payment of assessments or contract obligations in anticipation of which bonds are issued that are approved by the voters after December 22, 1978.

Since this topic was started we have confirmed the current millage rate without the Road millage and what our millage will be IF voters approve the road millage with no expiration date in Nov '05. You may come across a post in this topic that says differently because there was much confusion even with our City Leaders as to what the what our millage will move from and to. This is the Correct Millage info: at present we are paying 15.267 which does NOT include the road millage that expired this year. IF voters pass the road millage Nov '05, then our millage will move to approximately 18.267 (depending on the Headlee amendment) RAL

Veritas Scriptor (09-10-05), RubberArm (09-12-05)

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR TAXES THAT CAN SAVE YOU HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS. I KNOW ITS CUMBERSOME TO READ LONG POSTS, BUT PLEASE MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR THIS ONE. EVERYONE NEEDS TO BECOME AWARE OF WHAT IS GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT...AND THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS.


This is the part that I find odd (you didn't pick up on this, Robin):
I'm reading that to believe that the proposal is seeking to raise the 20 millage cap to 23 mills. We are currently set at 15.67 mills...correct? And Duchane said somewhere that he'd like to increase mills going into the general fund by around 7.33?

We're assuming he meant to increase them by 7.33 after the current 3 mills going to the road fund expires. But if you add 7.33 to 15.67...you get 23. It looks to me like they are planning to renew the 3 mill road levy in addition to trying to raise the mill cap to 23. Perhaps this is in anticipation of trying to add the other 7.33 mills that Duchane was pushing for? The math adds up too neatly...almost too neatly for it to be a mere coincedence.

Moving on:

Hold the phone. New additional millage, huh? So they are seeking to add another 3 mills on top of the 15.67 that are currently levied. But that's okay, because 3 mills are about to expire anyway, right?

Maybe not:
Now here is where it may get tricky: Pay very close attention to the comma in the beginning of this sentence. A comma is used to seperate subjects in a sentence while including them together in the same thought. In other words, commas are a replacement for the word "and".

The first part of the sentence appears to seek raising our cap on taxes from 20 to 23 mills. The second part says they will be imposing a new additional 3 mills. The third part goes on to say to say they will "restore" the other 3 mills previously authorized by voters that are due to expire.

In other words, here is how I interpret the ballot language:



Again...we already know Duchane was pushing for a 7.33 mill increase to be used to for the General Fund. But you cannot pass a 7.33 mill increase if the 3 mills are still in effect from the road fund...because it would push us up to 23 mills. That would violate the cap in our city charter (20 mills). So how does he get around this? By tricking the voters into approving a cap increase (23 mills)!

We all assumed that Duchane wanted to let the 3 mills for the road fund expire and then enact a whole new 7.33 mill tax...effectively raising us to 20 (15.67 - 3 + 7.33 = 20).

This ballot language seems to suggest something completely different.

The icing on the cake is how Brown stated that they legally cannot call it a renewal. Yet Michigan Compiled Law clearly says that not only can they...but that they shall. Notice, again, in the second part of that sentence that the word "restore" is used.

I'm led to believe that we are being mislead. They can, and shall, use the word "renewal". But since that would make the ballot language too easy to read ("Do you wish to renew, yes or no?")...they concocted a story saying that they can't call it a renewal. All so they could write confusing ballot language to make voters think they are renewing a road millage...when they are actually renewing it and voting to allow our taxes to be raised by an additional 3 mills.

And how convenient they chose the number "3" again. It only serves to confuse people more.

Duchane knows that the taxpayers want to approve the 3 mills for the roads. He knows it will pass. So they are trying to toss in an additional 3 mills (as well as raise the cap from 20 to 23 for future proposed increases) in with the same ballot. How underhanded is that? If they want voters to approve 6 mills...why not ask for it? Why make up a story how you legally cannot call it a renewal (when Michigan law says you shall) and make the ballot language so misleading?

Robin and I spoke about this...and she got in touch with a few councilmembers to seek clarification. Upon reciept of more information, I might be taking this issue before the Mayor & Council during Monday nights meeting. I will attempt to explain my reasoning behind forming this opinion...but as usual I will expect Mayor Brown to interrupt me and try to discourage me. In this case, I will ask him three simple questions that, when he answers, will get to the bottom of this whole issue.

Tune in to find out. Same bat-time, same bat-channel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Submit to Quotes         

RubberArm (09-12-05)

In a paragraph or less: "IF" our City Leaders want the voters to renew or "restore" (their term) the road millage of 2.67 (not 3.00mills because of Headlee) which is what we 'were' paying.

Then why does the ballot say (my comments in ( ) ):
Shall the limitation on the amount of taxes (why not put the mill rate here instead of amount of taxes) which MAY BE imposed on taxable property (does this include personal property taxes for our LP Businessess too?) bla bla be increased by $3.00 or 3.00 mills as new additional millage in EXCESS of the limitiation imposed by MCL 211.34d AND to RESTORE City Charter Millage (which per our Charter mills can max out at 20 mills - I confirmed with three councilmembers - )

• Is the language worded to allow the city leaders to "restore" the millage to the maximum allowed by Charter which is 20mills or thereabouts?
• Please Note that the ballot language does not say to restore City Charter millage of 2.67mills or 3.00mills authorization previously approved by the electors.
  
  Why not?
  
  It does state, "to RESTORE City Charter millage authorization previously approved by the electors".
• 
  There are no mill limits nor is a date identified as to WHEN the voters previously approved. Heck for all we know...this could be when the Charter max of 20mills was put into place.
  
  
  The ballot could just as easily say this:

Sorry ....this was way more than a paragraph


I merged three other posts of mine into this one FYI:

Here is the link to a similar topic.
http://yourlincolnpark.com/lpsf...read.php?t=7102

Here is the link to the Dept Head Staff Meeting....AND I will be posting another one in a few:

Here is a link to the Dept Head Staff Meeting Minutes. Duchane's Millage increase proposal is on the second page: Click here to view the minutes in pdf format

Yo MINDVTR..What do you think? You have a really good understanding of taxes / millages.

  Submit to Quotes         

I don't like the idea of an increase in taxes so that we can get a new City Hall and electronic sign. We have already spent $32,000.00 to move Duchanes office to the first floor.

I also think they might need this $$ because of the ERI. Were the pension plans fully vested?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I'm sick and tired of hearing things from uptight, short sighted, narrow minded hypocrites. All I want is the truth, Just gimme some truth"

- John Lennon

  Submit to Quotes         

RubberArm (09-12-05), Mumzzee (11-07-05)

I will scan documentation tonight that Duchane states
"A millage proposal will be placed on the ballot in Novembe asking for 3mills.

Following that will be the process of how to fund operations. Steve stated that he did a comparison of Michigan municipalities that had comparable populations.

He stated that the older pension systems costs are astronomial in compararison.

He state that he would ask for a headlee override next year to fund the pension. "

So what does this tell us?

And WHY did we do the ERI when we hired more expensive people; we eliminated most of experienced workers; and now the pension statement above?

Hmmm...makes one wonder this could be the reason the facts of numbers with ERI aren't available?

????

  Submit to Quotes         

I agree, Mayday...There are so many forms of ugly on this...I can name several reasons why this thing smells. Where was the bid to refer the opinion to the bond attorney, for instance?

But we must fight one battle at a time.



Here's what happened, and the ENTIRE council is to blame. This ballot language was approved by every council member, except for Councilman Thomas Murphy. He was the only one who voted against it. Thank you Mr. Murphy. They voted to approve ballot language that:

A) They didn't fully understand, or

B) Knew to be misleading

Either way, they have failed the taxpayers of the city. If they didn't understand what they were voting for...THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS AND GOT SUFFICIENT ANSWERS BEFORE CASTING THEIR VOTE! Now we're stuck with this. This is what is going on the ballot...there is no changing it now. And the voters are probably going to pass it because they believe it is a simple renewal of an existing millage. Mayor Brown said: The law says we cannot simply call it a renewal.


But Mayor Brown is WRONG. Michigan law says that you shall refer to it as a renewal. So instead of a simple ballot that clearly states its intention, we end up with this garbage that misleads people into thinking it's something it's not.

Instead of trying to argue what the money will be used for, we still have time to inform voters about what it really means. We can stop it from being approved by the voters. This should be the first battle. If the unfortunate circumstance occurs where the voters are literally duped into approving it, then we can fight the battle on what the money should be used for.

And a battle to fight at a later time: Why didn't the council vote to determine what bond attorney they were taking their advice from? Who decided to hire the nitwits who said we couldn't use the term "renewal"?

