Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1971.09.16 - 16292ITDert,F".'Siabal, Chairman September 16, 1971 REPORT BY: EQUALIZATION COMMITTEE - Mr„ Szabo IN RE: REPORT ON MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION #5790 - OPPOSITION TO ALLOCATION OF DIFFERENTIAL MILLAGE TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: Your Committee has received and considered Resolution #5790, which resolution is in opposition to allocation of differential millage by the Tax Allocation Board. Corporation Counsel, it was advised that there is no action the Committee or the Board of Commissioners can take since they have no authority over the Tax Allocation Board other than to suggest that they not allocate such mil lage in the future. The opinion further stated that the question is in the courts at the present time and that is where it will have to be settled. Therefore, your Committee reports on Miscellaneous Resolution #5790 that, inasmuch as the matter of differential millage is under litigation in the courts, no action be taken at this time. The Equalization Committee, by Albert F. Szabo, Chairman, moves receiving and filing of the foregoing report. EQUALIZATION COMMITTEE In a legal opinion rendered by the Misc. 5790 By Mrs. Dearborn IN RE: OPPOSITION TO ALLOCATION OF DIFFERENTIAL MILEAGE BY 1-AX ALLOCATION BOARD To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS Public Act 162 of the Public Acts of 1933, which allows an additional millage to be authorized by the Tax Allocation Board for School Boards to order to be spread in incorporated areas, is unjust and unreasonable legislation; WHEREAS the following letter has been received frem the State Tax Commission regarding the appeal from the City of Birmingham from the final order of the County Tax Allocation Board of Oakland County: STATE OF MICHIGAN - • • • . DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY STATE TAX COMMISSION August 12, 1971 • Mr. William B. Saunders, Mayor • . - • ...„• City of Birmingham, Oakland County • • • . 151 Martin Street - • -- Birmingham, Michigan 48012 • Dear Sir: On June 8, 1971 communication was received by the: State Tax Commission from the City of Birmingham appealing from the action of the Oakland County Tax Allocation Board specifically listing as a reason for the appeal, "The levy of additional taxes pUrsuant to Act 162 of 1933 is believed to be unlawful and unconstitutional. We understand that the Attorney General has so ruled and that Oakland County is the only County In the State which persists in this practice contrary to the Attorney General's advice." The State Tax Commission accepted the appeal for examination at a meeting on June 9, 1971 and the Commission requested the City of Birmingham and the County of Oakland to submit briefs. The Commission received a brief from the City of Birmingham on behalf of William B. Saunders and the City of Birmingham and also from the Oakland County Corporation Counsel. The briefs were submitted to the Assistant Attornley General of the State of Michigan, legal advisor to the State Tax Commission, and his report was submitted to the State Tax Commission at a meeting on August 9, 1971. The City of Birmingham and William B. Saunders, a: taxpayer resident of the City of Birmingham, alleges that the order of the Oakland County Tax Allocation Board entered on May 27, 1971 violates the Uniformity provisions of Article IX, Section 3, Michigan Constitution of 1963, by providing a variable millage within the Birmingham School District. The order allocates 8.3 mills to that portion of Birmingham District which lies outside the city limits (in Bloomfield Township, West Bloomfield Town- ship and Southfield Township) and allocates 9.53 mills for the portion of the School District located within the City of Birmingham. It is s.tressed by appellants that this allocation directs a levy of school taxes within the some district„which is 1.4 mills higher upon taxable property inside city limits than outside city boundaries. It also is convincingly urged that taxpayers in all parts of the School District receive an identical equivalence of school services and that the differential millage cannot be justified by any concentration of such services made available to city residents to the exclusion of school taxpayers residing in the townships. • The Tax Commission entertains no doubt concerning the merits of the allocation appeal. Bluntly speaking, the allocation of differential miliage by the Oakland County Tax Allocation Board is clearly illegal, an error of law, a trespass upon constitutional principles of tax uniformity and equal treatment of taxpayers, since there is no differential in the services offered. Yet, the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights have been entrusted to the honor and integrity of the courts. This Commission, while 'endowed with broad powers under the General Property Tax Law, cannot entertain this allocation appeal, regardless of its obvious merit. Under the General Property Tax Law, the Tax Commssion may take any measures which "will secure the enforcement of the provisions of this act, to the end that all the properties of this state liable to assessment for taxation shall be placed upon the !assessment rolls and assessed at that proportion of true cash value which the legislature from time to time shall provide pursuant to the provisions of article 9, section a of the constitution." • The instant appeal, however, is not governed by the General Property Tax Law, i.e., No. 206, PA 1893. it is authorized by Section 17 of the Property Tax Limitation Act, being No. 62, PA 1933, and may be taken only by "any aggrieved local unit." Section 2 of the Property Tax Limitation Aiikt defines "local unit" and specifically excepts "villages and cities for which there are provisions in their charters or general law fixing maximum limits on the power to levy taxes against property." The City of Birmingham is governed by a charter which contains a provision for the-levy of property taxes (made mandatory by state law) up to a specified maximum liMit. It consequently is not a "local unit" within the intendment of the Property Tax Limitation Act. in consequence, it has no authority to appeal the final order of the County Allocation Board. William E. Saunders, the Individual taxpayer-appellant, suffers the same disability; or stated less elegantly, is in the same boat. Based on the foregoing, this Commission mi,st deny acceptance of the appeal from the final order of the Oakland County Tax Ailocation Board, although we realize that our denial to entertain the instant appeal, motivated not by choice but by legal -cOmpulsion, may lead to legal entanglement, taxpayers' protests and a multiplicity of lawsuits, for the refund of school taxes paid by city residents. You:are, therefore, hereby advised that the Commission, at the meeting on August 9, 1-971, dismissed the appeal from the final order of the County TaX Allocation Board of Oakland County. cc: Oakland Co. Corp. Counsel Very truly yours, Oakland County Clerk Edwar0 W. Kane, Secretary THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County:Board of Commissioners, opposes the allocation of differential millage by the Oakland County Tax Allocation Board. Mr, Chairman, I move the adoption of the foregoing resolution. Mary M. Dearborn, District #4 The resolution was referred to the Equalization Committee. There were no objections. Moved by Szabo supported by Daly the report be received and filed. Discussion followed. Moved by Dearborn supported by Brennan the report be amended by deleting the words "receiving and filing of the foregoing report" and substituting the words "receiving the report and that this Board support Resolution #5790". Discussion followed. Vote on amendment: A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the motion carried. Vote on report, as amended: AYES: Richards, Simson, Barakat, Brennan, Burley, Daly, Dearborn, Gabler, Hamlin, Harrison, Kasper, Lennon, Mainland, Perinoff, Powell. (15) NAYS: Richardson, Szabo, Wilcox, Aaron, Coy, Horton, Houghten, Mathews, Olson, Pernick. (10) A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the report, as amended, was adopted.