ANN ARBOR, MI - The Washtenaw County Republican Party is speaking out against a proposed countywide tax for mental health and public safety services -- a tax that also would send roughly a quarter of the money to seven municipalities to use as they wish.



The local GOP argues the county's proposal on the Nov. 7 ballot is too ambiguous, poorly designed and, in its opinion, illegal.



"We should expect better. We encourage a 'NO' vote on Proposal 1," the party stated in a news release.



County Board Chairman Andy LaBarre, D-Ann Arbor, responded to the opposition by saying he's not surprised.



"In all honesty, it doesn't shock me that the Washtenaw GOP is against something that's going to help human beings in their lives," he said. "It doesn't shock me that they're complaining about this."



If the county wants to put the issues of mental health and public safety before voters, the GOP argues, they should be done as separate proposals with specific justifications for the tax increases.



The party believes the county's proposal -- lumping mental health and public safety together along with unrestricted funds for seven municipalities with their own police forces -- does not clearly state the purpose of the eight-year, 1-mill tax. The GOP claims the proposal is misleadingly worded to disguise the fact that, for example, Ann Arbor plans to spend its portion of the money on addressing issues such as pedestrian safety, affordable housing and climate change.

Read the actual ballot proposal.



If Ann Arbor wants money for such initiatives, the GOP argues, it should consider its own tax.



"In addition to the vague and misleading title, the proposed millage is illegal in multiple ways," the GOP argues. "Equal protection clauses in both the U.S. and Michigan constitutions prohibit governments from imposing non-uniform taxes. However, the designers of this millage proposal plan to funnel a significant portion of the revenues to municipalities that have decided to fund their own public safety organizations. In other words, citizens in jurisdictions that use county law enforcement will be required to pay a tax that goes to jurisdictions that do not. This means citizens in all townships outside of Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Saline, Milan, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield and Northfield will be required to pay taxes to support public safety in these municipalities."



LaBarre, who brought forward the proposal earlier this year, said sharing the funds the way that's proposed is intended to be fair to municipalities that self-fund their own police forces.



If the Republicans are convinced the tax would be illegal, LaBarre said, they have legal options to challenge it, but he said he trusts the judgment of the county's legal counsel.



Curtis Hedger, the county's corporation counsel, declined to comment on the legality issues raised by the GOP, saying he generally doesn't comment on pending ballot proposals.



Is new tax needed to address 'crisis' in Washtenaw? Voters to decide

The proposed tax, which would be levied for the first time in December 2018, is estimated to raise $15.4 million in the first year.



It would cost about $100 per year for the owner of a home with a $100,000 taxable value and a $200,000 market value.



The funds would be split multiple ways, with 38 percent allocated to Washtenaw County Community Mental Health "for mental health crisis, stabilization and prevention, and to meet mental health needs in an appropriate setting, thus reducing the burden on the jail and improving care," the proposal states. WCCMH's state general fund allocation dropped from $6.5 million in 2014 to $2.7 million as of 2017, creating a $3.8 million annual gap in funding.



Another 38 percent would go to the Sheriff's Office "to ensure continued operations and increased collaboration with the mental health community," the proposal states. County officials argue more stable funding is needed for sheriff's operations.



The remaining 24 percent would be allocated to jurisdictions in the county that maintain their own police forces, including Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Milan, Saline, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Northfield Township, in proportion to their 2016 population levels. Those communities could use their shares as they see fit.



According to the county's calculations, of the $15.4 million expected to be collected in the first year if the tax is approved, about $3.7 million would be split among communities with their own police forces, based on 2016 population levels, in the following manner:

Ann Arbor (population 120,782) -- $2,138,928

Chelsea (population 5,185) -- $91,821

Milan (population 6,014) -- $106,502

Northfield Township (population 8,579) -- $151,925

Pittsfield Township (population 38,434) -- $680,627

Saline (population 9,151) -- $162,055

Ypsilanti (population 21,018) -- $372,208

Total -- $3.7 million

Because the amounts paid by taxpayers in each municipality would be based on taxable value and the amounts the municipalities with their own police forces would get back would be based on population, the formula works out differently for each community.



For instance, the county estimates it would collect about $5.2 million in total from Ann Arbor taxpayers in the first year, with about $2.1 million of that going back to the city based on its population.



That means about 40 percent of the money collected by the county from Ann Arbor would go back to the city.



For the city of Ypsilanti, the numbers work out more favorably. The county estimates it would collect about $299,000 in total from Ypsilanti in the first year of the tax, while Ypsilanti would get about $372,208 back via the population-based formula.



That means Ypsilanti would receive more money than its taxpayers would even pay, a roughly $73,000 net gain in the first year.



Ypsilanti Mayor Amanda Edmonds said the City Council hasn't adopted a policy deciding how to use the city's share if the tax is approved, but her hope is it would go to public safety -- police and fire -- to help make progress on restoring services to previous levels.



"I would not want it to replace general fund dollars for police and fire but be seen as additive," she said. "While not setting policy on these potential funds, our council has repeatedly looked for ways to rebuild our public safety staffing, which currently -- particularly in police-- is incredibly low and hinders our ability to attract and retain officers and to do community policing in the way we'd like to."



Edmonds said she thinks the population-based formula for sharing funds from the tax with municipalities with their own police forces is an equitable way of divvying up the money.



"Because policing in particular is often done related to scale of population," she said, arguing the funding formula takes a broader view across jurisdictions.



