Lincoln Park at it Again

The taxpayers of Lincoln Park have just turned down the inclusion of PA 345 into their charter in May. The Emergency Manager, Brad Coulter will not take NO for an answer and has placed the question again on the November 3, ballot. The language is below:
This proposal creates a separate funding stream to generate new tax revenue for a Police
Officers and Fire Fighters pension system.

Shall the City of Lincoln Park, County of Wayne, Michigan, be authorized to establish a
Retirement system for the benefit of police officers and fire fighters, create a pension
board, and levy taxes annually in an amount sufficient to fund the system, but not to
exceed six (6) mills in any year, on each dollar of taxable value (maximum $6.00 per
$1,000) for all property in the City, all in accordance with the provisions of Michigan
Public Act 345 of 1937, as amended?

They have limited the request not to exceed six mills in any year but that can amount to an increase of $300 per year on a house with a taxable value of $50,000. It lets the City of Lincoln Park keep the money taxpayers have already voted for those purposes in Lincoln Park’s general fund budget to spend on other things.
The State of Michigan has 1,773 cities, villages and townships. Only 45 of them have approved PA 345. There is a very good reason for that. While establishing the retirement system is optional, once created, the local government must provide benefits under the terms of the Statute. There is probably as many interpretations of the statute as there are those offering it. The taxpayers lose.
Some of the problems with funding pensions, are caused by the municipalities themselves. Because they can never have enough money they find ways to extract it from the taxpayers any way they can. Sometimes it is by early retirement for the employees, which drains the pension fund and relieves the general fund, which is part of Lincoln Park’s problem. The next step may be a Deferred Retirement Program (DROP) which pushes the collection of the monetary portion of the benefits forward and transfers the other benefits to PA 345. Then they hire the employees back as contractors thus relieving the general budget from those costs.
In 2013 the top 20 wages in Lincoln Park were as follows:

1 Police  HAWK, BRIAN     232,247.06
2 Fire     LEWIS, SCOTT   149,320.05
3 Fire    VANCE, DOUGLAS B    138,125.84
4 Police KOLAKOVICH, RICHARD 122,558.97
5 Police POWERS, MICHAEL L 120,565.33
6 Police LAVIS, JOSEPH D 115,004.35
7 Fire    WRIGHT, ROBERT 110,511.05
8 Fire    HEIM, STEVEN 110,440.45
9 Fire    PRINZ JR, MICHAEL S 110,427.35
10 Fire  PERRY, BRANDEN 110,376.90
11 Fire  HENDRICKS, MICHAEL 107,230.46
12 Fire  MARTIN, STEVEN 96,721.45
13 Police KERR, SCOTT 96,187.66
14 Police WEIR, VINCENT M 95,537.64
15 Fire   FRASIER, JAMES R 95,315.21
16 Police STACHO, JEFFREY M 93,279.84
17 Fire   DYER JR, AL 92,080.18
18 Police SANT'ANGELO, WILLIAM 91,980.30
19 Fire   JEWELL, BRYAN 91,974.86
20 Fire  HARPER, MICHAEL 91,961.77

This amount includes overtime and is part of the past but could easily be contractually a part of the future. While they will never admit it, because it is illegal, I have known a number of police and firemen over the years that bragged about the fact that they would work their time off to manipulate overtime for themselves and their friends. I have been told that they do not do that in Lincoln Park and that it is only a result of understaffing. I find that difficult to believe. If you have access to the internet I suggest that you read the contracts that are listed on the city website.
Please do not be deceived and surrender your right to vote on future taxes to a pension board that you do not elect. Remember this change is permanent. If housing starts to increase in value, the amount of dollars you pay will probably only go up with no benefits of the Headlee rollback.

Please Remember to Vote May 5

These are  the proposals that will be voted on in Wayne County. A no vote is particularly necessary for taxpayers for the State Proposal and those of Lincoln Park and City of Wayne.

Page 1 OFFICIAL LIST OF PROPOSALS 05/05/2015 – MAY CONSOLIDATED WAYNE COUNTY

STATE PROPOSAL

PROPOSAL 15-1

A proposal to amend the State Constitution to increase the sales/use tax from 6% to 7% to replace and supplement reduced revenue to the School Aid Fund and local units of government caused by the elimination of the sales/use tax on gasoline and diesel fuel for vehicles operating on public roads, and to give effect to laws that provide additional money for roads and other transportation purposes by increasing the gas tax and vehicle registration fees.

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Eliminate sales / use taxes on gasoline / diesel fuel for vehicles on public roads.

• Increase portion of use tax dedicated to School Aid Fund (SAF).

• Expand use of SAF to community colleges and career / technical education, and prohibit use for 4-year colleges / universities.

• Give effect to laws, including those that:

o Increase sales / use tax to 7%, as authorized by constitutional amendment.

o Increase gasoline / diesel fuel tax and adjust annually for inflation, increase vehicle registration fees, and dedicate revenue for roads and other transportation purposes.

o Expand competitive bidding and warranties for road projects.

o Increase earned income tax credit.

Should this proposal be adopted?

Page 2 OFFICIAL LIST OF PROPOSALS 05/05/2015 – MAY CONSOLIDATED WAYNE COUNTY

CITY OF LINCOLN PARK PROPOSALS

CITY OF LINCOLN PARK POLICE OFFICERS AND FIRE FIGHTERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM PROPOSAL

Shall the City of Lincoln Park, County of Wayne, Michigan, be authorized to establish a retirement system for the benefit of police officers and fire fighters, create a pension board, and levy taxes annually in amounts sufficient to fund the system, all in accordance with the provisions of Michigan Public Act 345 of 1937, as amended? This proposal shall not become effective unless the electors also approve an amendment to Chapter XVII of the City Charter authorizing cessation of the existing pension system and transfer of its assets to the new Act 345 pension system.

PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT SECTION 1 OF CHAPTER XVII OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN PARK

Shall Sec. 1 of Chapter XVII of the City Charter of the City of Lincoln Park be amended to provide for the transfer of all assets of the existing Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement system to a new retirement system established pursuant to Michigan Public Act 345 of 1937, as amended, the cessation of the existing retirement system, and dissolution of the existing retirement board? This amendment shall not become effective unless the electors also approve of the establishment of a new Act 345 pension system.

CITY OF WAYNE PROPOSALS

PROPOSAL NO. 1

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 19.1 AND 19.3 OF CHAPTER 19 OF THE WAYNE CITY CHARTER

Shall Chapter 19 of the Charter of the City of Wayne be amended so that police officers and firefighters are excluded from the retirement system established by the City Charter, effective with the 2015-2016 fiscal year, and instead become members of a separate retirement system under 1937 PA 345, as amended, and that accumulated contributions to the current employee's retirement system made by or on behalf of such officers be transferred to the Act 345 retirement system? This charter amendment shall not be effective unless the electors approve the establishment of a separate retirement system under said Act 345.

PROPOSAL NO. 2

PROPOSAL TO ADOPT AN ACT 345 RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS

Shall the City of Wayne, Wayne County, Michigan, be authorized to establish a separate retirement system pursuant to Act 345 of 1937, as amended, for the benefit of police officers and firefighters employed by the City, create a board of trustees to manage and operate the system, and be authorized to levy a new tax annually in an amount sufficient to fund the system in an actuarially sound manner, but not to exceed 3.00 mills in any year on each dollar ($3.00 per $1,000) of the taxable value of all property in the City, for a period of 5 years, all contingent upon the approval by the electors of a City Charter amendment authorizing the transfer of police officer and firefighter members from the current employee's retirement system to the new system created under Act 345?

It is expected that approximately 3 mills will be levied in 2015 and will raise the sum of approximately

$1,068,000.00.

Page 3 OFFICIAL LIST OF PROPOSALS 05/05/2015 – MAY CONSOLIDATED WAYNE COUNTY

GROSSE ILE TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS PROPOSALS

GROSSE ILE TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS

BOND PROPOSAL

Shall the Grosse Ile Township Schools, County of Wayne, Michigan, borrow the principal sum of not to exceed Seven Million Four Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($7,435,000) and issue its general obligation unlimited tax bonds for the purpose of defraying the cost of:

· equipping, furnishing, reequipping and refurnishing School District buildings and acquiring buses;

· acquiring and installing technology infrastructure and equipment; and

· improving and developing sites, including playgrounds, structures and outdoor athletic facilities?

The estimated millage to be levied in 2015 to service this issue of bonds is 0.51 mills ($0.51 per $1,000 of taxable value) and the estimated simple average annual millage rate required to retire the bonds of this issue is 1.69 mills ($1.69 per $1,000 of taxable value). The debt millage levy is currently estimated to be 5.69 mills, or .2528 mill over the 2014 levy. The bonds shall be payable in not to exceed ten (10) years from the date of issue. The School District currently has $20,020,000 of qualified bonds outstanding and $0 of qualified loans outstanding under the State School Bond Qualification and Loan Program. The School District does not expect to borrow from the program to pay debt service on these bonds. The estimated computed millage rate may change based on changes in certain circumstances.

