1

PPT cut: Municipalities stand to lose in a big way

By Mary Drier
Staff Writer
MICHIGAN — The state’s proposal to eliminate personal property tax (PPT) for businesses without a definite plan in place to replace funding will have a significant impact on municipalities’ budgets throughout the state.
In just Tuscola County alone, the revenue loss is over $1 million to just the county, cities, villages and townships. (The impact on schools will be featured in another edition of the Advertiser).
Besides the proposed elimination of PPT, property values have declined, which in turn means less money generated, and state revenue sharing to municipalities has also been reduced.
“Now, some in Lansing are considering a proposal that would slash another $1.2 billion from local governments across Michigan as early as this fall by eliminating PPT,” explained a press release from the Michigan Municipal League (MML).
“PPT is a tax on equipment and machinery paid only by businesses, not by individual taxpayers or homeowners. That revenue helps pay for police, fire protection, and other essential services provided by local governments.”
MML is pushing a campaign to “Replace, Don’t Erase” to lawmakers if they are going to eliminate PPT then find another funding source to provide the same amount of funds that would be lost.
According to MML, over the last decade there have been over $4 billion in revenue sharing cuts, and police and fire protection and other essential services can’t absorb another $1.2 billion cut from Lansing.
“While arguments can be made for reforming and improving PPT, repealing it – without replacing the funds – would financially devastate thousands of local communities,” noted MML.
If the proposal to eliminate PPT becomes a reality, the impact on some municipalities could range from a few thousand dollars to several hundred thousand.
In Tuscola County, PPT’s elimination would mean a loss of revenue of over $700,000 between the county’s allocated and special millages.
The following is a breakdown that eliminating PPT could have if another revenue source isn’t created:
In the village of Akron, the change would mean a loss of about $13,961 revenue; and in Akron Township, it would mean a loss of about $19,505 in tax revenue.
In Almer Township, the change would mean a loss of about $6,290 in tax revenue.
In Arbela Township, the change would mean a loss of about $5,308.
In the City of Caro, the change would mean a loss of about $310,518.
In the village of Cass City, the change would mean a loss of about $106,373 in tax revenue.
In Columbia Township, the change would mean a loss of about $7,624 in tax revenue.
In Dayton Township, the change would mean a loss of about $3,889 in tax revenue.
In Denmark Township, the change would mean a loss of about $14,166 in tax revenue.
In Ellington Township, the change would mean a loss of about $5,888 in tax revenue.
In Elmwood Township, the change would mean of loss of about $8,986 in tax revenue.
In Fairgrove Village, the change would mean a loss of about $7,346; and in Fairgrove Township, the loss of about $6,786.
In Fremont Township, the change would mean a loss of about $6,697 in tax revenue.
In the village of Gagetown, the change would mean a loss of about $24,685 in tax revenue.
In Indianfields Township, the change would mean a loss of about $14,060 in tax revenue.
In the village of Kingston, the change would mean a loss of about $4,528 in tax revenue; and in Kingston Township about a $5,100 loss.
In Koylton Township, the change would mean a loss of about $4,524 in tax revenue.
In the village of Mayville, the change would mean a loss of about $13,595 in tax revenue.
In the village of Millington, the change would mean a loss of about $46,447 in tax revenue; and in Millington Township, a loss of about $12,986.
In Novesta Township, the change would mean a loss of about $2,619 in tax revenue.
In Tuscola Township, the change would mean a loss of about $4,221 in tax revenue.
In the village of Unionville, the change would mean a loss of about $4,752 in tax revenue.
In Watertown Township, the change would mean a loss of about $4,049 in tax revenue.
In Wells Township, the change would mean a loss of about $4,914 in tax revenue.
In Wisner Township, the change would mean a loss of about $2,860 in tax revenue.
In the city of Vassar, the change would mean a loss of about $122,316 in tax revenue; and in Vassar Township, a loss of about $3,586.
The following is the projected impact of eliminating PPT in the other communities in the Tuscola County Advertiser’s other coverage areas:
In the village of Sebewaing, the change would mean the loss of about $40,270 in tax revenue; and in Sebewaing Township, the loss of about $48,077.
In Brookfield Township, the change would mean a loss of about $7,425 in tax revenue.
In the village of Clifford, the change would mean a loss of about $54,901 in tax revenue.
In the city of Frankenmuth, the change would mean a loss of about $168,441 in tax revenue; and in Frankenmuth Township, a loss of about $7,137.
In the city of Marlette, the change would mean a loss of about $89,698 in tax revenue; and in Marlette Township, a loss of about $7,934.
In the campaign of “Replace, Don’t Erase” on the proposed elimination of PPT, MML urges municipal leaders to contact their state representatives about their concerns and developing replacement funding.

Filed in: Local News

Recent Posts

Bookmark and Promote!

One Response to "PPT cut: Municipalities stand to lose in a big way"

  1. teabagmebaby says:

    Hooray for Snyder,
    Hooray at last,
    Horray for Snyder,
    we’re a horses ass!

    EFM time?

    Report this comment

Leave a Reply

You must be Logged in to post comment.

© 6851 Tuscola Today. All rights reserved. XHTML / CSS Valid.
Proudly designed by Theme Junkie.