Showing posts with label Millage Increase. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Millage Increase. Show all posts

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Time to Use Our Strenth

I need to ask you a favor. Please contact your legislators and the Local government committees of the house and senate about the below information. They are being held hostage by local government lobbyists. they can not get the votes to move them because local government lobbyist have testified against the right of Michigan taxpayers to vote before having their taxes raised.
We need to know who they represent, the lobbyists or us.
In the summer of 2015 Wayne County placed a judgment of $39 million on our summer taxes. Inkster placed several million dollars worth of taxes on Inkster taxes. This kind of thing goes on all over the state. Their authority they say comes from PA 236 which allows them to place judgment directly on our tax bills without a vote of the people.
We believe that this is a violation of the Headlee Amendment which is part of Article IX of the State Constitution which was passed by the voters in 1978. It requires that increases in taxes require a vote of the people. We requested the help of the legislature to change PA 236. As a result we received a response from Senator David Knezek (D) who informed us that he has requested the legal council and legislative analysts to design a bill that will prohibit the placing of these judgments on our tax bills. We never heard from him again in spite of our attempts to contact him.
The Senate bills SB630 and SB 631 introduced by Senator Shirkey now resides in the Senate local government committee and HB 5150 introduced by Rep. Poleski and 5159 introduced by Reps. Yonker, Price and Garcia has been introduced in the House and are now in the House local government committee. These bills will bring judgments in line with the State Constitution.
Senate Committee Clerk | 517-373-5323
House Committee Clerk | 517-373-5323
House and Senate
http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-29701---,00.html
Please contact them and request that these bills be moved for a vote. Ask your friends to do the same. When contact your elected officials to vote in favor of their passage so they know it exists when it comes to the floor.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Vote NO on Bond Proposal



On Tuesday May 3, the Crestwood School District will be requesting a $35 million Bond proposal on the ballot. I certainly will not support it. First of all they have close to $6 million in their fund equity, This is supposed to be held for emergencies and funding until the next payment from the state. It is not the fact that it exists, it is the amount that I have trouble with.
While sitting on millions of dollars they are forgoing normal maintenance. I looked at the pictures on their website of some of things that they plan to use the money for and was disgusted that they had not made the repairs out of their general budget. Some of the repairs look bad but are very inexpensive to repair. Others look to be more serious do to neglect.
There are some costly repairs that need to be made but before they ask me for more money they need to trim down a few million from their fund equity.
I went to a meeting with the committee supporting the bond and some of them tried to place the blame on previous administrations.Those people have been gone for years. Some of the things they are requesting are wants not needs.
They act like they are totally unaware of unemployment, the economy, inflation which most government entities say does not exist, and taxes which take up an average 52% of our income if you include state and local taxes. People are still losing their homes and there are prediction the stock market is on the verge of a crash that will make 2008 look like child's play.
I will support a bond issue only when they face reality. 3.5 mills is to much. That is $3.50 for every $1,000 of taxable value.


I'm Voting NO on May 3.

Friday, February 19, 2016

The Process Begins

After almost three weeks trying to get my computer and emails back in order, I am happy to announce that I am back in business.  The great thing is that I am just in time to announce that the senate bills to keep local governments from placing judgements on our tax bills and increasing our taxes without our vote, as required under the constitution is about to come under discussion.


MEMBERS:
SEN. JOHN PROOS, VICE CHAIRMAN
SEN. JACK BRANDENBURG
SEN. TORY ROCCA
SEN. COLEMAN YOUNG II, MINORITY VICE CHAIR

The Senate
Committee on Local Government
SENATOR DALE ZORN 

CHAIRMAN

     710 FARNUM
P.O. BOX 30036
LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7536
PHONE: (517) 373-3543
FAX: (517) 373-0927

NOTICE OF SCHEDULED MEETING

COMMITTEE:            Local Government

DATE:                           Tuesday, February 23, 2016

TIME:                           12:30 p.m.

PLACE:                        Room 100, Farnum Building
                                       125 W. Allegan Street
                                       Lansing, MI   48933

PHONE:                       Jackie Mosher (373-5312)
                                       Committee Clerk

AGENDA

SB 610     Sen. O'Brien           Housing; condominium; provision related to construction process of certain condominium projects; modify.

For Testimony Only:
SB 630     Sen. Shirkey           Civil procedure; remedies; judgments against municipalities; limit ability to collect by levying a tax or issuing bonds.

SB 631     Sen. Shirkey           Property tax; payment and collection; payment of collected taxes by local tax collecting unit; provide for payment of judgment against local unit of government.

And any other business properly before the committee.

 




In the spirit of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), individuals with a disability should feel free to contact the Office of the Secretary of the Senate by phone [(517) 373-2400] if requesting special services to effectively participate in the meeting.





If you can attend that would be great. But, if you can’t please consider calling the committee clerk at Committee Clerk | 517-373-5323  . I am also happy to announce that we have AFP Michigan support.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016


In the summer of 2015 Wayne County placed a judgment of $39 million on our summer taxes.  Inkster placed several million dollars worth of taxes on Inkster taxes.  This kind of thing goes on all over the state.  Their authority they say comes from PA 236 which allows them to place judgment directly on our tax bills without a vote of the people.
We believe that this is a violation of the Headlee Amendment which is part of Article IX of the State Constitution which was passed by the voters in 1978.  It requires that increases in taxes require a vote of the people.  We requested the help of the legislature to change PA 236.  As a result we received a response from Senator David Knezek (D) who informed us that he has requested the legal council and legislative analysts to design a bill that will prohibit the placing of these judgments on our tax bills. We never heard from him again in spite of our attempts to contact him.
The Senate bills SB630 and SB 631 introduced by Senator Shirkey now resides in the Senate local government committee and  HB 5150 introduced by Rep. Poleski and 5159 introduced by Reps. Yonker, Price and Garcia has been introduced in the House and are now in the House local government    committee.  These bills will bring judgments in line with the State Constitution.


Please contact them and request that these bills be moved for a vote. Ask your friends to do the same. When they are moved to the floor contact your elected officials to vote in favor of their passage.

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

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.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

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



Tuesday, June 25, 2013

IMPORTANT INFORMATION for all Allen Park Voter/Taxpayers!




 By Tim O’Brien

The Allen Park Emergency Manager
recently released a video of FAQ’s to
answer some “Frequently Asked
Questions” about the 6¾ mill tax increase
she has placed on the August 6th ballot.
State law does not permit public officials
to use tax money to advocate a tax
increase so the questions and answers
were carefully selected.
But before you vote on August 6th you should also consider the Frequently Avoided Questions
Q. How much will this millage cost the average Allen
Park homeowner?
A. As our Emergency Manager says: 74¢ a day. But
thinking of it as “less than the cost of a cup of coffee
or a soft drink” is, ironically, exactly what financial
planners warn people against doing! This tax increase
will cost the average homeowner $270 per year —
$2700 over the ten years it will last. Or to put it in the
most familiar context, an additional $22.50 a month
into mortgage escrow for the next decade. Assuming,
of course, a house with an SEV of $40,000.
 
Q. Will this millage go exclusively to providing police and
fire services?
A. That is a meaningless distinction. The city has only
two checkbooks -- one for water and sewerage and
the other for everything else. The basis of the claim is
that since 6¾ mills will generate almost $5 million in
annual revenue while expenditures for public safety
are more than twice that amount, it can be said that
the money raised is being spent there. That, of
course, frees up $5 million that went for police and
fire services last year to be spent on other things. It's
the same shell game that was played on voters years
ago when they approved a state lottery on the promise
that the revenue generated would go to education.
Money is what economists call a "fungible
commodity.” Just as one glass of punch is like every
other one dipped from the same punchbowl, one
dollar is just like every other one taken from the same
general fund. There is no way to ‘earmark’ it.

Q. Have residential property taxes really decreased 28%
in the last five years?
A. That's difficult to answer without knowing how the
calculations were made. But what does it matter to
individual homeowners in any case? The important
question is: Has your property tax bill decreased 28%
in the last five years?

Q. Are home values predicted to continue to decline?
A. Not unless recent trends suddenly reverse and values
start down again. The Zillow real estate website
shows current Year-over-Year selling prices for
homes in Allen Park at +12.4%. The Trulia website
puts the Y-o-Y number at +17.7%

Q. If this millage passes, will no additional tax increase
requests be made? Also, if fiscal stability is restored,
might this increase even be rolled back?
A. Both are speculations, not commitments. There is
nothing in the proposal that even hints at either one.

