BY PHIL CUSTODIO
Clarkston News Editor
How the district library affects city budgeting continues to cause confusion as City Council considered eliminating a tax break for residents.
“It has caused the council to reduce our budget at the point we had to get the tax bills out,” said Mayor Pro-tem Eric Haven at the Sept. 12 meeting. “This is an attempt to clarify that.”
Haven proposed eliminating a 0.691 millage reduction made in 2014. At the time, it was an incentive to vote for a new millage for the Clarkston Independence District Library.
The council voted 5-1 against his proposal.
Approving it would have meant double taxing residents, said Steve Wylie, former council member speaking during public comment.
“You sort of made a contract with the citizens in 2014 – please vote for the library millage and we pledge we won’t double tax you. I’d hate to see this group go back on that,” Wylie said.
Council member Michael Sabol made a motion to approve the resolution as written “to vote it down.”
“We need to get this document out of our hands,” Sabol said. “I just want this piece of paper off the board. We need to take some action.”
Council member Al Avery agreed.
“I want this voted down tonight,” Avery said. “Then, if we want to bring the auditor in to look at how we’re taxing, I would vote for that – I don’t want to leave it out there. To me, this is inaccurate.”
The proposed resolution was to eliminate the 0.691 mill reduction for for library services, because “it was not the council’s intention to subsidize by a reduction permanently of 0.691 mills for library services yearly that are otherwise separately authorized for the district library.”
Sabol, Avery, Haven, and council members Sharron Catallo and Jason Kneisc voted “no” on the resolution. Mayor Joe Luginski and Council member David Marsh were absent.
In 2014, the council approved the tax break as an incentive to voters. To eliminate that would result in double taxation, Sabol said.
” People voted to put the millage of .691 on themselves for the library,” he said. “If we put the .691 mills back in, they would not only pay for the library through the new millage, but also pay something they paid before and was taken out.”
Avery said the 2014 resolution was clear.
“Are we trying to say there was a mistake? I find that hard to believe,” he said. “The decision was made to reduce the rate by the amount previously charged for the library.”
“It’s very clear – subtract .691 from what you would otherwise impose,” Wylie said. “So far, the city has acted properly. If you adopt this language, it would no longer be acting properly.”
“You never had that money to use,” said resident Robyn Johnston. “If you have to use it, you have to be up front and say you want to increase taxes.”
The tax-break resolution was written by Council member Richard Bisio and approved during a failed library millage effort in 2012. It was approved again in 2014. Luginski, Catallo, Havon, Marsh, and Sabol were on the council at the time and voted to approve it.
Resident Karen Eckert said there are two issues, the promise of council to eliminate the library millage to encourage citizens to vote for the library and the need for more tax revenue.
“Be up front, say we need a tax increase because we don’t have the revenue to provide services to citizens,” Eckert said. “Don’t go back and say we only meant we would reduce it half a year. You know it was not the intent.”
During debate, council members twice made a resolution to have the city auditor review the issue.
“That’s the logical place to get this resolved,” said Haven, who made the first motion.
Catallo seconded the motion.
“I prefer we have an outside source who has no ties whatsoever,” she said. “The way it is, is something wrong, something right, who knows? Let’s hear from them.”
Haven, Sabol, Catallo voted “yes” on the motion, and Avery and Kneisc voted “no.” The motion did not receive the four votes required and failed.
After the 5-0 vote against the proposal to amend the 2014 resolution, Avery moved to reconsider having the city auditor review it.
This motion was approved 4-1. Kneisc again voted “no.”
At issue is the provision in the 2014 resolution, “in future years, the city will reduce its general operating millage levy by 0.691 mills from the level that the city would otherwise have imposed.”
According to the resolution propose last week and rejected unanimously, “it was not the intention of the city, beyond the December 2014 reduction in the general millage because of the passage of the district library millage, to burden the general fund by continuing the reduction of the former payment of library services of 0.691 mills.”
City Council voted, June 13, to reduce its 2016 operating millage rate from 12.5069 mills to 12.1056 mills due to the 2014 resolution.
The 2016 maximum allowable millage rate was set by the state under Headlee at 12.9168. The extra millage rollback was to correct for overcharging in 2015.