Stressed cities hear little sympathy from State Capitol

Michigan cities expecting a helping hand from Lansing as they dig out of years of fiscal turmoil might want to look elsewhere.

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder stated as much last month at a Michigan Municipal League conference, when he said, “We all have this problem.”

His point: Just as the state must get its own fiscal house in order in tough times, so, too, must local units of government. Any expectation the state will open up major new sources of funds for cash-strapped cities seems doomed to disappointment in the current political environment.

Jeff Holyfield, communications director for the Snyder administration, said the governor “is willing to look at any funding proposal developed by local leaders and the Legislature.”

But he added that Snyder “and his administration are focused on encouraging innovation and collaboration among local governments to serve residents and control costs.”

Last week's announcement that state coffers will have nearly $500 million than expected for the coming year brought a quick call to action from MML.

“The state Senate has proposed a 4.8-percent increase in local revenue sharing for the 2014 state budget. Given the anticipated state budget surplus, anything less than that is unacceptable and unconscionable,” MML President Dan Gilmartin stated on the group's website.

“There is a concern over the health of our cities,” said Ari Adler, spokesman for House Republican Caucus. “But the question that will be asked first is what have those cities done to reduce their costs and become more efficient. They don't necessarily need to prove that to the Legislature. They need to prove that to the residents of the cities.”

Anthony Minghine, chief operations officer of MML, considers that a copout.

“The state has been crowing about all the wonderful things they have done to balance the budget. They did it largely on the backs of local government. To take $6 billion from the local government and transfer it to the state is at the heart of it.”

He refers to a study released earlier this year by accounting firm Plante Moran that found state revenue cuts to local government totaled $6 billion since 2001.

Minghine asserts that those cuts, combined with plunging property values, backed some cities into a corner they cannot readily escape. State and local governments collected $1.2 billion less in property taxes in 2011 than they did in 2007 because of declining property values and exemptions from the tax, according to a Treasury Department estimate.

The drop has been especially acute in Southeast Michigan. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments – representing Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties – projects that taxable property values for the region will decline from a peak of $180 billion in 2007 to $120 billion by 2015.

As for the assertion that cities can solve their problems with greater efficiency, Minghine isn't buying it.

“That might be 10 percent of the problem, but it's not 100 percent of the problem. After 10 years of declining revenue, I'm not sure it's any percent.”

Former Lansing Mayor David Hollister advocates revamping revenue sharing to reflect the needs of urban areas hit hard by costs of an aging infrastructure, population loss and dwindling tax base.

Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano has proposed a state sales tax dedicated to local governments. Others have pushed a constitutional amendment to allow local sales taxes.

“We need to figure out a stable funding source,” Hollister said.

The Republican legislative majority, however, has shown no inclination to further any of those proposals.

“That is the problem of any proposal that comes forward,” Adler said. “The state doesn't have any more money. That comes from the taxpayers. It's difficult right now because of the situation of individual taxpayers in Michigan to ask them for more.”

But in Minghine's view, Michigan prosperity is inextricably tied to its urban areas. He believes it folly to expect statewide economic growth without healthy cities.

“Not to invest in local communities is to the total detriment of the state. We need to rethink what drives the economy,” Minghine said.

He noted that research indicates that young, mobile workers prized as key to the new economy are increasingly swayed by urban quality of life when deciding where to locate. A survey by CEO for Cities, a nonprofit, urban advocacy organization, found that two-thirds of 25- to-34-year-olds with college degrees say they will choose first where to live, then seek a job.

There are signs of life in downtown Detroit, sparked by the move in 2010 by Quicken Loans from the suburbs to the heart of city. Retail and residential development followed, spurred by employer  cash incentives to workers who locate downtown.

Still, census figures found that the Detroit metropolitan area was among the biggest losers of young residents between 2008 and 2010. It lost 7,500 residents in the 25- to-34-year-old group in that period, third-largest loss among metro areas in the country.

“We need places that people want to live in,” Minghine said.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Tue, 05/21/2013 - 10:10am
Give a person a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a person to fish and he eats for a lifetime. The Gov. is a great teacher.
Roger Martin
Tue, 05/21/2013 - 2:16pm
So, over years and decades, various Michigan legislatures and governors pass LAWS pledging to share tax revenues with local communities to fund local police and fire protection, parks and libraries, drinking water systems, roads and bridges, etc. They call these funds "statutory revenue sharing." Then over the past dozen or so years, the Michigan Legislature and governors cut statutory revenue sharing by $6 billion (yes, with a "b") and use the money to plug holes in the state budget, to pay for tax cuts, to fund other state programs and services. And now some in the Legislature have the audacity to suggest Michigan cities simply must be more efficient because the state has no money? WTF?
Tue, 05/21/2013 - 3:04pm
Roger, Looking at the financial ratings, it would suggest that some cities that have had significant reductions in their State funding along with other economic problems have taken control of their financial practices/problems and significantly improved their situations, while others have not. Do you believe those who not have made the hard decisions to improve their financial status should be punished or encourage for their choices? Their are cities that have not made those same hard choices, do you believe they should be encourage or suffer the consequences of their past and current choices? Do you think the taxpayers from across the State should subsidize those who are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices? Especially when many of those taxpayers live in communities that have and are sacrficing.
Charles Richards
Tue, 05/21/2013 - 2:17pm
But in Minghine’s view, Michigan prosperity is inextricably tied to its urban areas. He believes it folly to expect statewide economic growth without healthy cities. Cities are healthy because they create economic value. If a city is not creating economic value, artificial aid is of little value. Admittedly, some cities are under severe stress, but the vast majority are not. There is little point in shifting the costs of the failures of some cities to the larger community.
Barry Visel
Tue, 05/21/2013 - 9:48pm
There is no funding problem. $30 + Billion dollars/year are available right now. Simply eliminate all tax abatements, deductions and incentives (Hint: See the Tax Expenditure Appendix of the Michigan State's all there). This has the potential of solving the alleged funding problems while lowering income and sales tax rates at the same time!
Jim Storey
Mon, 05/27/2013 - 4:41pm
It's hard to believe an article about gicing cities more money quotes the Wayne County executive whose administration is under investigation for the illegal diversion of taxpayer funds on many fronts. Now, please advise how that government deserves more money from Lansing?