Q. If this millage proposal fails, what changes in city
services can residents expect as a result of the fallback
"Plan B"?
A. That's impossible to say. However, whether or not the
dire predictions are a 'scare tactic’ as some have said,
consider the warnings from public officials before the
last proposed millage increase — that if it did not
pass, the city's recreation center would close. The
millage failed. Stop by the rec center and interrupt all
the activities there to ask if it’s closed.

Q. Isn't that because operation of the rec center was
given over to a private company?
A. Indeed. And that certainly suggests what will actually
happen if this millage fails. At the top of the list of
services ripe for turning over to a private provider is
EMS. In this era of fireproof everything and smoke
detectors in every building the function of the fire
department has become primarily providing an
ambulance service. This doesn’t require a full-time
staff of 28 and such expensive equipment as, for
example, our 100-foot ladder truck. (In fact there is
the only one building in the entire city tall enough
where this specialized vehicle could ever even
possibly be needed -- which is probably why the only
action the truck has ever seen is in parades.)
 
Q. What has been done to reduce the $3 million per year
cost of providing health insurance for the city's 220
retirees?
A. Nothing yet. However, beginning in the new fiscal
year prescription co-pays will be increased to $10 for
generic drugs, $20 for preferred brand name drugs
and $30 for all others — from long-standing co-pays
of $1, $2 and $5 respectively. In addition both
current and reired employees will begin paying 20%
of the premium for their health insurance plans (that,
incidentally, will provide coverage that — like the copays
— will be closer to what most taxpayers have.)

Q. Have current employees been switched over from
"Defined Benefit" pensions to 401(k) type "Defined
Contribution" pensions?
A. No. And even though this — along with the goldplated
health insurance plans — is what bankrupted
two of the Big Three, it isn't clear how or when the
transition even can be made. Although government
employees — city and county, along with teachers —
are the only workers who still have this open-ended
benefit, ever increasing life-spans have made the cost
of funding it so enormous that the system cannot
afford to allow current employees to rto redirect
retirement savings into their own 401(k) accounts.
The contributions they make under the current
system are essential to continue paying benefits to
retirees.

Q. Hasn’t anything been cut from this year’s budget?
A. Yes. Pay for the mayor and council was cut by 50%
for an annualized savings of $24,000 and curbside
pick-up was transferred from DPS to trash contractor
Republic Services for an additional $200,000 per year.
A.

Q. Do appointed city employees really get 90 days of
annual sick leave?
A. Yes. Though that three months of sick time per year
will be changed to 12 days per year beginning with
the next fiscal year.
 
Q. Has the pension "spiking" been stopped?
A. No. Though this is something else that is scheduled
to be eliminated next fiscal year. In the meantime,
however, at least three — and perhaps more — city
employees will be using the (borderline fraudulent)
tactic of banking all of their vacation, comp time and
unused sick days to and converting them into cash to
enhance their last year's salary. The 2.9 pension
multiplier is then applied to this artificially inflated
pay scale to calculate their retirement benefit — a
“spiked” amount they will then draw for the rest of
their lives.

Q. 2.9 multiplier? Isn't that higher than average?
A. Higher than average? It is the highest in the entire
state! It is double the typical 1.25 to 1.5 range.
Adjusting it down to 2.25 is another change to begin
next year. Strangely, this is still 50% higher than the
1.5 pension multiplier that is part of Governor
Snyder’s “Best Practices” program for local
governments. Perhaps we can get our EM to confer
on this with the person who appointed her.


 The Bottom Line
Our experience with an Emergency Manager makes you wonder why people were so worried about giving an unelected official so much power. The Allen Park E.M. has done almost nothing to address our structural deficit. No property sold. No bonds renegotiated. No consolidation of services with other cities. No staff reductions. Not one provision of one labor contract has been revised. The only
substantial steps she has taken is to borrow another $2 million, and then put a proposal on the ballot to raise taxes by $5 million a year for the next decade.
They will only raise our taxes as a first resort!I
 
I need both the funding and some volunteer help to do the lit drop the week before the election.

Any help you can offer -- or point me to -- with either or both will be greatly appreciated.


 313-359-7820

 Small Government Committee _ PO Box 118 _ Allen Park, Michigan _ 48101They