When primary voters head to the polls, they will be asked whether Isabella County should renew a long-running millage cap that has funded routine operations for more than four decades.

The question limits the total property tax the county may levy each year at 6.61 mills, or $661 per $100,000 of assessed value. It’s part of a total 7.89-mill ask that also includes 1 mill ($100 per $100,000 of assed value) for township operations and .28 mills ($28 per $100,000 of assessed value) for the Intermediate School District.

One mill equals $1 per $1,000 of a property’s assessed taxable value. For the owner of a $100,000 property, the total requested renewal would mean $789 per year. According to a draft budget dated July 9, tax revenues are expected to account for $16.9 million in the next fiscal year.

The four-year cap has been in place, and renewed without fan fair, since Nov. 6, 1984, according to a resolution approving the ballot language.

This year, however, what has historically been a routine part of open governmental operations has raised opposition. Red “vote no” signs have popped up on curbs and in front yards across the county, proclaiming that rejecting the millage renewal would lower property taxes. The signs do not contain the name or address of the person or committee paying for them, as required by the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.

Nicole Frost, the county administrator and controller, said voters need to decide whether the potential savings would be worth the greater cost.

The county legally has to provide public services like vital record keeping, – think birth and death certificates, property deeds showing legal land ownership, and marriage certificates – land assessment, tax equalization and the county jail, Frost said. That’s why statutory protections have been built in that say property owners must pay at least 3 mills per year to support basic county functions.

“If we were at that minimum level, it would be about a $7 million reduction from current annual budget,” Frost said. “We’re talking (one) third of our general fund revenues.”

That would set the clock ticking on an estimated two-year timeline for the county to deplete its coffers, she said.

“We have to maintain a minimal service level,” she said. “A third of our revenues would force such severe cuts that I fear the elected (officials) would have no choice but to file suit against the county for not maintaining minimal state levels.”

A citizen’s concerns

On the other side of the discussion is Neal Hauck, a lifelong resident of the area who quietly became a political activist earlier this year, when county residents faced a 2.5-mill increase to support county operations and Mount Pleasant voters were asked to approve 1.18-mill levy to build an aquatic center.

Both proposals were solidly rejected.

Hauck was part of a citizen-led initiative against the measures, one that he renewed with this election's renewal questions.

He said the goal isn’t necessarily to defeat the millage, but to make voters aware they have authority.

“It’s just kind of, ‘Let’s make people aware (of) what’s going on,’” he said. “It isn’t a birthright that (government officials) get this money.

“It would just be nice to have people look and say ‘Why? What’s this about?’ For obvious reasons.”

He took issue with historic transparency with regards to county budgeting and current capital projects, like the $48 million jail being built on East Remus Road and an anticipated $11 million bond issue meant to support renovations to the county’s administrative headquarters in downtown Mount Pleasant.

He also noted that the county is expected to ask voters in November whether they will support a new millage to keep road patrol deputies – whose jobs are not statutorily mandated – in uniform and behind the wheels.

“I’m pro-police, we need them dearly,” Hauck said.

But he said two increase proposals and one renewal in one year alone suggests a pattern.

“They’re going to ask for a little bit more, a little bit more,” Hauck said. “If you’re going to ask for a safety millage, then your regular millage should go down. It’s still a raise of them.”

What’s at stake

“It’s not an increase,” Frost said of the renewal. “It’s the same rate that’s been approved by the voters for over 40 years now.”

Rather, she said, it is a tax cap, so just because the county can levy up to that rate doesn’t mean it has to. Isabella County changed its budgeting model to a zero-based approach starting with the 2025 fiscal year. That means when county leaders built the fiscal road map for the coming year, they started with those services that are mandated by law – the “must haves” -- and built in prioritized extras to balance the books.

The plan includes services that are important to the community, like 4-H, the Michigan State University Extension Office, and, of course, road patrol deputies.

If the millage fails, “those would immediately be gone,” Frost said.

“We’ve got about $2 million of things that aren’t ‘mandated’ built into that budget,” she said. “We would only be funding mandated services, and we wouldn’t be able to fund all of those.”

The county’s 2025 fiscal year begins Oct. 1. If there is a silver lining to the tough financial decisions it faced this year, Frost said, it’s the education the Board of Commissioners has received.

“If there’s a goal of having taxes lowered, we might already be working toward that because of the education that’s happening on the commission,” she said. “We know and understand a lot more now. … The voters approve an up-to amount, the Board of Commissioners, as an annual process, gets to say what that amount is.”

A question of economy

The millage is one of three renewals voters will see on this ballot. Also up for renewal is a .35 mill question to support Isabella County Parks and Recreation operational costs, and a .99 mill renewal to support the Isabella County Transportation Commission, or I-Ride.

To Hauck, the questions are a test of value.

“You look at the County GIS (system) and see how much you pay for these three things and I ask, 'do you get $800-some out of them?’” he said. “I pay something like $1,200 or $1,300 (in property taxes), and I’m not sure I’m getting my money out of these things.”

That GIS system is a case-in-point of county services that could be on the chopping block if the renewal fails, Frost said.

“A lot of people go to (the service) and don’t know it’s the county,” she said. “It’s 100 percent General Fund funded.”

As a lifelong resident of Isabella County whose family has 87 years’ collective service here, and a 35-year veteran of municipal government, Frost said she understands there are economic pressures that are taxing residents’ bottom lines. But she added that county government offices and meetings are open to the public, and commission meetings are live-streamed and recorded, and yet she hasn’t had a single question from opponents.

“I think what’s driving is the world after COVID, the cost of everything, the stretching the dollar that at the end of the paycheck there’s not enough left,” she said, choking up slightly. “I think that there’s so many other things that we are forced to spend money on that it leaves less and less (for) … a tax bill.

“It’s sad, my phone hasn’t rung once from someone saying ‘I’ve got a no sign, I’m considering a no sign, talk to me about this.’”

Hauck has attended commission meetings, and he said it’s important for the voters to remember that they have the power to direct the commissioners’ decisions.

“It’s just to make people aware that you can vote on these things and it’s up to them,” Hauck said. “It’s up to the community. A little transparency will go a long way for me.”

Early voting for the Aug. 6 primary election starts Saturday and continues through Aug. 4. Hours are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily.