Letter to the Editor: LAS Operating Millage Restoration Proposal

Letters to the editor may be sent to [email protected]. All opinions stated in letters to the editor and guest columns are those of the author and should not be construed as an endorsement by Lowell’s First Look. 

 

I wanted to share some thoughts about an important ballot question. For those that live in the Lowell Area Schools district, you will be asked about an Operating Millage Restoration Proposal on Non-homestead properties. I will admit that I did not fully understand this ballot question until I researched it on my own!

In 1994, Michigan voters approved Proposal A which changed public school funding from a local to a state-based distribution model. As such, public school funding is now based on a complex formula that involves many parts in order for each district to receive its full per-pupil allowance. Sales tax, property tax, and the lottery are all components of this foundational funding.

While most of the funding comes from the state distribution, Proposal A also stipulates that an 18-mill Operating Millage on Non-Homestead properties should also be levied by the local district as a component of its total operation funding. A non-homestead property is NOT a primary residence; instead, these properties include commercial and rental properties as well as second homes that are located in the district. As dictated by our election laws, this millage must come before the voters for approval.

Despite this being a required part of the funding model, it has significant consequences if it is NOT approved. In short, LAS will face a nearly 10% cut in funding (equal to about $3.8 MILLION); this funding is NOT replaced by the State if the millage is not approved by voters in a local district.

Furthermore, this ballot question does NOT change the current tax situation for anybody. The language on the ballot can be confusing since it suggests that this is an increase, but it is actually a renewal.

This $3.8 million is a part of the Operating Budget for the district. Unlike bonds or the Sinking Fund millage which are dedicated to building maintenance and improvements, this $3.8 million is a part what happens in the classroom. This is funding for educator and support staff salaries and benefits, curricular and extra-curricular costs, and other program costs that are vital to the district’s operations. At this level, the BOE and administration could be forced to make cuts to the programs that make LAS great.

In an effort to be balanced, there is a small contingent of individuals that are campaigning against this millage. I have heard it mentioned that this millage constitutes taxation without representation since it covers commercial and non-primary resident properties who do not specifically have a vote on this property tax. Theoretically, it could be said that by not passing this millage, the district would be forced to make changes that may favor certain viewpoints (IE cuts to programs that promote DEI, SEL, libraries, etc in favor of “academic-only” education).

Personally, I think that, as with almost every state-operated program, school funding is overly complicated and confusing. With that being said, this operating millage was a part of the rules based on the voter-passed Proposal A that dictates public school funding in Michigan. It does not change the current tax situation for any entity in the district. The loss of this funding places a real threat on the programs that make LAS successful and ultimately would hurt the opportunities for our students.

For me, this is a vote to allow LAS to continue to be great. It’s an easy YES for me.

Parker Liu
City of Lowell

1 Comment

  1. RIGHT ON, Parker – thanks for researching and educating the readers.
    All taxes are not evil, and this one is already in place. It is just a renewal and does not cause new payment burdens on anyone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*