Tag: Bonds

Special elections are happening all over Michigan in order to pass higher taxes, continue others and begin new programs.  One increase is for a Headlee override in Grand Traverse County.  The local college which has no financial crisis, has 10 years of surplus if nothing is done, and says that "the law prevents us from telling you what we want to do with the money" is putting its hand out on this special day:

"SURPRISE!!  NMC is NOT broke.

In fact, the college has a 38% fund balance remaining. the annual budget is $42.6 million and it has a $16.1 million general fund balance.  The projected deficit for 2014 is just over $400,000, which if carried through for 40 years MIGHT run the balance out.  Even if the projected annual deficit of $1.8 million happens on schedule, it is 10 years of shortages that the college can endure before its ABSOLUTE cutting time.  And that is under the assumption that property values are remaining flat.

It helps them avoid the fire sale on Millages in November, where two school bonds, and a road millage (another stick in the craw) as well as TWP measures will be on the ballot.  In fact so many things are on the ballot, Its a wonder anyone can avoid a tax sale at least ONCE in their life.  Because of people who SHOULD NOT be voting.

It seems the state has been overlooking a fundamental restriction already in place when certifying election results for 5+ year millages and Bond requests.  Has there been a validation for electors established to determine if the right to vote on certain issues?

Typically, those who show up for an election for a millage are unchallenged as to their ability to vote on such issues.  There are no instructions that stipulate the law, as established by the constitution REQUIRES a real stake in such issues printed on the election forms (ballots), and there are no alternate means to prevent abrogation of constitutional statute.  The Michigan Constitution is very clear:

ARTICLE II
Elections

§ 6 Voters on tax limit increases or bond issues.

Sec. 6. Whenever any question is required to be submitted by a political subdivision to the electors for the increase of the ad valorem tax rate limitation imposed by Section 6 of Article IXfor a period of more than five years, or for the issue of bonds,  only electors in, and who have property assessed for any ad valorem taxes in, any part of the district or territory to be affected by the result of such election or electors who are the lawful husbands or wives of such persons shall be entitled to vote thereon. All electors in the district or territory affected may vote on all other questions.

History: Const. 1963, Art. II, §6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.
Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. III, §4.

A question we should be asking might be: "Is a passed millage request subject to legal challenge based on the inability to verify the legal status of the electors voting on such issues?" In other words, if you don't own property you cannot vote on a bond issue, so is your ballot restricted, or not?

The school superintendent wants all you Midland conservatives to make sure you get out and VOTE!

"two ballot proposals for your consideration if you are residents of the Midland Public Schools district. One, is a Sinking Fund proposal requesting 2.0 mills (millage) to be used for facility upgrades, renovations, construction and improvements. The second, a proposal for a .9 mills (millage) for the sale of Bonds totaling $20,880,000 to purchase equipment, security technology, infrastructure, etc., to support the district's technology plan"

OK get the midget imagery out of your head Tutu.

Grab an adult stylized beverage, fire up the wi-fidelity, and spend the weekend acquainting yourself with some of the issues surrounding such requests, and go to the polls a happy informed citizen on Tuesday.

It's almost as if schools follow a script when trying to get a tax increase passed.

First, they try to persuade people there's some kind of crisis, an urgent crisis.

Next the board puts a tax proposal on the ballot.

Any board members expressing reservations are told that putting the proposal on the ballot is just "letting the people decide."

Supporters push the millage using standard arguments. It's for the kids. Or they minimize the increase. Rather than calling it a $2 million tax, they equate it to cups of coffee, cans of pop, doughnuts whatever - a pittance. If they can find any possible way to characterize the tax proposal as a "renewal" or an "extension," anything, but an "increase" they do that.

Then there's a spring election with nothing but school issues on the ballot. This normally means a small voter turnout. With a small turnout, a few hundred people can pass a tax increase that thousands will pay.

Before voting on May 4, Inland Lakes voters should analyze that process and think about whether they really want things to play out that way.