Opinion ID: 842400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the effect of the language of the millage proposals

Text: The majority sanctions defendants' unlawful diversion of funds by noting that the General Property Tax Act (GPTA), MCL 211.1 et seq., requires that a ballot proposal fully disclose each local unit of government to which the revenue from that millage will be disbursed, [4] and make [a] clear statement of the purpose for the millage. [5] See ante at 541. The majority essentially concludes that, because the ballot proposals satisfied the GPTA, described how revenues would be distributed, and stated why the millages were being levied, the proposals trumped MCL 224.20b. I disagree. First, as noted earlier, this Court applies unambiguous statutes as written. The Legislature provided unambiguously in MCL 224.20b the method of distribution. Second, even if the ballot proposals satisfied MCL 211.24f, they violated MCL 224.20b. Therefore, regardless of the language in the proposals, the proposals themselves were illegal. Third, as the majority acknowledges, MCL 211.24f does not preclude using tax revenues generated by a ballot proposal for purposes other than the purpose stated in the proposal. This is especially significant in situations such as the instant case, in which the ballot proposals were illegal. This Court acknowledged in 1988 that the Legislature has the power to determine how tax revenues may be spent. In Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1986 PA 281, [6] this Court addressed the constitutionality of certain provisions of 1986 P.A. 281, MCL 125.2151 et seq., entitled the Local Development Financing Act. One of the questions presented was whether the capture and use of tax increment revenues by a local development finance authority violated the state constitution at Const. 1963, art. 9, § 6. Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1986 PA 281, 430 Mich. 93, 97, 422 N.W.2d 186 (1988). Amici curiae argued that, once the voters adopt an extra millage proposition for school funding purposes, any diversion of that millage to a local development funding authority violates the constitution. Id. at 108, 422 N.W.2d 186. This Court rejected that argument and concluded that article 9, § 6 of the constitution did not govern the capture and use of tax increment revenues. Id. at 107, 111, 422 N.W.2d 186. This Court further noted that `in exercising the powers of the state the legislature may require the revenue of a municipality, raised by taxation, to be applied to uses other than that for which the taxes were levied.' Id. at 113, 422 N.W.2d 186, quoting Tribe v. Salt Lake City Corp., 540 P.2d 499, 504 (Utah, 1975). [7] In keeping with the reasoning of Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1986 PA 281, the Legislature may apply tax revenues for purposes other than those for which the people intended them. By contrast, no persuasive authority exists for the proposition that defendants here, through an illegal ballot proposal, could distribute the taxes raised contrary to the manner specified in a governing statute.