Mlive continues its series on the use of tax increment financing in Michigan by telling the story of voters’ will thwarted in Ingham County: “Ingham County voters have approved countywide millages for things like the Potter Park Zoo, 911 operation and health care services. What those voters may not know is that 5.5 percent of the money they approved was actually captured for other purposes.”

The effects of poorly designed tax capture laws on county services was the topic of the second day of a special MLive series on tax increment financing, with MAC staffers making the case for obvious and immediate reforms. Commenting on a longstanding problem with downtown development authorities created decades ago, MAC’s Deena Bosworth said, “If something was created in 1980, we’re getting as much revenue from that property as we did in 1980.” MLive’s Emily Lawler also reported on the effects on special millages: “Little known to voters is that the capture can also come out of special millages. “For example, voters might approve a special millage for senior citizen services at the county level. If the county includes a tax capture district, that district is entitled to capture a portion of that millage – something that’s not included in the ballot language. As a result, some voters may not know that when they voted to increase senior services, they were also voting to give part of that increase to a DDA.” For example, in Bay County alone over the last decade, about $4.5 million in special millage funds have been diverted via tax capture. These funds would have gone to programs for everything from veterans and seniors to insect control and roads. Keep your eye on www.mlive.com and the blog all week for additional coverage of this issue.

As legislators reconvene in Lansing for their fall session, the MLive Media Group has begun a week-long look at a key issue for counties across the state: tax capture districts. MAC has been educating lawmakers on the need to reform state law on how tax increment financing districts operate and now a new University of Michigan report illustrates that need again. Read the entire story here, but we think this segment goes to the heart of the matter on transparency and accountability: “‘Why do we think that TIFs are a good thing in terms of tax policy if we don’t know how their money is being used?’ Bieri said. “In addition to the state not exercising regulatory authority over these authorities, the boards that run TIFs are not elected and thus not directly responsible to the citizens of the communities they serve. “‘Joe public, the average citizen has very little ballot box control over that property tax revenue that is used for TIFs,’ Bieri said.” Keep checking your MAC website and watch for Legislative Updates from MAC HQ to stay abreast of all developments on this issue.

In a guest commentary Sept. 5 on MLive.com, MAC’s incoming president, Allegan County Commissioner Jon Campbell, issues an alert to Michigan residents about the court funding crisis created by the Cunningham ruling: “Legislators will have a full agenda in September; however, a permanent, stable, fair fix to court funding has to be at the top of the list.” The chart below shows the annual projected impact of the ruling, if it is not changed, for several counties across the state that responded to a MAC survey. *Circuit court costs only