<\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n LANSING, Michigan<\/strong> – Ignoring pleas from the Michigan Municipal League and other organizations to slow down, the House Tax Policy Committee today pressed forward during this lame duck session to repeal the personal property tax. And now the League needs help from our members and the general public as the bills move to the full House.<\/p>\n Despite hearing numerous unanswered questions and concerns, the Tax Policy Committee voted along party lines (with Republicans supporting) to move the bills to the full House floor. The House could vote on the package as soon as today, but tomorrow is most likely.<\/p>\n These bills do not provide the revenue replacement guarantees the League has requested and could be yet another financial blow to Michigan communities already strapped with declining property tax revenue and loss of revenue sharing dollars.<\/p>\n The League needs our members and the public to contact their Republican representatives today and tell them they need to vote against this package of bills because they will hurt the local communities they were elected to represent. Below are some talking points you can follow and a list of the Republican members of the House and their contact information. PLEASE contact them TODAY. <\/strong>It’s essential they hear you!<\/p>\n Talking points:<\/strong><\/p>\n – We are not opposed to the repeal of The PPT. We are opposed to rushing through this process when there are numerous questions that have not been addressed.<\/p>\n – Guaranteed replacement revenue is an absolute requirement. The cut or elimination of the PPT must not take effect if the ballot proposal to dedicate the use tax to replacement revenues is not approved by Michigan voters. The two must be tie-barred. If the use tax question is not approved by Michigan voters, the cut to PPT must not take effect.<\/p>\n – What is the impact of the extremely complicated formulas for calculating the Essential Services Assessment (ESA) and the reallocation of the use tax? Without an opportunity to fully vet the formulas against community data, we can’t be sure of their impact on our communities.<\/p>\n – Is there an opportunity for a local referendum to block the ESA?<\/p>\n – Why create a new level of government with its added cost and bureaucracy that appears to have broad power with little to no state oversight? This authority could create new conditions on funding that is vital for local operations.<\/p>\n – This 80% reimbursement is not acceptable; we need to get closer to 100% replacement funding.<\/p>\n – There were last minute amendments to the package of bills approved and it is not clear what those amendments do. One has to do with the ESA first being applied to retiree debt. We don’t know the impact of the amendments added in committee today.<\/p>\n – The ESA should be allowed for all public safety, not just police, fire, and ambulance. It must include all public safety functions, including 9-1-1 authorities, special public safety millages, public health, etc. These are not viewed or typically funded separately at the local level.<\/p>\n – Cutting our revenue by varying amounts across the state without providing relief from our obligations will force locals to make up the revenue elsewhere.<\/p>\n – This combined with ESA shifts the taxing burden from the state to the locally elected body. Assessing a new tax or increasing an existing tax is as unpopular locally as it is on the state level.<\/p>\n – How will Treasury determine “total restricted qualified loss”?<\/p>\n – Will the ESA pass scrutiny under legal review?<\/p>\n List <\/a>of Republican state representatives:<\/strong><\/p>\n