Edmonds gives credit to Ann Arbor City Council Member Chuck Warpehoski for suggesting the population-based formula. LaBarre said both Warpehoski and County Commissioner Conan Smith, D-Ann Arbor, advocated for it.



LaBarre said Ypsilanti is the only municipality where the numbers work out to be a net gain. He noted Ypsilanti has the lowest household income and one of the lowest total taxable values.



"The most equitable way to split up the 24 percent is to do it on a population basis and the math, in the city of Ypsilanti's instance, simply works out that way," he said. "It was simply our best attempt to be fair and equitable in how we did this."



According to the county, here's how much tax revenue would be collected from each municipality in the first year of the 1-mill levy, with the portion that each community with its own police force is estimated to get back from the county shown in parentheses:





Ann Arbor city -- $5.2 million ($2.1 million)

Chelsea city -- $239,970 ($91,821)

Milan city -- $95,528 ($106,502)

Saline city -- $376,324 ($162,055)

Ypsilanti city -- $299,000 ($372,208)

Dexter city -- $213,623

Ann Arbor Township -- $515,114

Augusta Township -- $213,652

Bridgewater Township -- $88,951

Dexter Township -- $365,216

Freedom Township -- $120,531

Lima Township -- $219,838

Lodi Township -- $420,107

Lyndon Township -- $161,422

Manchester Township -- $184,524

Northfield Township -- $341,388 ($151,925)

Pittsfield Township -- $1.8 million ($680,627)

Salem Township -- $374,470

Saline Township -- $103, 404

Scio Township -- $1.1 million

Sharon Township -- $93,295

Superior Township -- $622,843

Sylvan Township -- $193,393

Webster Township -- $401,473

York Township -- $381,423

Ypsilanti Township -- $1.2 million

Washtenaw County total -- $15.4 million



The county's figures indicate the county's total taxable value is $15.8 billion and $374 million of that is subtracted to account for tax-increment financing districts, including downtown development authorities and brownfield properties. Counting the TIF districts, a total of $15.8 million would be collected under the proposed tax, said Kelly Belknap, the county's chief financial officer.



She noted the calculations are based on 2017 taxable values and the actual collections in the first year would be based on 2018 values, so the numbers could change and, if current trends continue, increase.



The local Republican Party argues Washtenaw County government represents the citizens of the county and is obligated to work within its existing budget to prioritize available funds. And if the county is going to seek any tax increases, the party argues, how the additional revenue would be used needs to be specifically stated.



"Local government can only spend taxpayer funds on things which are authorized (or fairly implied) by state law. There is no provision for the county to simply give money to another municipality," the GOP stated in a resolution adopted by its executive committee on Sept. 15.



The "refund provision" included in the county's proposal, the GOP argues, results in non-uniform taxation "as those municipalities without a police department are paying a higher tax rate than those which get the refund; this also violates current interpretations of 'equal protection' in both the U.S. and Michigan constitutions."



The party further claims the refund provision violates the state Constitution because municipalities with a police department would experience a tax increase in the amount of the refund without only the voters of that municipality voting on it. Similarly, it could be an end-run around city charter tax limits, as Ypsilanti is already levying the maximum under its charter, the party argues.



Two ballot question committees have formed with opposing stances on the county's proposal. A group called "Yes to Our Mental Health and Public Safety" was formed on Aug. 31 by Ann Arbor resident Martha Darling and has a website at YesOnWashtenawMentalHealth.com.



An opposing group called "No to Illegal Millage" was formed on Oct. 10 by William Gordon, a Republican from Scio Township. Gordon said his group has yard signs opposing the millage starting to go up.

The opposition also has a Facebook page, where it claims the proposal illegally taxes communities to form "big city slush funds."

Campaign finance reports for either group were not available on the county clerk's website.

The pro-millage group was sent a late notice for its failure to file a report by Oct. 27.



The anti-millage group asked for a reporting waiver, indicating it did not intend to spend or receive more than $1,000.



LaBarre acknowledges the proposal voters are being asked to decide on Nov. 7 is complex, but he said it's a complex set of issues the county is trying to address in a holistic manner.



He said it gives him hope that opponents seem to be challenging it only on questions of fairness and legality and not need.



"I don't think anybody disputes the need in these areas," he said of the need for mental health and public safety services.



He said it's a need that doesn't care about where anybody lives or their political affiliations or their income levels.



"It's a pretty universal and basic need," he said. "I think folks who are opposing this are grasping at whatever they can and that's understandable, but it doesn't take away the need."



LaBarre said anybody who has complaints about the complex nature of the proposal should aim those squarely at him since he brought forward the proposal. The county board was divided on it.



"So that's on me. But the need is real, the challenges are real," LaBarre said, expressing hope that the complexities won't keep people from voting in favor of the proposal. "It's really very much needed."

Dan Smith, a Republican former county commissioner from Northfield Township who was unseated in last year's election, is joining some of his fellow Republicans in speaking out against the proposal.



He agrees with the opinion that it's illegal and argues the county board will have three more opportunities next year to place an "unquestionably legal" proposal on the ballot.



"The 'refund' provision is illegal and unconstitutional as it is non-uniform taxation and lacks a clearly stated purpose," he wrote in an email last week, noting his email was shorter than the ballot proposal.



"Many commissioners are indifferent, suggesting that 'the courts can sort it out,' while knowing how arduous it is to sue the county," Smith wrote. "Because this proposal is illegal, the mental health and public safety/law-enforcement aspects are irrelevant -- however worthy they might otherwise be."