Under State law, bond proceeds may not be used to pay teacher, administrator or other employee salaries, routine maintenance costs or other School District operating expenses.

GROSSE ILE TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS

SINKING FUND REPLACEMENT PROPOSAL

This proposal would replace the existing operating millage authority of the Grosse Ile Township Schools approved by voters in 2010 and which would otherwise expire with the 2015 levy to levy a sinking fund millage.

As a replacement of existing authorization which would otherwise expire with the 2015 levy, shall the Grosse Ile Township Schools, County of Wayne, Michigan, be authorized to levy 0.75 mill ($0.75 per $1,000 of taxable valuation) to create a sinking fund for the purpose of the construction or repair of school buildings and the improvement and development of sites, including the replacement of interior doors and hardware, the replacement of lighting with energy efficient LED lighting, brick work repairs and any other purpose permitted by law, by increasing the limitation on the amount of taxes which may be imposed on taxable property in the School District for a period of five (5) years, being the years 2015 to 2019, inclusive? It is estimated that 0.75 mill ($0.75 per $1,000 of taxable valuation) would raise approximately $ 427,064 in the first year that it is levied.

(Under state law, sinking fund proceeds may not be used to pay teacher or administrator salaries.)

Page 4 OFFICIAL LIST OF PROPOSALS 05/05/2015 – MAY CONSOLIDATED WAYNE COUNTY

NORTHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS PROPOSAL

MILLAGE RENEWAL PROPOSAL

BUILDING AND SITE SINKING FUND TAX LEVY

Shall the currently authorized millage rate of .9978 mill ($.9978 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation) which may be assessed against all property in Northville Public Schools, Wayne, Oakland and Washtenaw Counties, Michigan, be renewed for a period of 5 years, 2016 to 2020, inclusive, to continue to provide for a sinking fund for the construction or repair of school buildings and all other purposes authorized by law; the estimate of the revenue the school district will collect if the millage is approved and levied in 2016 is approximately $2,588,047 (this is a renewal of millage which will expire with the 2015 tax levy)?

RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY SCHOOLS PROPOSALS

I. SCHOOL BONDING PROPOSAL

Shall Riverview Community School District, Wayne County, Michigan, borrow the sum of not to exceed Nineteen Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($19,900,000) and issue its general obligation unlimited tax bonds therefor, in one or more series, for the purpose of:

partially remodeling, furnishing and refurnishing, equipping and re-equipping school facilities; erecting, furnishing and equipping additions to the high school, in part, for cafeteria, kitchen and office spaces; acquiring, installing and equipping instructional technology for school facilities; constructing and equipping a pre-school playground; and developing and improving sites?

The following is for informational purposes only:

The estimated millage that will be levied for the proposed bonds in 2015, under current law, is 3.38 mills ($3.38 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation) for a net increase of 2.80 mills. The maximum number of years the bonds may be outstanding, exclusive of any refunding, is thirty (30) years. The estimated simple average annual millage anticipated to be required to retire this bond debt is 5.28 mills ($5.28 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation).

The school district expects to borrow from the State School Bond Qualification and Loan Program to pay debt service on these bonds. The estimated total principal amount of that borrowing is $1,665,921 and the estimated total interest to be paid thereon is $451,099. The estimated duration of the millage levy associated with that borrowing is 30 years and the estimated computed millage rate for such levy is 7.00 mills. The estimated computed millage rate may change based on changes in certain circumstances.

The total amount of qualified bonds currently outstanding is $5,605,000. The total amount of qualified loans currently outstanding is approximately $-0-.

(Pursuant to State law, expenditure of bond proceeds must be audited, and the proceeds cannot be used for repair or maintenance costs, teacher, administrator or employee salaries, or other operating expenses.)

Page 5 OFFICIAL LIST OF PROPOSALS 05/05/2015 – MAY CONSOLIDATED WAYNE COUNTY

RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY SCHOOLS PROPOSALS (cont’d)

II. SCHOOL BONDING PROPOSAL

Shall Riverview Community School District, Wayne County, Michigan, borrow the sum of not to exceed Four Million Seven Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($4,730,000) and issue its general obligation unlimited tax bonds therefor, in one or more series, for the purpose of:

erecting, furnishing and equipping additions to and partially remodeling, furnishing and refurnishing, equipping and re-equipping the middle school for swimming pool improvements; remodeling, furnishing and equipping the high school pool area into a new multi-purpose use; acquiring, installing and equipping technology for the middle school swimming pool; and developing and improving sites?

The following is for informational purposes only:

The estimated millage that will be levied for the proposed bonds in 2015, under current law, is .79 mill ($0.79 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation). The maximum number of years the bonds may be outstanding, exclusive of any refunding, is thirty (30) years. The estimated simple average annual millage anticipated to be required to retire this bond debt is 1.18 mills ($1.18 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation).

The school district does not expect to borrow from the State to pay debt service on the bonds. The total amount of qualified bonds currently outstanding is $5,605,000. The total amount of qualified loans currently outstanding is $-0-. The estimated computed millage rate may change based on changes in certain circumstances.

If both Proposal I and Proposal II pass, the school district expects to borrow from the State School Bond Qualification and Loan Program to pay debt service on these bonds. The estimated total principal amount of that borrowing is $2,600,482 and the estimated total interest to be paid thereon is $2,723,190. The estimated duration of the millage levy associated with that borrowing is 30 years and the estimated computed millage rate for such levy is 7.55 mills. The estimated computed millage rate may change based on changes in certain circumstances.

(Pursuant to State law, expenditure of bond proceeds must be audited, and the proceeds cannot be used for repair or maintenance costs, teacher, administrator or employee salaries, or other operating expenses.)

VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS PROPOSAL

MILLAGEPROPOSAL

BUILDING AND SITE SINKING FUND TAX LEVY

Shall Van Buren Public Schools, Counties of Wayne and Washtenaw, State of Michigan, create a sinking fund for the purpose of construction or repair of school buildings and the improvement and development of sites and for any other purpose which may be authorized by law, and be authorized to levy not to exceed 1.13 mills ($1.13 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation) for a period of seven (7) years, 2016 to 2022 inclusive? This levy would renew the sinking fund levy previously authorized by the voters in 2008 for an additional seven (7) years. It is estimated that the revenue the school district will collect if the millage is approved and levied in the 2016 calendar year shall be approximately

$1,715,961 from the local taxes authorized in this proposal. A portion of the revenue collected may be subject to capture by the Van Buren Township Downtown Development Authority.

NO! NO! NO! to the Sales Tax Increase

Legislative Tax Action Day

Wednesday, April 15 at 1:00 pm

Michigan State Capitol in Lansing, Michigan

Mark your calendars. You can go to either or both of these events. At least

try to make it to one. Pass this on to others in your address book.

Protest against Proposal 1 in front of Troy City Hall

Wednesday, April 15 at 5:00 pm

City of Troy, Michigan Government in Troy, Michigan

I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of being talked to like I am a child.  There really are a lot of people out there who are gullible, but I would like to think that I am not one of them. Those of us who know better have an obligation to share with those less informed. Not as a test of our superior intellect, because we all have our short comings, but because if they go down we go down with them.  

How people can have faith in their elected officials after they have lied to them over and over again Is beyond my understanding. No matter how good something looks, you need to have a look at what the other side has to say. It is especially important if their are a lot of commercials for one side or the other. Lots of commercials is an indication of how important the issue is and a clue that the results will definitely effect you.

++++++++++++++

 7 Reasons to Vote “NO” on the May 5 Tax Hike Proposal 

1.We can't afford even higher taxes. Michigan residents already pay among the highest gas taxes in the country, and most of that money isn't even spent on roads. We pay a 4.25% state income tax where other states have no income tax. The ballot proposal would raise the Michigan sales tax to 7%, whichwould make it the 2nd highest state sales tax in the nation. The proposal would raise taxes about $200 per year for every man, woman, and child in Michigan. $800 for a family of four. 

2. It doesn't solve the budget problem. Lawmakers increased Michigan's state budget by $4.7 billion in just the last four years. The sales tax hike is only projected to take in $2 billion. Raising the sales tax only pays for part of the growth of government! The problem is too much new spending, not too little taxes. If voters approve these tax increases, soon enough we'll be asked for even more.

 3. We can fix our roads and fund our schools without raising taxes. The state House passed a plan last December that would have increased public school funding $2.5 billion over the next eight years and added about $1 billion in road funding each year – with no net tax increase. 