Conspiracy theory: These bond attorneys are trying to appease certain members of the council...because they know that if they don't, that they can kiss any future business from this city goodbye. In my heart of hearts, I believe they intentionally mislead members of the council, at the bequest of some unknown figure(s), into believing that the ballot couldn't be written as a simple renewal. I cannot prove this...it is only a suspician. But can you really blame me for having it?!

  Submit to Quotes         

Or we are looking at this completely wrong.....I am the first to admit that I don't understand the millage rules, etc.

But as a layman reading the MCL and the ballot language, I think that there is more to the 3mills that is being asked for.

Again...I am a layman at this...which is why I am hoping that MINDVTR and Rubberarm look at this..

Both of these members know about this stuff.

  Submit to Quotes         

I'd like to hear from the councilmemebers who frequent this site:

• Who chose to hire the attorneys that told you that you couldn't use the word "renewal"?
• What questions did you ask about this ballot language, and what answers did you recieve, before you decided to vote to approve it?
• What was your understanding of the ballot language when you voted to approve it?
• Where you aware that it called for a 3 mill renewal in addition to a 3 mill increase, in addition to potentiall raising the cap from 20 to 23 mills?
  • If so, then why didn't you lobby to have each of these three "requests" to be placed on three seperate ballots? Why did you vote to make it an "all or nothing" package deal? Why can't taxpayers vote to keep the 3 mills to repair the roads, but vote down the additional 3 mills and the increase in the cap?

I think these are fair questions.

  Submit to Quotes         

If I'm wrong, then so be it. But if I'm wrong, then the ballot language is still messed up because it really gives the impression (to those who actually read it) that it means something different that what it is.

We'll find out at Monday's council meeting. Or before hand if a council member can come on here and positively and without a shadow of any doubt confirm or deny these ideas.

  Submit to Quotes         

The cap is not being raised to 23 mills. It can't. It must remain at 20.

The new 3 mills for the roads will be "new" in essence as the one last approved is set to expire this year. If this new tax doesn't pass in November, then everyone's millage rate will decrease by slightly less than 3 mills. If this "new" tax is adopted, then everyone's millage rate will remain pretty much as it is now.

When it was adopted five years ago, it was adopted as a 3 mill tax levy. Because of Headlee, that number has slightly decreased and the millage rate now being accessed for the roads is about 2.67.

So, if this new tax passes, people will see that slight increase because the 2.67 being charged now will jump back to the full 3 mills again. That's what the ballot language means when it says to "restore" the tax to the full amount.

  Submit to Quotes         

jujitsu50 (09-10-05), Robin (09-11-05), RubberArm (09-12-05)

Question: "IF" this 3mill road tax is not approved by voters, will our millage drop from it's current 15.267 to 12.267?

  Submit to Quotes         

Virtually, that's true.

It won't drop an entire 3 mills, however, because right now 3 mills aren't being assessed for the roads. I believe it's 2.67 mills.

IF the new tax fails, 2.67 mills (or whatever it is currently) will be deducted from the current millage rate.

IF the new tax passes, the current millage rate will go up approximately .33 mills, bumping it back up to the full 3 mills.

  Submit to Quotes         

An interesting take on this was in today's News Herald.

The previous Millage renewals were for 5 years increments. This proposal is indefinate. No expiration date.

Our roads are in dire need of repair. I would vote for a 5 mil increase if it would help. But I think the NH had a good point about it not having an expiration date. People would be more incline to vote yes if they thought it would be for a certain amount of time and then they could decide again to renew it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
recordar la yocorazon

  Submit to Quotes         

RubberArm (09-12-05)

I agree. I'm 100 percent for the millage, but I may still vote against it now that I see it's FOREVER. The other times, you could reassess the situation every five years and decide if you want to re-up the tax. But this time, with no expiration, I think its a pretty safe assumption to make that if it passes this year, the tax will remain indefinitely. I don't see a future mayor and council saying, "You know. The residents have paid enough for the roads. Let's cut this off."

I'd assume if the tax fails this time around, the mayor and council would try again on the next ballot. And that time, I bet you, they'll try for a 5-year renewal. People have been supportive of that. For an indefinite tax, I'm not so sure.

  Submit to Quotes         

Sounds like election year scare tactics . Duchane is raising our taxes to the Max 20 mils To set them over 16 requires The People vote.

We are going to wind up like Taylor millions in debt and selling city land to avoid layoffs,if we listen to some of our politicians. They need to stop scaring the Seniors.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If pro is the opposite of con? would CONgress be the oppositeof PROgress?

  Submit to Quotes         

RubberArm (09-12-05)

EXCELLENT catch you guys!!! Excellent!!!

The scare tactics has been on going but thankfully we can get the message out.

MINDVTR....how did you calculate the about 20mils?

Depending who I talk to, if we don't pass this renewal of 3mils for roads, our mils would drop to 12.67 OR if don't pass this renewal our mils would stay at 15.67 because the road mils expired this year (when?) and isn't assessed anymore.

I posted my Aug 05 tax mils info but here it is again:

City 15.67750
Rubbish 2.35140
Ret-Bond 1.23250
Roads 2.65950
St. Sch 6.00000
Sch Oper 17.21400
Sch Debt 5.00000
Sch Sinking Fund 1.45830
Couty Oper 1.88280


Notice the Road mils of 2.65950?

IF this road mils is the same as the renewal then we are esstionally at 15.67750 + 2.65950 = 18.33445 mils....

So does this mean that if we DON'T pass the Road renewal we will drop from 18.33445 mils to the 15.67750?

Or is this road mills something else like county and the road renewal is part of the 15.67750 mils?

Am I looking at this right?
are you thinking that our mils would be be about 15.67 or 16.00 with this renewal on the ballot or do you agree with Wolverine about our mils droping the 2. 67 bringing us to 12.67.

  Submit to Quotes         

I agree with VS.


They are saying the want to raise the millage cap AND add 3 additional mills AND renew the old millage plus they have no expiration date.

This is a problem, at least of perception if not outright misleading.

M/C will have to rewrite this much more clearly for me to be able to vote to approve.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Submit to Quotes         

RubberArm (09-12-05)

What is unfortunate is that our politicians have decided to play politics with this proposal.

Our roads are in terrible shape. We cannot afford to shut off any funding to rebuild them. But our politicians have decided to make this issue complicated.

The proposal should simply read 3 mils for 5 years (or even 5 mils for 5 years). It will be hard enough getting it to pass with what will be a low voter turnout made up with a majority of seniors. Why our are politicians (all seven of them) so determined to make this more difficult than it already is?

  Submit to Quotes         

Robiin the current 15.67 is correct ,subtract the expiring mils drops it to 13 add 3 for the new proposal new millage around the Hedley Max

Those who don't wanr Duchane around speculated the OUTSIDER with Brown and Kandes would support a 7% increase for roads and general fund . Hitting the Charter Max Of 20 mils.did not happen. They need ro rework their campaigns ,they were convinced there would be no repair resolution passed,only an intersection replacement. Wrong again.

Those figures for retetion basin and Rubibsh are part of the 15.67 mils and school figures are a totaly separate issue . M/C or Duchane have no control over them.,a separate agency,but still controled by Hedley.

  Submit to Quotes         

AHA.... So then I was on target that our millage would drop to the 13ish..

Thank you, Mindvtr.....

I am not pleased with how this "not really a renewal 3.0 millage on ballot" was presented to the taxpayers of Lincoln Park.

I still want to know WHERE the road millage $$ went for the last five years. That millage voted in five years ago had specific streets named.... were those streets replaced?

Also, the wording on the old millage said street replacement; this new one has repair and replacement... is this because our tax $$ for roads will be spent on just asphalt overlay????

I have a question: How well and how long will this band-aid of asphalt overlay last? Is this a good option to spend millions on?

IF this is just a bandaid and we will face the same road issues in five years or so, why would we want to waste $$ with the overlay?

I don't know jack about the difference between asphalt overlay Vs asphalt replacement road or cement replacement...except that black ice would be more prevelent with the asphalt choices.

I will most likely vote AGAINST this millage for these reasons:

1) There is no expiration on the ballot;
2) How this was explained to us by the Mayor (he left out some serious details like why the MCL states we should call this a renewal yet he said that it was illegal to call it that)
3) WHEN did M&C take a vote to get an opinion on this language from the Bond attorney???
4) I want to KNOW what the 5 years of this road millage paid for. Which streets.....
5) Why should we as taxpayers put up with asphalt overlay versus saving this money to replace roads the right way.
6) Why should we be doing ANYTHING to ANY roads in Lincoln Park before we first know what shape the underlying infrastructure is in; AND
7) How can we EVEN consider voting in this New/Renew Millage when we do NOT have even a 5 year or 7 year or 10 CITY Master plan NOR do we have ANY idea what the brainaics thought they were saving with the extensive ERI?

I am going to change my statement from most likely vote against to WILL NOT vote for this.

  Submit to Quotes