Michigan voters are being asked to approve $2 billion in tax increases when they go to the polls May 5, so an additional $1.2 billion can be spent on fixing the state’s crumbling roads.
But how much of that money is actually going to be used to improve and maintain the local asphalt and gravel roads that Oxford and Addison residents drive on every single day?
That depends on where you live and which entity would receive the money.
Oxford Village
According to the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), the addition of approximately $1.2 billion in revenue to the state’s transportation fund would result in more money being distributed to cities and villages.
For example, Oxford Village would see its road funding from the state progressively increase by an estimated $49,560 annually for the next three years if Proposal 1 passes.
The village currently receives $225,235 from the transportation fund and of this, approximately $165,000 is dedicated to major streets and about $60,000 to local streets, according to Manager Joe Young.
Young said right now, this money covers ‘maintenance only? such as plowing, salting, sweeping and making some repairs ‘as necessary.?
?(In) the local street (fund), there’s hardly any (money) left for any kind of improvements,? he said. (In) the major street (fund), we have some (leftover), but both have very low fund balances.?
Revenue from the proposed tax hikes would increase the village’s annual cut of the state transportation fund to an estimated $373,908 by 2018, according to figures from MDOT.
Young said receiving an additional $148,673 would make a ‘significant difference? to the municipality.
‘We’ll have some money to fix the many roads that need reconstruction and repair,? he said. ‘We have quite a list of roads that need attention. (Having) a $150,000 (more) a year, that’s a big help because some of those projects are less than $100,000 (to complete).?
Included on the village’s to-do list, which was created in 2009, are many residential streets in need of repaving.
Some examples are Pleasant St. between First and W. Burdick streets ($25,095); Park St. from Mechanic St. to where it dead-ends past Jersey St. ($71,700); Hudson St. between W. Burdick and Dennison streets ($25,095); Dennison St. between Pontiac and S. Washington streets ($43,020); and Davison St. between N. Washington and Pleasant streets ($21,510).
It should be noted these project cost estimates are now six years old.
Village of Leonard
The Village of Leonard would see its annual transportation funding from the state increase from the current $41,295 to an estimated $68,553 by 2018 for local and major streets.
‘I hate to sound greedy, but it’s not enough money,? said Leonard President Mike McDonald. ‘It’s not enough to make a significant difference.?
‘I can’t do a mile of road for (less than) $750,000 to $1 million,? he continued. ‘Giving us ($27,000) more is not the answer. We’re still going to have to find money somewhere else.?
McDonald said the major street money Leonard receives ‘covers snow plowing,? but ‘you can’t save any money to do road construction when you’re getting that much.?
He noted how the cost of road construction has ‘just exploded.? He cited a Michigan Municipal League article that stated road construction costs increased 60 percent between 2002 and 2012.
‘It’s just miserable,? McDonald said.
Even if Proposal 1 passes, McDonald said, ‘I doubt very much the state’s going to prioritize local road funding.?
‘They’re going to fix the major roads and the rest of us we’ll be standing there with our hands out, hoping they throw us a bone,? he said.
Leonard isn’t waiting for the state to solve it’s road funding issues.
Last month, the village council voted to increase the municipality’s property tax rate from 6 mills to 7 mills beginning this year in order to help pay for improvements to Elmwood St. in 2017.
Road Commission for Oakland County
Unlike villages and cities, townships do not own their roads and are not responsible for their maintenance. Township roads are the property of county road commissions, which would receive additional revenue if voters approve the ballot proposal.
MDOT figures indicate the Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) currently receives $62.4 million from the transportation fund.
The additional tax revenue from Proposal 1 is expected to increase that amount to an estimated $104.7 million by 2018.
‘This (money) will really be spread pretty evenly across the county,? said RCOC Spokesman Craig Bryson. ‘We have 10 categories (in which) we’re going to put the increased money.?
Those categories include simple resurfacing projects, heavy resurfacing projects, slab replacements on concrete roads, pavement preventative maintenance, bridge/culvert repair or replacement, safety improvements, intersection safety improvements and roundabouts, gravel roads, the Tri-Party Program and providing matching funds to receive federal grants for road projects.
There would also be some ‘miscellaneous? spending, according to Bryson.
‘We need to replace some equipment with equipment that’s not ancient; that runs when we need it to run,? he explained. ‘If we’re doing a bunch of additional work, we’ll probably need some additional staff. So, we would selectively add some new staff members.?
Given the road commission maintains more than 2,700 miles of county roads and more than 230 miles of state highway, how do Oxford and Addison residents know the additional tax revenue will benefit their roads?
Historically, many residents and government officials in the rural northern part of the county have repeatedly expressed their belief that the urban southern portion receives most of the road commission’s money and attention.
‘That’s funny because we just had a meeting with Oak Park, Royal Oak and one of the other cities in the southeast corner (of the county), and they said, ‘You know the problem with Oakland County is you spend all the money in the rural townships,?? Bryson said.
‘We literally hear that all the time,? he continued. ‘That’s always been the case. The more urbanized part of the county has always felt we spend all our money in the townships. The townships have always felt we spend all our money in the cities and villages.?
Bryson said the truth is the road commission spends ‘a lot more per capita in the townships because we (own) all the roads in the townships whereas in the more urbanized cities and villages we (own) relatively few roads.?
For example, in Oxford Township, Bryson said, ‘Other than M-24, we (own) every road.?
Residents living in the townships would see money invested in their roads if Proposal 1 passes, according to Bryson.
The road commission is planning to spend $1 million annually from 2016-18 adding gravel to unpaved roads, the majority of which are located in townships.
‘That buys a lot of gravel,? Bryson said. ‘A million dollars worth of gravel would allow us to re-gravel somewhere between 45 and 50 miles of road.?
Due to financial constraints, it’s been a while since the road commission has done this.
‘We have not put our own money into gravel for years,? Bryson said.
Over the years, a number of Oxford Township’s unpaved roads have received fresh coats of gravel, but that’s because the township has used money from its own coffers or received donations from American Aggregates, part of the Levy Group of Companies.
‘Without some of the townships being willing to step up and buy some of the gravel, there would have been no re-graveling in recent years. So, thank God they’ve been willing to do that,? Bryson said.
The road commission is also planning to double the amount of money it contributes to the Tri-Party Program, increasing it from $1 million to $2 million annually.
Under the program, county-owned roads are selected for repairs or improvements by communities. Project funding is split three ways with the road commission, county and municipality each paying a third.
‘The townships are the biggest beneficiaries of the Tri-Party Program because they have the most county roads,? Bryson said.
Bryson noted the road commission’s proposed $1 million addition to the Tri-Party Program hinges on Oakland County agreeing to increase its annual contribution by the same amount.
‘Obviously, that’s up to them if they want to do that or not,? he said. ‘And if they opted not to, we probably would not double ours. (It) doesn’t make sense to do that. We would find another use for that money.?
Bryson noted the additional money the road commission is planning to invest in simple resurfacing projects would ‘benefit a lot of two-lane asphalt roads in townships.?
This program would receive $5 million in 2016, which would result in 15 miles of resurfacing. The following year, it would receive $8.5 million to pay for just over 25 miles of resurfacing. And in 2018, the road commission would allocate $11 million, resulting in 33 miles of work.
‘The plan would be to continue that into the future,? Bryson said.
Bryson noted the RCOC is ‘sensitive? to people’s concerns that their part of the county or their township doesn’t receive its fair share of road funding.
‘We make a very concerted effort to make sure that we spread the money around and that it is fairly and evenly distributed,? he said. ‘The townships benefit just as much as the cities.?
Revenue sharing
In addition to providing additional money for roads, passage of Proposal 1 would generate an additional $95 to $100 million in state revenue-sharing funds for local governments.
As such, Oxford Village would receive an additional $30,689, while Oxford Township would receive another $152,642. How this money is used is up to each local government.
‘It’s a general revenue, so it could be used for any services or improvements,? Young said.
Oxford Township Treasurer Joe Ferrari would like to see these additional revenue-sharing dollars ‘spread? around if Proposal 1 passes.
‘Give some to police, some to fire, some to the library, some to parks and rec., some to NOTA, so at least everybody benefits,? he said. ‘It’s a win-win for everybody then. It’s not just (the township’s) general fund getting (an additional) $150,000. Everybody gets a little piece of the pie.?
Opinions mixed on Proposal 1
As can be expected, there are a plethora of views on Proposal 1, both for and against.
‘If this doesn’t pass, the roads are going to continue to get worse,? Bryson said. ‘We don’t see any alternative funding options that we think are viable coming (down) the pike anytime soon. The options, as we see them, are the continued deterioration of the road system or (voters approve) Proposal 1 and we’re able to begin to bring the system back up to where it should be.?
McDonald is opposed to Proposal 1. He views it as ‘the failure of the legislature to really address? the road funding issue, so the decision was made to ‘push it onto the people.?
‘It ended up on the ballot because our legislature couldn’t make up its mind,? McDonald said. ‘It wasn’t going to sacrifice itself and its priorities for roads. That’s the bottom-line.?
‘I’m just real disappointed,? he continued. ‘I don’t think this proposal is the answer. It’s certainly not the answer for local roads.
‘It will obviously, if it passes, make a significant difference in getting bigger projects done for MDOT, but I don’t see it doing a whole lot for local governments because we don’t get that much money from (the state transportation fund) anyway . . . The formulas are just not geared toward really helping the smaller communities.?
MDOT and the county road commissions are ‘the big winners in this deal,? he noted.
