I can’t help but wonder why a group based in Waterford is so interested in the Clarkston election.
They have been trying to confuse voters for quite some time by suggesting that a “yes” vote by Mayor Percival at city council on a zoning issue was somehow related to a demolition request handled by the Historic District Commission (HDC). The only thing that these two matters have in common is that the same property is involved (42 W. Washington). The HDC is entirely separate from the city council, and I would note that NONE of the allegedly concerned neighbors showed up when the HDC was considering the 42 W. Washington demolition issue. No one bothered to write a letter either. Perhaps the only people concerned about this issue live in Waterford.
But my topic now is Clarkston taxes. The Waterford group seems be very concerned about them.
Clarkston is almost at the maximum tax rate allowable under the city charter. A vote to increase the tax rate to the maximum allowed by the State of Michigan was defeated several years ago. That vote was requested to save the city’s police department. The vote failed, and the police department was disbanded.
I said that Clarkston is “almost” at the maximum tax rate allowed under the charter. This goes back to an issue in on the ballot in 2012, which failed, but was brought up again in 2014 and passed. I mention 2012 because I’m going to post some documents that show that the city’s position on the millage issue has some history.
In August 2014, we were asked to vote for a district library. At the time, Independence Township residents were paying a .691 mill levy on their property to fund the library. Clarkston residents were funding the library in the same amount under an agreement with Independence Township, but the .691 mill equivalent was paid out of the city’s general fund. (Clarkston taxpayers fill the general fund with tax dollars from a general city millage.)
If the vote passed, then the library would receive its funding from a separate library millage. To keep them from being double taxed, Independence Township residents would no longer be charged a separate .691 millage tax for the library paid to Independence Township, because they would be paying for the library millage to the library district. Seems fair enough.
If the vote passed, Clarkston taxpayers would be handled slightly differently, but reach the same result. Since Clarkston residents would be paying to fund the library in a separate library tax, the city council passed a resolution that would reduce the Clarkston general fund millage by .691 mills (it was less in the beginning because there was a partial fiscal year). This was so that the city would not get a .691 mill general fund windfall to use elsewhere that it otherwise would have sent to support the library.
The vote to establish the library district passed, and the plan was implemented. I relied on the city’s promise to not raise the overall amount that I paid for taxes when I voted for the library district. I’m sure other Clarkston voters did as well.
A .691 mill rate amounts to $69.10 per year for each $100,000 of your home’s taxable value (which is at most 50% of the home’s market value, sometimes less if you’ve owned you home for a long time). At various times since then, some members of the city council have suggested that the .691 mill reduction from the general fund was just temporary – even though the taxes that we are paying to support the library district are not.
I’m including copies of the 2012 resolution and minutes below, as well as the 2014 resolution and minutes.
2012 resolution: 20120529 – Library millage resolution
2012 minutes: 20120529 – City council meeting minutes, library millage
2014 resolution: 20140414 – Resolution, library millage
2014 minutes: 20140414 – Minutes, library millage
Right now, Clarkston taxpayers are getting the benefit of the .691 mill general fund reduction. You might think that this issue is settled.
I can assure you it is not.
There is nothing to stop the city council from revisiting the issue and reneging on the promise that was made to induce Clarkston taxpayers to vote for the library district.
In fact, they did revisit the issue in June of 2016. I’ve attached the resolution. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS RESOLUTION FAILED, as it should have. However, there is nothing to stop the city council from revisiting this issue again, and there are council members who believe that it should be revisited. A promise made, but not kept.
Councilmember Scott Reynolds wrote an article about the issue in the Clarkston News in 2018, linked here, because it was still being discussed:
http://clarkstonnews.com/guest-viewpoint-library-funding-honors-agreement-voters/
So, when you hear that some council members want to increase your taxes, this is what it’s all about. There is no other way to do it, because the city is only .691 mills short of the maximum amount that it can tax you under the charter.
Perhaps the Waterford group has secured a commitment from the candidates they support not to do this. If so, perhaps those candidates could post their commitment, in writing, on the two Facebook groups associated with Clarkston (Positively Clarkston and the Village of Clarkston).
Otherwise, maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to discount what Mayor Percival may have said about certain council members wanting to raise your taxes. And then you might also remember that Mayor Percival spearheaded the effort to get paid parking in the city so that extra funds could be generated to address sidewalk and street repair issues without breaking the city council’s promise to you about the .691 library district millage.