2008 Sinking Fund Statement

The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce supports the Sinking Fund millage restoration proposed by the Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS). This restoration proposal is on the May 6, 2008 ballot.

Facts

The proposal by the AAPS to continue the sinking fund is the third request of its kind.  Voters will recall this first appearing on the ballot in 1999 and again most recently in 2004. The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce supported the request for the sinking fund in 2004 as well as AAPS’ Bond Proposal. 

A sinking fund millage is a limited property tax, considered a pay-as-you-go method, for addressing building remodeling projects. State law allows a district to levy up to five mills, for no longer than 20 years. The district does not pay interest for the money used.

The law is very specific about what is considered an allowable use and what reporting and audit requirements are expected. Sinking funds may be used for purchasing, completing, remodeling or repairing facilities, or parts of or additions to those facilities; acquiring and improving sites, for school buildings, structures, athletic facilities, playgrounds, or other facilities, and technology infrastructure. Technology in this case refers to wiring or materials used for installing technology. It does not include the equipment or software. This fund may be used for repair, but not for maintenance. The proposal (as written on the 2008 ballot) would allow the district to spend sinking fund dollars on technology equipment, software, school buses, and other equipment if the law is amended to allow that use. 

In 2004 the community approved a Sinking Fund of 1 mill; that authority has been rolled back slightly to .9861 mills due to the Headlee Rollback. The AAPS are asking to restore the authority back to 1 mill for the Sinking Fund, which represents a 1.4% increase compared with the rate levied presently. School districts are not allowed to use funds from a sinking fund for operating expenses such as teacher, administrator or employee salaries. Sinking Funds as with bond funds must be kept separate from operating funds.

The 2004 sinking fund has been used for the following:

• Mechanical and electrical upgrades for Ann Arbor’s 21 elementary schools, 5 middle schools and 5 high schools.
• New boilers
• New classroom ventilators
• Replacing rooftop air handling units
• Replacing plumbing fixtures
• Air conditioning elementary school media centers and computer labs

If renewed, sinking fund dollars will be used to cover:

• Roof replacement
• Replacement of parking lots
• Replacing ceilings and lighting
• Replacing flooring
• Upgrading electrical systems
• Replace the current steam and rooftop heating systems
• Building security/access
• Technology Hardware and Software (if permissible by law)

For more facts and election information please visit the AAPS Millage Restoration website.

Position

The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce understands the importance of quality public education. With the current Sinking Fund Millage set to expire in 2009, we believe it is reasonable for AAPS to ensure continued funding for its capital needs with advanced planning by requesting a renewal at this early date.  As a result, the question is whether the proposed Sinking Fund renewal is the right plan. 

A quality education system and learning environment is important to the business community, both in producing skilled workers for the future, and in enabling businesses to attract the employees of today. Through careful consideration and dialogue we believe the Ann Arbor public school system has legitimate needs in order to keep and maintain their facilities, 32 schools in all. School capital needs can be met by dedicating sufficient general/operating funds or through a bond or Sinking Fund millage. The Chamber believes that AAPS has been responsible in their use of existing Sinking Fund expenditures and that over the short term dedicating additional general/operating funds to capital needs may adversely impact instruction funding.       

Members of the Chamber’s Board of Directors, the Chamber’s Public Policy Committee, Budget/Millage Task Force and staff devoted substantial time to review and discuss information provided by the schools. Careful consideration was given to how the proposed Sinking Fund renewal meets our guidelines set forth for tax related issues. We found the proposal to meet our guidelines in several regards. 

The expenditures to be covered by this proposal are ongoing in nature, and as a result, more suitable for sinking fund than bond funding. The revenue from the Sinking Fund will be for ongoing building repairs such as roofs, floors, lighting, parking lots, ceilings and ADA improvements. The Chamber agrees with the AAPS that it is more effective and less costly to sustain a building than to do major repairs every 10 years or construct new facilities.   

Careful planning is involved in the maintenance and upkeep of a school system the size and caliber of the AAPS.  We believe the plan set forth by the AAPS meets facility capital needs in a financially prudent manner and keeps our school buildings in line with the high expectations found within the community. 

For these reasons the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce urges your support and YES vote for the AAPS Sinking Fund millage renewal.  

2008 Operation Millage Statement

The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce supports the Sinking Fund millage restoration proposed by the Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS). This restoration proposal is on the May 6, 2008 ballot.

