03/29/2024
Why $15.1 million school tax
increase should be voted down
by L. Scott Swanson
Inland Lakes school district voters will have a $15.1 million school tax increase proposal before them in a special election on Tuesday, May 7. I’ll be voting “No” on the proposal for the following reasons:
*Tax increase proposals should not be on special election ballots in May. They should be on general election ballots in November. If the objective of an election is to determine the will of the majority of voters, then proposals should go before voters in the elections that typically have the largest voter participation. That’s in November, not May. It’s not appropriate to put tax proposals on May ballots in the hope that a core group of supporters will be enough to get the proposal passed in an election with a small overall turnout.
It should also be noted that since putting the $15.1 million proposal before voters in May requires a special election, the school will have to pay election costs they would not have to pay if the proposal was on a November general election ballot. If fiscal responsibility is a priority, then unnecessary election costs shouldn’t be incurred by having special elections.
*Although proponents are trying to pass it off as something that’s not an increase, in reality the May 7 election proposal is indeed a $15.1 million property tax increase. In promotional flyers, proponents note that it “will not increase our current debt levy.” The implication is that therefore the proposal isn’t a tax increase. That is simply not the case. The “current debt millage levy” is from a 10-year, $8.17 million school tax proposal approved in 2014 by 33 votes, 759 yes to 726 no. Doing the math, 2014 was ten years ago and the debt levy from that proposal is due to expire - terminate - come to an end - go away - be no more. In determining whether or not the May 7 proposal is or isn’t an increase, voters need to ask themselves two questions. How much will I pay if the proposal doesn’t pass? How much will I pay if it passes? If the answer to the second question is a bigger number than the answer to the first, then you’re looking at a tax increase. As an analogy, say you were making monthly payments on a loan for a car, house or other large item and as you approached the payoff date, the loan officer called you in and said, “Even though you’re about to have this loan paid off, we want you to keep on making monthly payments. But don’t worry, the payments will be the same amount as they are now, so it’s really not costing you any more.” Would you be good with that?
*The amount requested is too much, for too long and being pushed with sales pitches that are at best vague and at worst misleading and manipulative.
In May of 2022, Inland Lakes school district voters said “No” by more than 200 votes, 731 no votes to 511 yes votes, to a school request for $29.5 million for 30 years. Following that rejection, those who had backed the proposal recited the usual cliches. We didn’t get our message out. Voters just didn’t understand our needs.
To no one’s surprise, after the failure of the 2022 proposal, the school board is back with another proposal in 2024. That’s how government taxing bodies operate. They just keep asking, working under the premise that no matter how often voters say “No,” they only need to say “Yes” once. Aside from tax increase proposals, can you name another sport where 1-4 is a winning record?
Unfortunately, the 2024 proposal is no better than the 2022 proposal. Where the 2022 proposal asked for slightly less than $1 million a year, the 2024 proposal asks for slightly more than $1 million a year. Granted, it’s a 15-year, rather than a 30-year proposal, but having seen what’s happening at the end of the current 10-year proposal, does anyone think that if this proposal passes, 15 years from now the school won’t be back telling voters how the next multi-million dollar proposal won’t be increasing a debt levy? While shorter terms are better in that they give voters more control and the school more flexibility to respond to changes down the road, given the propensity to not let any debt levy expire unreplaced, you have to wonder if putting any number of years on a proposal is just giving you an idea of the first installment time on something a taxing body intends to have become permanent.
Proposal A, a statewide school funding proposal passed in 1994, raised the state sales tax from 4 cents to 6 cents per dollar, created a two-tiered property tax system where people pay 6 mills on their primary residence while people with second homes, business buildings or property other than their homes pay the 6 mills plus another 18 mills. (I’m still not sure how the state got by legally, let alone morally with that wrinkle.) The benefits of Proposal A were supposed to be more equitable funding between schools, control over property tax assessment increases, and an end to frequent school tax increase requests. Yet, here we are.
*Proposed needs and improvements cited on behalf of the May 7 election issue are for the most part typical flags schools run up the pole for tax increases: roofs, furnaces, buses, furniture, technology. These days they also add security and camera systems to the list. Most of these things should be routine maintenance and anticipated recurring expenses. Others should have already have been taken care of with the $8.17 million approved in 2014.
Fresh twists added to the sales pitch this time around are “Safe, Warm, Dry and Trades.” The safe, warm and dry slogan is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate people’s emotions. The school already has various safety measures in place including, but not limited to a school resource (police) officer and security cameras. If students aren’t currently safe, warm and dry, it would indicate a need to take a long, hard look at where board priorities have been up until now. Safe, warm and dry is just a catch phrase being used to tug on taxpayers’ heart strings - and wallets. The “Trades” part refers to a couple of vocational education classes Inland Lakes has added in recent years. The classes are fine and it’s good that the school has them, but students were making things in shop class in the ‘50s and taking auto mechanics and building trades back in the ‘70s. Vocational education is not some amazing new discovery that has thrust Inland Lakes to the leading edge of the educational world and therefore taxpayers need to dig deep and fund at all costs.
*Before the school asks for another $15.1 million, it would be nice to know specifically what it will be spent on and also know exactly what the last $8.17 million was spent on. What I feel happened with the $8.17 million and what I suspect would happen with another $15.1 million is that once the money is in hand the school board’s facility committee, not the entire board, will get together and figure out how they’re going to spend it. The project list the proposal was sold under ends up being little more than a starting point and spending goes off in various directions from there. Before the school asks for another $15.1 million they should provide taxpayers a list of specific projects and the cost of each of the projects funded by the $8.17 million, basically an itemized receipt similar to what you’re handed when you go through the checkout line at a store. Before asking for additional money, be that $15.1 million or some lesser figure, the school should also provide a specific, not a vague, list of projects and estimated cost of projects to be funded by the additional money, and plan on sticking to that list.
*Promotional material for the school tax proposal talks about “allowed expenses” and things the $15.1 million “cannot be used for.” However, the reality is that if the school uses additional money for “allowed expenses,” that frees up other money for other things. The money’s all coming out of taxpayers’ pockets.
However, along those lines, before taxpayers give the school an additional $1 million per year to spend, it would be helpful to know how the school plans to spend the other approximately $8 million in the school’s annual budget. Labor is one of the main components of the school budget and consequently a large portion of the budget is determined by labor contracts. In the past, the teachers union contract has typically been a three-year contract. This year it’s a one-year contract. Taxpayers are being to ask to make a major investment, $15.1 million for 15 years, while only having information about a major cost related to that investment for one year. It’s kind of like buying a house. You like to know going in what the tax and utility bills are going to be. It would be nice to have the normal three-year expense window.
(Note: The issue raised here isn’t teacher compensation or work requirements. That’s a different debate. The issue here is simply taxpayers having information regarding a major expense available to them when considering a major investment. If you’re ambitious and want to know more about the one-year teacher contract, you can find that on the school web site www.inlandlakes.org. Once you’re there, go under the Our Dwww.inlandlakes.org down to School Board, but don’t click on the words “School Board,” click on the little arrow (chevron) next to those words. That will take you to two other lists. One of those lists contains the words “Transparency Reporting.” Click there and you can find a copy of the teachers’ contract and various www.inlandlakes.org you want a shorter version, go to the www.inlandlakes.org web site and click on the logo of the State of Michigan in the top right corner where it says, Transparency Reporting - Budget & Salary/Compensation. Thwww.mackinac.orga list with several items. Click on the one that says Employee Compensation Information and you’ll be able to fine a one-page Teacher Salary Schedule. It will tell you that in addition to a 1.4 percent salary increase, this year’s contract also includes “two full steps” on the salary schedule. If you’re really ambitious, you can to the Mackinac Center web site www.mackinac.org and go under Data Bases and look up school contracts and other information for Inland Lakes and other schools back to 2005.)
Voters should make it a point to vote on Tuesday, May 7 and reject the Inland Lakes Schools' $15.1 million tax increase. In the future, voters may or may not be willing to consider an alternative proposal. If indeed another proposal is put forward by the school, these are the criteria I would suggest:
*Have it on the ballot at a November election.
*A proposal for significantly less per year. Given the Inland Lakes school district’s current tax base, 1 mill would be about $500,000 per year.
*A proposal for no more than 10 years. Things change and a shorter time frame would help both in terms of flexibility and accountability. (The assessment re-set aspect of Proposal A is a key problem with the current housing market. Don’t be surprised if in the next year you start hearing rumblings from the State Legislature regarding changes.)
*Prior to the election provide an itemized receipt (specific list of projects and expenses) for the previous $8.17 million in expenditures and also a specific and firm list of projects and estimated project costs for any additional funding.
*Have a three-year contracts in place for staff members.
*Don’t try to imply that a tax increase is anything other than an increase and don’t assume that any increase will be extended beyond the designated time and for all practical purposes become permanent.
