At 3:45PM on January 20, 2015, Clerk Osborn finally replied to the question; will the proposed lighting district be an ad valorem or fixed assessment cost?
The street light assessment was never an ad valorem but a fixed assessment since 1949.
Rachel Osborn
Mullett Township Clerk
Does Clerk Osborn think the existing "light" district assessed at .4
mills, by definition an ad valorem tax based on property value, is a
fixed assessment? I cannot believe that Clerk Osborn is that stupid. The
Resolution approving a hearing on the new district did not mention
actual cost. The hearing notice mailed out said: "The estimated
assessment for the first year will
be approximately $15.00 per parcel". The definition of "approximately" is "something is almost, but not completely, accurate or exact; roughly". Read the documents.
People
can only surmise that both Supervisor Gale and Clerk Osborn colluded to
openly enlarge the district with the intention to surreptitiously change the method of funding the district. There is no ambiguity in the statement within Mr MacArthur's letter and Clerk Osborn's Notice of Public Hearing. Both state that the assessment for the first year will be approximately $15 and the Board will review and set the amount each year. That cannot be confused with the .4 mill currently paid.
My
current "lighting" assessments in Mullett Township at .4 mills, an
ad valorem charge based on value, range from .20 cents to $4.08 per
parcel. None of those amounts are "approximately
$15.00". To compare with another jurisdiction, my Tuscarora tax bill has
a .16680 millage for township lights. That's "approximately" 40% of the
cost I pay for streetlights in Mullett Township.
January 20, 2015-Are you still sitting there patiently waiting for the Mullett Board to answer a simple question? No answer from anyone. Supervisor Gale is quiet. Clerk Osborn is quiet. Treasurer Flory is silent. Trustee Dombroski says nothing. Trustee Brown has no answer. SIX days and counting.
The sounds of silence.
The following email was sent to the full Mullett Board on January 15, 2015 asking for some clarification on the proposed Lighting District. I asked a question because it appears I and other Mullett Taxpayers may see a tax increase on "Lighting" on the next winter tax bill. Not 5% or 10%, but what appears to be an 18 fold increase.
What might cause this huge increase? A reduction of 90% in "Lighting" cost for Supervisor MaryAnne Gale and her cronies like Tom O'Hare. Read the email and then pull up a chair and wait here to see if any of the elected Mullett Township Board wants to answer a few simple questions from a taxpayer. One of the taxpayers who pays their salaries. One of the taxpayers they supposedly serve.
A monarchy not answerable to the people. A dictator is not answerable to the people. A tyrant is not answerable to the people. A despot is not answerable to the people.
Do those labels describe Supervisor Mary Anne Gale or is she a servant of the public? Yeh, right.
Mullett Township Board,
I
am in receipt of a letter dated December 5, 2014 from the MacArthur Law
Firm and an enclosure postmarked January 8, 2015. I am not sure what
out of date address list you are using, but mine was sent to a Topinabee
PO box that has been closed for more than a year. I know the
treasurer's have an up-to-date mailing address.
The
un-numbered Resolution citing Public Act 246 of 1931 passed by the
Mullett Board on January 6, 2015 states, to paraphrase, the hearing is
to correct and make new boundaries to the existing lighting district and
sets a hearing date to determine costs. It does not contain any
language proposing changing an ad valorem assessment to a fixed
assessment cost. Mr MacArthur's December 5, 2014 letter and your
enclosure giving notification of the hearing make a similar statement
with the addition of "The estimated assessment for the first year will
be approximately $15.00 per parcel".
I am seeking some
clarification. This is not a FOIA request; it is simply a taxpayer
inquiry of a proposed change impacting Mullett Township property taxes
and hopefully avoiding this "Special Assessment" District from becoming
another fiasco like the Indian River sewer project.
All
of this process seems to be preordained. Other than the occasional
comment that Ms Osborn was working on a Lighting District, nothing was
publicly discussed or noted. The estimated $15 per parcel cost has
apparently been determined outside of the Board's public decision
process, without any public Board discussion, and a month or more prior
to the Resolution being approved defining a Lighting District.
More
alarming is the what appears to be the hidden agenda to change from an
ad valorem assessment to a fixed monetary assessment.
Is
this correct? Are you proposing changing from an ad valorem to a fixed
assessment while hiding that change behind what Clerk Osborn publicly
stated was just paperwork?
My
current holdings in Mullett Township are 8 vacant development parcels.
There are two parcels with assessed improvements. My current winter tax
bills from Mullett Township show an ad valorem assessment for "lighting"
of .4 mils. This assessed amount varies based on taxable value. The
"lighting" assessments per parcel range from .20 cents to $4.08.
Although I derive absolutely no benefit from any streetlights I do not
have a problem with these modest charges totaling $6.42 that does
provide some benefit to the community.
Your
estimated "approximately $15.00 per parcel" fixed assessment would
increase my contribution to a service that does not provide any benefit
to me and does not increase my property value in anyway from that modest
$6.42 to 8 parcels x $15, or $120.
I
of course understand ad valorem taxes can also seem unfair. This change
from ad valorem to a fixed assessment would, assuming my interpretation
and valuation numbers are correct, reduce Supervisor Gale's "lighting"
cost from $185.84 to $15.00. It would also reduce her crony, Tom
O'Hare's "lighting" cost from $218.92 to $15.00 and on and on for all of
those people living on the lake. The present proposal seems tailored
to benefit only the rich. If the ad valorem taxes are too high for those
lakeshore property owners
they always do have the option to sell their property and buy something
within their budget.
Meanwhile,
average homeowners, anyone with a taxable value just under $38,000 and
lower, will pick up the slack and see an increase in their "lighting"
cost. Some may see only a 40 or 50% increase. Others, if like me me they
own multiple parcels, may see an 18 fold increase or even more. While
Supervisor Gale and her cronies would enjoy a 90% reduction in cost,
Supervisor Gale's subjects have to pick up that deferred cost.
I
am sure their are many viable options. The most obvious, leave it
alone. Other options, if there really is any desire on part of the
public to enlarge the district is to recognize that streetlights have a
benefit to all Mullett residents and there is nothing wrong with
subsidizing some of the cost, a fixed percentage, from the general
revenue fund. A fixed assessment might be perceived as more fair if it
was somehow capped at a percentage of total taxes paid and likewise, an
ad valorem tax for lighting might be perceived as more fair if it was
somehow capped using some agreed upon criteria.
Most
northern Michigan residents enjoy a dark sky and Ms Osborn's ambitions
to light the length of M-27 because she does not like driving after dark
is a silly, self serving endeavor for an elected official. No taxpayers
have petitioned to enlarge or change this lighting district. It is
entirely Clerk Osborn's initiative. I ask the Mullett Board to remember
that our ad valorem property tax system does have some basis in the fact
that wealthier property owners intrinsically cost more to keep happy.
They are the ones demanding fancy parks, streetscapes. facades, and
other tax funded amenities that the average person does not need or ask
for. Trustee Brown reinforced this "we don't need it" with his answer to
Clerk Osborn's question asking if east Mullett residents want
streetlights? No.
Thank you and we all await your response,