Facts

The proposal by the AAPS to continue the sinking fund is the third request of its kind.  Voters will recall this first appearing on the ballot in 1999 and again most recently in 2004. The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce supported the request for the sinking fund in 2004 as well as AAPS’ Bond Proposal. 

A sinking fund millage is a limited property tax, considered a pay-as-you-go method, for addressing building remodeling projects. State law allows a district to levy up to five mills, for no longer than 20 years. The district does not pay interest for the money used.

The law is very specific about what is considered an allowable use and what reporting and audit requirements are expected. Sinking funds may be used for purchasing, completing, remodeling or repairing facilities, or parts of or additions to those facilities; acquiring and improving sites, for school buildings, structures, athletic facilities, playgrounds, or other facilities, and technology infrastructure. Technology in this case refers to wiring or materials used for installing technology. It does not include the equipment or software. This fund may be used for repair, but not for maintenance. The proposal (as written on the 2008 ballot) would allow the district to spend sinking fund dollars on technology equipment, software, school buses, and other equipment if the law is amended to allow that use. 

In 2004 the community approved a Sinking Fund of 1 mill; that authority has been rolled back slightly to .9861 mills due to the Headlee Rollback. The AAPS are asking to restore the authority back to 1 mill for the Sinking Fund, which represents a 1.4% increase compared with the rate levied presently. School districts are not allowed to use funds from a sinking fund for operating expenses such as teacher, administrator or employee salaries. Sinking Funds as with bond funds must be kept separate from operating funds.

The 2004 sinking fund has been used for the following:

• Mechanical and electrical upgrades for Ann Arbor’s 21 elementary schools, 5 middle schools and 5 high schools.
• New boilers
• New classroom ventilators
• Replacing rooftop air handling units
• Replacing plumbing fixtures
• Air conditioning elementary school media centers and computer labs

If renewed, sinking fund dollars will be used to cover:

• Roof replacement
• Replacement of parking lots
• Replacing ceilings and lighting
• Replacing flooring
• Upgrading electrical systems
• Replace the current steam and rooftop heating systems
• Building security/access
• Technology Hardware and Software (if permissible by law)

For more facts and election information please visit the AAPS Millage Restoration website.

Position

The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce understands the importance of quality public education. With the current Sinking Fund Millage set to expire in 2009, we believe it is reasonable for AAPS to ensure continued funding for its capital needs with advanced planning by requesting a renewal at this early date. As a result, the question is whether the proposed Sinking Fund renewal is the right plan. 

A quality education system and learning environment is important to the business community, both in producing skilled workers for the future, and in enabling businesses to attract the employees of today. Through careful consideration and dialogue we believe the Ann Arbor public school system has legitimate needs in order to keep and maintain their facilities, 32 schools in all. School capital needs can be met by dedicating sufficient general/operating funds or through a bond or Sinking Fund millage. The Chamber believes that AAPS has been responsible in their use of existing Sinking Fund expenditures and that over the short term dedicating additional general/operating funds to capital needs may adversely impact instruction funding.       

Members of the Chamber’s Board of Directors, the Chamber’s Public Policy Committee, Budget/Millage Task Force and staff devoted substantial time to review and discuss information provided by the schools. Careful consideration was given to how the proposed Sinking Fund renewal meets our guidelines set forth for tax related issues. We found the proposal to meet our guidelines in several regards. 

The expenditures to be covered by this proposal are ongoing in nature, and as a result, more suitable for sinking fund than bond funding. The revenue from the Sinking Fund will be for ongoing building repairs such as roofs, floors, lighting, parking lots, ceilings and ADA improvements. The Chamber agrees with the AAPS that it is more effective and less costly to sustain a building than to do major repairs every 10 years or construct new facilities.   

Careful planning is involved in the maintenance and upkeep of a school system the size and caliber of the AAPS. We believe the plan set forth by the AAPS meets facility capital needs in a financially prudent manner and keeps our school buildings in line with the high expectations found within the community. 

For these reasons the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce urges your support and YES vote for the AAPS Sinking Fund millage renewal.  

Ann Arbor Affordable Housing Statement

The people who lived at the "Y" should have a place to live and supportive services so they can live the fullest life possible. Requiring that 100 rooms be replaced at the "Y" site just because this was the previous location of their residence is a disservice to these people and the community.

Much has changed since the decision was made to continue providing 100 SRO units on the "Y" site.

With our deepest appreciation to many citizens and organizations, our community is developing a plan to end homelessness as soon as possible. Robert Chapman, President and Chair of United Bancorp and Chair of the United Way Board is chairing a county-wide committee to develop a plan to provide sustained funding for supportive services to those who are homeless or in danger of becoming homeless. Community leaders and providers of service to the homeless are committed to finalizing a plan by July.

The United Way has changed its allocation process to focus of several goals, one of which is housing. Data will be gathered on the needs of the citizens of the county. Programs to meet those needs, with clear measures for accountability and outcomes, will form the basis of requests for proposals from service providers.

There is a growing recognition that improved public transportation is a requirement if our county is to prosper and provide jobs and support for all our citizens. The city is looking at 4 alternative plans for public transportation. AATA is continually evaluating its service and anticipating the needs of the area. Discussions about north-south and east-west rail service is on-going. Additional options and initiatives are in the early stages of discussion.

Construction costs in the downtown area can be 2-3 times higher than in other parts of the city. With the approval of the parking deck beneath the library lot, there are more options of how that part of downtown can be developed.

With this set of factors in play and since there will be a delay of many months to years before any housing is available at the "Y" site, it makes sense to look for the best possible situation to house the former "Y" tenants. Let us utilize the resources of the newly formed committee and United Way to study the needs of the residents and find financially viable housing locations then provide the services needed to support these people._ P_leas_e__do_not_hinder_thedevelopment ofdowntown_ or put people in_aJiving situation that does not meet their needs by recommending the continued requirement that the "Y" site continue to house its former tenants.

Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce Transportation Position Statement

Kristie Profit
July 27, 2007

The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce believes that the Ann Arbor area business community is best served by a comprehensive transportation solution that recognizes the role of transportation as a tool of economic development.  The success of our business community requires more transportation options, improved level of service and better solutions to efficiently transport labor and product. 

Michigan is suffering from a severe deterioration of its transportation infrastructure.  Maintenance is insufficient to meet the deteriorating condition.  Modes of transportation are limited and they are not adequately connected to make them efficient for users.  Operational and maintenance costs are not adequately assigned to users to meet current requirements.

The following are components of a comprehensive transportation solution we believe must be recognized:

• A comprehensive public transportation system, including the availability of adequate parking, is vital to our community’s economic development and the overall quality of life of those within the greater Ann Arbor area.
• Transportation modes, including public transportation, ride sharing, rail, biking and walking, should be considered as a part of a comprehensive transportation plan and must be logically and efficiently connected to one another.
• Local commerce is a region-wide asset and concern with workers and the overall business community benefiting from transportation services beyond their own municipal boundaries, and therefore transportation options and solutions should not be limited by municipal boundaries.
• The financial burden of an effective public transportation system for the region should not be borne solely by Ann Arbor taxpayers.
• Increasing development density and broadening the mix of uses at transportation transfer points can achieve more effective transportation solutions.
• Detroit Metropolitan and Willow Run Airports are among the key economic assets of our community and vital to the success of the business community.  Business and individual users are benefited by efficient and direct access to terminals.
• Improved transportation options between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti must be implemented and the resources to support this must be found.
• AATA, UM, EMU, local school districts, MDOT and other transportation agencies and providers must work together to improve route and service options for users and these entities must work cooperatively to lower their fixed costs.
• Transportation systems must be maintained for quality and cleanliness to properly serve the image and reputation the business community needs to compete.
• Plans for future business park and residential developments being considered by local authorities should incorporate easy, commuter-friendly, access to public transportation.

Chamber's Position on the Ann Arbor 2007-2008 City Budget and 2008-2009 Financial Plan
May 18, 2007

The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce generally supports the direction of the City of Ann Arbor’s proposed 2007-08 budget and 2008-09 financial plan.  Strategic issues we raised a year ago remain, however, and the budget and plan contain specific elements we do not support.  We encourage the Mayor and City Council to amend the Administrator’s proposals accordingly.

A year ago, the Chamber expressed concerns regarding the transparency of the City’s public presentations and communications.  Although transparency is improving, the City’s occasional reluctance to fully disclose information continues and results in a qualified endorsement.

Strategic Issues – Health Care/Pension Costs and Intergovernmental Collaboration

Last year, the Chamber’s support of the City budget was premised on the belief the City would make significant progress in improving uncompetitive health care and pension benefit costs.  Contracts with all of the City’s largest unions expired in June 2006 and the City had appropriately indicated addressing these costs was a priority.  Contracts for two of the City’s largest unions (AFSCME and Police Officers) remain open and, understandably, the City is reluctant to share details of those negotiations.  Our expectation remains that the City will re-align employee health care and pension benefits to levels more consistent with the private sector.  Based on the limited information provided to the Chamber in response to our request, it is unclear whether the recently settled Firefighters’ contract meets that expectation.   

A year ago, we also encouraged the City to accelerate intergovernmental consolidation and collaboration efforts to provide more efficient services and eliminate duplication.  To date, only minor progress has been made.  The Citizens Research Council of Michigan just recently published a study indicating that the enabling legislation required for significant local intergovernmental collaboration already exists in Michigan – the only roadblock is local administrators and elected officials hesitancy to act.

Specific Budget Issues – Business-Related Rate and Fee Increases

Recent announcements by Pfizer and other employers have reminded us of the importance of creating a climate in Ann Arbor conducive to attracting and retaining businesses.  Several potential actions in the City budget and plan are contrary to that spirit including:

• water, sewer, stormwater usage rate and construction fee increases at multiples of inflation 
• raising fees to private developers 15-30% while also charging for attorney’s review time 
• instituting a charge to downtown businesses for street lighting (Special Assessment District) 
• a 12% rise in front-load dumpster fees to commercial businesses 

The Chamber does not support increases of this magnitude or adopting new charges that target only businesses.  Consistent with our position in prior years, we would support rate and fee increases approximating inflation and encourage the Mayor and City Council to re-consider these specific items.

Additional Observations and Considerations

• The Chamber is encouraged that budgeted operating expenditure growth for 2007-08 is relatively modest (2.2% in the General Fund), but we believe the City should revisit the 4.1% General Fund expenditure growth planned for 2008-09 prior to adopting the 2008-09 budget.  Although tax rates are up slightly for 2007-08, we recognize the increase is more than accounted for by the voter-approved tax increase for parks.  No Headlee overrides or other tax-related fee increases are proposed for 2007-08.

• In assessing the proposed reduction in Police staffing levels, the Chamber is relying on the City’s firm commitment that the number of officers on the street, and the overall service level to the community, will not be adversely impacted.  While we support efforts to eliminate bureaucracy anywhere at City Hall, Public Safety should be the City’s top priority and we would oppose any meaningful service reductions in Public Safety.

• The Capital Improvements Project (CIP) plan includes $34 million for a new Police/Court facility.  We are disappointed that the factors driving the need for separate court facilities have not been articulated to the community, only that the 15 District Court must move. The Chamber believes establishing separate court facilities for the City and County represents an expensive step backwards in the journey towards greater intergovernmental collaboration.    We encourage the City and County to work together to find a solution that avoids this substantial investment and likely higher operating costs.

• The City’s General Fund Reserve Balance has been growing the last several years and for Fiscal Year 2007-08, the General Fund is budgeted to generate a $1.4 million surplus – revenues of $81.7 million compared with expenditures of $80.3 million.  We recognize that building reserves is certainly preferable to depleting them, but given the reserve now exceeds the target range (8-12% of annual expenditures), we believe the City should consider relieving the heavy burden on taxpayers rather than continuing to add to the reserve.  If the City is building the reserve to eventually transfer funds to the Police/Court facility (or for another purpose), that should be made clear to the community.

The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce has been reviewing and commenting on Ann Arbor City budgets since 1998.  Our review and analysis would not be possible without the assistance of City Staff.  We thank City Administrator, Roger Fraser, and City Chief Financial Officer, Tom Crawford, for taking the time to meet with us and answer our questions.

Citizens Research Council Releases New Outline of Michigan Laws that Authorize Local Government Cooperation
Press Release from the CRC
April 30, 2007

Municipal officials have three options for dealing with the fiscal and operational pressures on local government finances: 1) increase taxes to yield more revenues; 2) cut spending to meet available revenues; or 3) find alternative methods of providing services at current levels for less money. One such alternative is collaboration with other local governmental units to perform functions and provide services.