When it comes right down to it, McDonald said the real issue is that the state Legislature ‘needs to do a better job? when it comes to budgeting and setting priorities.
‘When (they start) taking cuts themselves and cutting their programs, then I think people would take them more seriously,? he said. ‘They’re not serious about schools and they’re not serious about the roads, and they’ve proved it year after year.?
Ferrari expressed reluctant support for Proposal 1. ‘It’s so convoluted. There’s so many different things going on it,? he said. ‘Unfortunately, I think it’s the only option out there. I wish it was more clear to the voters, but right now, this is the only option that’s out there to fix the roads . . . The roads aren’t getting any better.
‘I don’t think anybody’s really 100 percent in favor of it,? he continued. ‘I’d have much rather had the legislature address it in their session, instead of putting it to us. That being said, it is what it is. I wish (the legislators) would have taken it upon themselves to take care of it (using) their budgeting methods. Instead, they pushed it over to us and I don’t see them tackling it.?
Oxford Township Supervisor Bill Dunn is opposed to Proposal 1.
‘I just don’t like it,? he said. ‘Once they get a tax, it never goes away.?
Dunn doesn’t believe the additional revenue is truly going to benefit Oxford’s roads.
‘The road commission wants to take care of the higher-populated areas, which are in the south end of the county,? he said. ‘The people out here in the north (end), we’re kind of the stepchild.?
Addison Supervisor Bruce Pearson believes ‘our roads need fixing? and ‘we need some kind of funding (mechanism) for it.?
That being said, he doesn’t believe Proposal 1 is the answer. ‘I’m not going to vote for it,? Pearson said.
Pearson said if the state came up with a tax proposal where all the money went for ‘roads and roads only,? he’d ‘say yes, 100 percent.?
‘It should be dedicated (exclusively) to the roads, so we solve, once and for all, the problem with our roads,? he said. ?(State legislators are) not solving this once and for all. They’re just spreading (money) all over.?
Besides roads, Proposal 1 provides more funding for schools, local governments, mass transit and low-to-moderate income tax relief.
‘Once again, (state legislators) diluted (things) and everybody else gets their hand into the pot,? Pearson said. ‘As far as I’m concerned, there’s no accountability (as to) where that money’s going. We’ll never know where it’s all going.?
Pearson wanted to make it clear his opposition to Proposal 1 in no way reflects his opinion of the road commission. ‘I am a huge supporter of the road commission, but not of this (proposal) because I don’t think they’re going to get enough out of it,? he said.

Proposal 1 in a nutshell
Michigan voters will go to the polls on May 5 to decide the fate of Proposal 1, which would provide additional funding for roads, schools, local governments, mass transit and tax relief for low-to-moderate income individuals.
This proposal would amend the state constitution to increase the sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent. The last time voters raised the state sales tax was in 1994 when it went from 4 percent to 6 percent.
If and only if Proposal 1 is approved, it would trigger eight legislative bills designed to implement an overall plan designed to take effect on Oct. 1, 2015. These bills would raise the taxes on motor fuel and increase vehicle registration fees.
Combined, all these increases are expected to generate $2 billion annually in additional revenue for the state.
Of this amount, $1.427 million would come from the sales tax hike, while $463 million would be derived from a new and higher fuel tax. If Proposal 1 passes, the state would no longer charge sales tax on fuel and the 19-cents-per-gallon excise tax on gasoline would be eliminated as would the 15-cents-per-gallon tax on diesel fuel.
They would be replaced with a 41.7-cents-per-gallon wholesale tax on gasoline and diesel fuel that would be adjusted annually. The minimum yearly increase would be the rate of inflation or 5 percent, whichever is less. The maximum yearly rate increase would be 5 cents per gallon.
Proposal 1’s passage would generate an additional $50 million in revenue from increased registration fees for commercial trucks weighing more than 26,000 pounds.
It would also result in additional revenue from increased vehicle registration fees, a combination of phasing out the annual 10 percent depreciation discounts and charging higher fees for electric vehicles. Initially, the revenue generated by this would be $10.9 million, but when fully implemented, it would increase to $150 million by 2026.
Approximately $1.2 billion of the annual additional revenue generated by Proposal 1 and its related bills is supposed to go into the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) and be used for roads and bridges throughout the state.
But before the MTF gets the full amount, $800 million of the new revenue for roads would be used in 2016 to pay down existing transportation debt incurred by MDOT. Another $400 million would be applied to that debt in 2017.
But it’s not just roads that would benefit if Proposal 1 passes. Public schools would receive an additional $300 million, while local governments would net another $95 to $100 million in revenue-sharing payments.
Mass transit would receive an additional $130 million in subsidies, while low-to-moderate income wage earners would receive another $260 million in payments via an expansion of the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit.
Sources: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG)
and Mackinac Center for Public Policy