4. Half of the new tax money isn't even for roads. The proposal's backers insist Michigan's roads need to be fixed, but only half of the new tax money would be spent on roads. The rest goes to various special interests that benefit from the new tax money. (Source: michigantaxpayers.com/ newtaxes.php) 

5. Raising prices makes Michigan less competitive. Raising the sales tax effectively makes all goods more expensive: we all inevitably have less money to spend and save. Essentially, it increases the cost of living in Michigan – people need to earn more to live here – and this affects costs at all stages of production, distribution, sales, and service. Higher taxes hurt us all. 

6. The proposal misleads voters and does a lot more than tax and spend. The proposal passes ten laws and a constitutional amendment, with language totaling over 46,000 words: a novel's worth of legalese. These laws include tax credits for low-income wage earners, affirmative action rules in certain state transportation contracting, funding for reading programs, $102 million in new federal income tax liabilities for vehicle registration, and much, much more not reported on the ballot to voters. 

7. Make Lansing do its job. It's wrong for lawmakers to punt to voters a 46 thousand-word legislative package, kicking off a massive political battle and costing us a $10 million election, because lawmakers couldn't agree on a solution to fund roads. Road funding should be a normal, ordinary, completely standard aspect of budget negotiations. 

Vote “NO” to tax hikes on May 5 because Michigan is T AXED E NOUGH A LREADY

Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan, PO Box 211, Milan MI 48160. Permission to reproduce

Detroit School Board President Opposes Sales Tax Increase

For many years conservatives have taken for granted that support for issues we endorse would not be supported by most in the liberal City of Detroit. We can never plan to win over liberals if we do not make an attempt to explain our positions clearly. Below is a cry for help from former Rep. Lammar Lemmons,presently Presedent of the Detroit Board of Education.


Lamar Lemmons
President of the Detroit Board of Education

"The strategy for Detroit will be different than in other parts of the State. Our rational for opposing the Proposal will be different. We need resources. You can use my name in opposing this Proposal. The elected school Board is ready to come out against this proposal. What is happening? There is not a No Vote presence in the city of Detroit. Meanwhile, I am being inundated with vote Yes literature and T.V. Radio adds."

 You need to come out to the press. You are a stimulus to everyone's resources. Tell us what your reasons are. We are pleasantly interested. Our resources are limited as well and the city residents will be much more responsive to you as an elected official.  You can hardly expect people to give you money without knowing if they can can support your reasons and what you want to do with the money.

I'm Convinced NO on Proposal 1

I have read the Policy Brief put out by the Mackinac Center, the Citizen Research Center Report and reread SB 821 and I am still more convinced than ever that this is bad for individual taxpayers.

From the Mackinac Policy Brief:
"The Use tax is similar to a sales tax — both are assessed on the price of a purchased product. The difference is that a sales tax is levied on the sellers of goods and services, whereas a Use tax is levied on the
user of a good or service. Some items that are subject
to Michigan’s Use tax include vehicles, boats,
snowmobiles and aircraft, in addition to goods
purchased over the Internet or via catalog."

This means they can come after you instead of the business.

There is also a description of the duties of the Authority responsibilities in SB 821 I think you should read. Just ask and I will send you the bill. Believe me when I say I am not anti business. But, if they are going to do this they should do it right.

Proposal 1 August 5, Primary

Wayne County Taxpayers Association Position Paper

Proposal 1

APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDATORY ACT TO REDUCE STATE USE TAX AND REPLACE WITH A LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TO MODERNIZE THE TAX SYSTEM TO HELP SMALL BUSINESSES GROW AND CREATE JOBS

The amendatory act adopted by the Legislature would:

1. Reduce the state use tax and replace with a local community stabilization share of the tax for the purpose of modernizing the tax system to help small businesses grow and create jobs in Michigan.

2. Require Local Community Stabilization Authority to provide revenue to local governments dedicated for  local purposes, including police safety, fire protection, and ambulance emergency services.

3. Increase portion of state use tax dedicated for aid to local school districts.

4. Prohibit Authority from increasing taxes.

5. Prohibit total use tax rate from exceeding existing constitutional 6% limitation. Should this law be approved?

************(*

I want to state that the Personal Property Tax is a horrible tax and a burden to business and employment. If I were to say to the average taxpayer that their stove, refrigerator, washer, dryer and any other appliance or furniture were all subject to personal property tax for 10 years after purchase with a reduction each year for depreciation, we would have a revolt.

Anyone wishing to understand how the tax works and its effects can go to Personal Property Tax Reform in Michigan The Fiscal and Economic Impact of SB 1065-SB 1072, Anderson EconomicGroup  http://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/SearchAEG/tabid/59/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/8021/Personal-Property-Tax-Reform-in-Michigan-The-Fiscal-and-Economic-Impact-of-SB-1065SB-1072.aspx or the Citizen Research Council at  https://crcmich.org/TaxOutline/index.html

This is not just an elimination of the Personal Property Tax for some small businesses. It is about much more.  It is my estimation that it was not necessary to place anything on the ballot to allow the reduction of that tax. Everything they needed is presently included in the State Constitution as defined in the Headlee Amendment.

Article IX  Michigan Constitution

§ 25 Voter approval of increased local taxes; prohibitions; emergency conditions;

repayment of bonded indebtedness guaranteed; implementation of section.

Sec. 25. Property taxes and other local taxes and state taxation and spending may not be increased above the limitations specified herein without direct voter approval. The state is prohibited from requiring any new or expanded activities by local governments without full state financing, from reducing the proportion of state spending in the form of aid to local governments, or from shifting the tax burden to local government. A provision for emergency

conditions is established and the repayment of voter approved bonded indebtedness is guaranteed.

Implementation of this section is specified in Sections 26 through 34, inclusive, of this Article.

§ 26 Limitation on taxes; revenue limit; refunding or transferring excess revenues;

exceptions to revenue limitation; adjustment of state revenue and spending limits.

Sec. 26. There is hereby established a limit on the total amount of taxes which may be

imposed by the legislature in any fiscal year on the taxpayers of this state. This limit shall not

be changed without approval of the majority of the qualified electors voting thereon, as

provided for in Article 12 of the Constitutio n……. If responsibility for funding a program or programs is transferred from one level of government to another, as a consequence of constitutional amendment, the state revenue and spending limits may be adjusted to accommodate such change, provided that the total revenue authorized for

collection by both state and local governments does not exceed that amount which would have

been authorized without such change.

§ 29 State financing of activities or services required of local government by state

law.

Sec. 29. The state is hereby prohibited from reducing the state financed proportion of the

necessary costs of any existing activity or service required of units of Local Government by

state law. A new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond

that required by existing law shall not be required by the legislature or any state agency of

units of Local Government, unless a state appropriation is made and disbursed of Local Government for any necessary increased costs. The provision of this section shall not apply to costs incurred pursuant to Article VI, Section 18 to pay the unit. 

There are 10 Senate Bills connected to this proposal. Nowhere in the ballot language is a Personal Property Tax mentioned specifically. The bills range from SB821 through SB830. For brevity and simplification I will address SB822 which must be passed for most of the others to take effect.

 .

We start our problem with the establishment of yet another Authority which would be granted enormous power. Since this new Authority would not be elected by the voters, there would be no true accountability but they would have the responsibility of handling a huge amount of our money.   

“BEGINNING ON OCTOBER 1, 2015, THE SPECIFIC TAX LEVIED UNDER SUBSECTION (1) INCLUDES BOTH A STATE SHARE TAX LEVIED BY THIS STATE AND A LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TAX AUTHORIZED BY THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED SECTION 2C AND LEVIED BY THE

AUTHORITY, WHICH REPLACES THE REDUCED STATE SHARE AT THE FOLLOWING RATES IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATE FISCAL YEARS”

Legislation then goes on to define the state’s portion of “THE LOCAL COMMUNITY

STABILIZATION SHARE TAX RATE TO BE LEVIED BY THE AUTHORITY IS THAT RATE CALCULATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY ON BEHALF OF THE

AUTHORITY… THE STATE SHARE TAX RATE IS THAT RATE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING THE LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TAX RATE FROM 6%.”

The state then declares the revenue portion from 2015-2016 through 2029 without knowing the accuracy of the amount listed. They will also be committing future legislatures to a dollar amount.

This Authority would be granted an enormous responsibility. That cannot be good for taxpayers.  The line in the proposal that limits the used/sales tax to 6% does not address the expansion of the sales tax to, for example, internet purchases or fines or penalties for failure to comply. It does not address other things that they may choose to include as taxable by the sales tax which they seem to think they have the authority to adjust.

Whatever your feelings on taxes, this proposal does not give the taxpayer more security. The language does not reflect the full nature of the outcome if it passes.  If you have concerns, I will be glad to forward copies of the bills.  Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.  wctaxpayers@comcast.net .  313-278-8383.

The Wayne County Taxpayer Association suggests vote NO on Proposal 1

Until Next Time

I am sorry to announce that the Part Time Legislature Committee has informed me that they will not be able to collect enough signatures to place the issue on the ballot. For the hundreds who received petitions from the Wayne County Taxpayers Association  I am asking that you destroy the petitions.  It is their intentions to try for the 2016 elections but those petitions you have are dated and can not be used. There are a number of reason why they were not successful but they hope to have those problems worked out for the 2016 election.

Contacts in All 83 Counties are Now a Reality for Part Time Legislature Petitions

Collecting signatures on a petition for a Part Time Legislature is really easy. Very few people will turn you down. Well, maybe some legislators,their staff and their relatives. Maybe a few other self serving lobbyists and there is also a few people who don't care or don't know the facts. Don't let that deter you. You can now get petitions in all 83 counties through county coordinators. Simply click on This Link and you will be able to click on your county and be able to contact your county contact.

 I thought I would answer a few questions that a few people ask.

 Q. How will they be able to get their work done?

 A. They only work 120 days as it is and half the stuff that they are working on should not even be on their agenda. We are only one of four states that have a Full Time Legislature - New York, California, Pennsylvania and Michigan. This should tell you almost all you need to know. The Texas legislature only meets every other year.

 Q.It says that the governor can call emergency sessions, How doe we know that this power will not be abused?

 A.That language is the same as the language that exists in our present constitution and it doesn't happen now. For one thing the legislators would not like being called back and if the governor or his party ever expects to get elected again I don't believe they would want to play that game unless it really was an emergency.

 Q. How can we get quality people to run for office if we pay them so much less?

 A. We did it for 127 years before they decided to rewrite the constitution in 1963 and it was all or nothing for the voters. Quality people will run for office. Look at all these people who are out there working for better government and don't get paid a thing. (I hope we can include you.)

 Q. How will I know what to do to collect signatures?

 A. If you have never done this before, it is as simple as reading the directions on the flap of the petition. It is as simple as asking your friend, family, church or social group members to sign or if you are really dedicated to stand in front of a store or post office or walk your block to get signatures. You can also contact your county contact for events they might have scheduled so that people may sign the petition.

 If you have more questions, we will try to answer them. In the meantime, remember to sign as the circulator at the bottom and that you can collect signatures from all counties but all the signatures on sheet must be from the same county.

Making Full Time a Part Time Reality.

The Wayne County Taxpayers Association will have Part Time Legislature Petitions available at the meeting at Leon's Family Dining on Michigan Ave just east of Telegraph on Wednesday March 26, and May 28, between the hours of 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm.  If you are not able to attend but wish to obtain petitions call 313-278-8383 and we will work out a way to get you petitions.

The weather is warming and spring is almost here. Each day will make it easier to make contact with people after their winter hibernation. Please help us and get a few petitions to circulate. You can also make a request at wctaxpayers@comcast.net . It doesn't take much to ask your friends and family to sign a petition. If we all do a little, it will make the job easier for the rest of us.

Wayne County Proposals and Judges In Our View

The November ballot will be an extremely long. It behooves you to study it before youe  go to vote.  This is our take on the Wayne County Questions and conservative judges.

FORM OF THE WAYNE COUNTY

BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE  

"SHALL THE WAYNE COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO ADD A NEW SECTION 5.120 AND TO AMEND EXISTING SECTION 5.134 TO AUTHORIZE THE WAYNE COUNTY COMMISSION RATHER THAN THE WAYNE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ESTABLISH THE FORM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LUMP-SUM AND LINE-ITEM) OF THE COUNTY BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE; AND TO REQUIRE THE COUNTY COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH THE FORM OF THE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE BY DECEMBER 7, 2012 AND TO ADOPT CHANGES TO THE FORM AT LEAST TEN MONTHS BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF A FISCAL YEAR TO BE EFFECTIVE FOR THAT FISCAL YEAR; AND TO ALSO AMEND SECTION 5.121 TO REQUIRE THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE  TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT THE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE  IN THE FORM ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION?"

YES

INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL AUDITOR

"SHALL SECTION 3.119(E) OF THE WAYNE COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTION THAT PROHIBITS AN INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL AUDITOR FROM PROVIDING AUDIT SERVICES TO THE COUNTY FOR MORE THAN EIGHT (8) CONSECUTIVE YEARS; AND FURTHER TO REQUIRE INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL AUDITORS BE SELECTED BASED ON A COMPETITIVE PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY'S PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE?"

YES

MEMBERSHIP ON THE WAYNE COUNTY RETIREMENT COMMISSION

"SHALL SECTION 6.112 OF THE WAYNE COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO EXPAND THE WAYNE COUNTY RETIREMENT COMMISSION'S MEMBERSHIP FROM 8 TO 9, ADDING AS A MEMBER THE WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER OR HIS OR HER DESIGNEE; AND ALSO TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE WAYNE COUNTY COMMISSION, WHO IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE WAYNE COUNTY RETIREMENT COMMISSION, TO APPOINT A PERSON TO SERVE AS HIS OR HER DESIGNEE ON THE RETIREMENT COMMISSION; AND TO FURTHER ALLOW EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES OF THE WAYNE COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY TO VOTE FOR AND SERVE AS  MEMBERS OF THE WAYNE COUNTY RETIREMENT COMMISSION (WITH NO MORE THAN ONE MEMBER BEING AN AIRPORT EMPLOYEE OR RETIREE) UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY ESTABLISHES ITS OWN RETIREMENT SYSTEM OR PENSION PLAN?"

YES

REMOVAL OF THE WAYNE COUNTY EXECUTIVE FROM OFFICE BY THE GOVERNOR

"SHALL THE WAYNE COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO ADD SECTION 4.124 TO AUTHORIZE THE GOVERNOR TO REMOVE THE WAYNE COUNTY EXECUTIVE FROM OFFICE FOR THE SAME REASONS AND WITH THE SAME DUE PROCESS AS PROVIDED BY LAW FOR THE SHERIFF, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, COUNTY CLERK, REGISTER OF DEEDS, AND COUNTY TREASURER?"

YES

THE WAYNE COUNTY COMMISSION'S POWER TO APPROVE COMPENSATION

"SHALL SECTION 3.115 OF THE WAYNE COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER, WHICH SETS FORTH THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE WAYNE COUNTY COMMISSION, BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE POWER AND DUTY TO APPROVE ALL COMPENSATION OF EVERY EMPLOYMENT POSITION IN THE COUNTY, UNLESS THE COMPENSATION IS ESTABLISHED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW?"

YES

WAYNE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

MILLAGE PROPOSAL

Shall the limitation on the amount of taxes which may be imposed on taxable property in the Wayne County Community College District be increased by one dollar per thousand dollars (1 mill) of the taxable value of all taxable property in the College District for a period of ten (10) years, the tax years commencing July 1, 2013, to July 1, 2022, inclusive, as new additional millage to provide funds for community college purposes authorized by law?  It is estimated that 1 mill would raise approximately $21,746,964 when first levied in 2013.

NO

Justice of The Supreme Court-8 Year Term (2 positions)

There are eight candidates for two openings.  Justice Stephen Markman is a conservative Justice running for re-election to his current seat.  The second 8 year term position is for the seat currently held by Marilyn Kelly, who cannot be reelected due to age limitations. Of the other candidates running for that seat I recommend Judge Colleen O’Brien.  I recommend a vote for:

·         Justice Stephen Markman

·         Judge Colleen O’Brien

Justice of The Supreme Court-Partial Term

Justice Brian Zahra, a conservative Justice who was appointed last year by Governor Snyder, must now be elected to complete his partial term ending 1/1/2015.  Justice Zahra deserves to be elected to complete his term.  My recommendation is a vote for:

·         Justice Brian Zahra

3^rd Circuit Judge of the Circuit Court Incumbent–6 yr. Term (16) positions 

There are seventeen (17) candidates for the sixteen (16) positions.  There are five (5) judges in this group of sixteen incumbents whom I consider to be conservative.  They deserve your vote even if you don’t vote for any of the others.  They are:

·         Annette J. Berry

·         Gregory Dean Bill

·         Kathleen M. McCarthy

·         Maria L. Oxholm

·         Daniel P. Ryan

3^rd Circuit Judge of the Circuit Court Non Incumbent – 6 yr. Term (3) positions 

There are six (6) candidates for these three (3) positions.   There are only two of them whom I consider to be conservative.  I would encourage all conservative voters to vote for:

·         Kevin Cox

·         Kelly Ann Ramsey

3^rd Circuit Judge of the Circuit Court Incumbent–Partial Term ending 1/1/2015 (2) positions

There are three (3) candidates for two (2) positions.  Of the two who are incumbents, Margaret M. Van Houten is the only one that I consider to be conservative.

·         Margaret M. Van Houten