To aid local government officials in their efforts to collaborate, the Citizens Research Council of Michigan has published Authorization for Interlocal Agreements and Intergovernmental Cooperation in Michigan, a new outline of the Michigan laws that authorize joint service provision. The 77 provisions in Michigan law are presented in outline form to provide legal citations, describe the functions or services that can be jointly provided, list the types of governments eligible to use the laws, detail the steps needed to implement the laws, describe the governing bodies charged with oversight of the service provision, and explore the financial powers gained by utilizing these laws.

"If local governments are not working together to find efficiencies in service provision, it is not for a lack of authorizing legislation," said Eric Lupher, CRC's Director of Local Affairs. "Every type of governmental service is authorized to be provided jointly, if not with specific legislation, then with general laws that allow local governments to provide jointly any service they are authorized to provide individually."

"Other groups have compiled lists of the laws authorizing intergovernmental cooperation," said Earl M. Ryan, President of the Research Council, "but this is the most extensive reference document put together. We hope this will be as useful on this topic as is our Outline of the Michigan Tax System for understanding tax issues and our Survey of Economic Development Programs in Michigan for sorting through those issues."

"We hope this reference guide will assist local government officials to maintain the quality of life services that make our communities attractive in the face of the fiscal pressures that continue to plague municipal finances," said Mr. Lupher.

Read the Authorization For Interlocal Agreements and Intergovernmental Cooperation in Michigan PDF

Michigan Business Tax

Official Policy
April 10, 2007

The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce believes that a replacement business tax to Michigan’s Single Business Tax needs to be guided by the following principles:

• Simple
• Broad-based
• Not be an economic disincentive to business

The Chamber supports replacing the single business tax revenue through a new business tax. We do not support raising taxes to bring in more revenue than what is currently brought in by the Single Business Tax.

The Chamber strongly recommends the Legislature adopt a simple form of business income tax or gross receipts tax. Like the existing Single Business Tax, the current proposals will result in a complicated business tax that is difficult to use. Therefore, the Chamber is opposed to all of the current SBT replacement proposals. It is critical to the economic growth of our state that Michigan’s tax structure be easy to use and compare favorably to tax structures implemented in other states.

In addition, the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce does not support a two (2) percent excise tax on services as proposed. The current proposal, combined with a business tax, would bring in more revenue than we support. A tax on services would be complicated and costly to administer. The Chamber does not support a tax on business to business commerce.

Read the full position

Mobility in Southeast Michigan

I remember when the Chamber had an affordable housing program. We partnered with the DDA, the City and others to try and facilitate more housing in Ann Arbor that employees could afford. One of our big initiatives in Ann Arbor was the accessory dwelling unit (i.e. the mother-in-law apartment). We tried to get City Council to allow them, but the neighborhood organizations smelled student renters and it went down in flames.

The Chamber President at that time, Woody Holman, pulled together the top CEO’s in our region for a breakfast to figure out what to do next about housing. But the group didn’t end up talking about housing. They spent the morning talking about transportation. As far as these CEO’s were concerned, Ann Arbor didn’t have a housing problem. People that work in Ann Arbor live all over southeast Michigan because that is where they want to live. The problem employers faced, and still face, is making sure their people can get to and from work.

To make sure this is possible, we need to keep adding to our infrastructure so people can continue to move around southeast Michigan effectively. Traffic congestion in Ann Arbor and in southeast Michigan is only going to get worse. Right now people can still live in Royal Oak and work in Ann Arbor, but it is going to get more and more difficult and that is a problem because companies need to be able to pull talent from throughout the region. I am with the CEO’s—we can’t tell people where to live, but we can try to make it easier to get around.

The good news is that we do not have to wait 20 years for solutions. There are projects in the pipeline right now that could make a real difference. U.S. 23 north of Ann Arbor will be under construction from March until November this year and the whole U.S. 23 corridor is currently being studied for possible major changes. One of the long-term solutions under consideration is commuter rail along the U.S. 23 corridor. Given the construction this summer, there is talk of providing pilot rail service as early as this summer. As far-fetched as this may sound, many of the key pieces—the train tracks, the train cars and a private railroad operator—are already in place. One of my colleagues at work who lives in Brighton already leaves the house by 6:30 a.m. to avoid getting stuck in traffic on U.S. 23. Construction will make getting to work a major challenge and she might try riding the train if it’s not a headache.

Pilot rail service might also get started within the next year along the I-94 corridor. Again, many of the pieces are already in place. Amtrak has the track, the train cars and the operating license in Michigan. One of the biggest obstacles these rail projects face is creating service that is convenient and reliable. Anybody that has flown into Chicago knows that having the train come right into the airport is the way to go. This is where businesses can help by providing input about whether or not employees would consider using the service.

Maybe rail is a bad idea for southeast Michigan. Perhaps we aren’t big enough or dense enough to make it work. But step back and picture our region in 20 years. We need an infrastructure that enables people to move around. Why wouldn’t we consider an infrastructure investment that could provide a service and spur economic development, particularly when we have the ability to test it out in a cost-effective manner via a pilot program?

Whether it happens or not, it feels good to go to government meetings where people are working together to create services and they are moving fast.

Ann Arbor Area Businesses Weigh in on Business Tax Proposals

The new business tax debate is heating up in Michigan. The Ann Arbor Area Chamber has completed a business tax survey of its members and found:

• 53% of local businesses surveyed said a new business tax should be revenue neutral. 22% felt the tax should bring in less revenue than the single business tax (SBT) and 25% thought the tax should bring in more revenue.
• Chamber members were split 50/50 on whether or not businesses that have less than $350,000 in gross receipts should pay a business tax. Businesses below $350,000 in gross receipts do not currently pay the single business tax (SBT).
• A majority of Chamber members oppose a 2% tax on services, but a significant number of members indicated they would support this idea.
• Area businesses would prefer a business tax based on income and/or gross receipts; they would rather it not be based upon assets or personal property.

"Our members want a competitive business climate, and that includes having the infrastructure and services needed to be successful," commented Jesse Bernstein, Chamber President & CEO, "The Chamber will continue to review the actual tax legislation proposed, share the implications with our members and determine an appropriate course of action based on their input."

The Chamber will use this survey data to represent its members during the on-going business tax debate. The Chamber has also created a webpage with information on the different tax proposals being considered.

SBT Replacement Plans

The Chamber supports replacing the Single Business Tax (SBT) with a revenue source that meets the following criteria:

• Simple for a business to understand and compute, and for the State to administer
• Fairly applied to all businesses and business sectors

The Chamber has a committee of members that is actively working on this issue. Here is a summary of the new tax proposals that have been floated to date:

Michigan Business Tax: The MBT has three main components: gross receipts, assets which would be taxed at .125 percent and business income which will be taxed at 1.875 percent. The MBT was proposed by Governor Granholm in late 2006. For more information, download MBT overview.

Annual Business License Fee: Businesses would pay an annual fee to do business in Michigan, based on Michigan sales. A company would figure their Michigan sales and use a fee schedule to determine what they owe. This plan has been proposed by the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Fair Tax: This plan would eliminate the single business tax, the personal property tax, and the state income tax. In its place, the state would raise the sales tax from 6% to 8.5% or higher. The tax would only be applied once at the point of final consumption, and money would be given back to lower income residents to overcome the regressive nature of the tax. The Fair Tax has been proposed by State Representative Fulton Sheen (R-Plainwell).

Business Activities Tax: A business activities tax based on Michigan sales which would start at $350,000. Businesses with at least 1 employee that have sales of less than $350,000 would pay a flat fee of $150. The tax would be set up so both the SBT and the personal property tax would go away. The Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce proposed this plan.

Income Tax/License Fee Combination: Bring back a corporate income tax, but keep the rate low and also have a business license fee. Use this combo in place of the SBT and possibly a portion of the personal property tax. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce proposed this plan.

Business and Economic Stimulus (BEST): Plan proposed by Senate Majority Leader Michael D. Bishop (R-Rochester). This proposal is supported by the Small Business Association of Michigan (SBAM). BEST plans on stimulation economic growth, expand jobs and increase business investments by cutting the taxes of Michigan's job providers by $290 million.

Send Page To a Friend

Washtenaw County:

City of Ann Arbor: http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/
Boards, Commissions and Committees Directory
Appointment Application
Ann Arbor Public Schools: http://www.aaps.k12.mi.us/aaps.home/aaps_home
Contact the AAPS directly for existing opportunities http://www.wash.k12.mi.us/
Contact the WISD directly for existing opportunities

Washtenaw Intermediate School District: