Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Resolutions.property Tax Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves resolution to accept protest letters and updates income limits for property tax exemptions
Summary
Benton Harbor's legislative committee read and advanced a resolution to accept letters of protest for the March 2026 Board of Review (citing MCL 211.3) and approved updated income limits and a $6,000 asset cap for property tax exemption eligibility; a commissioner asked whether the asset cap can be adjusted.
The Benton Harbor legislative committee on Jan. 7 read and forwarded two resolutions related to the Board of Review and property tax exemptions.
The committee read a resolution titled "Acceptance of letter of protest for March 2026 board of review," citing Michigan Compiled Laws MCL 211.3 as providing the city the authority to accept letters of protest for nonresident property owners. The chair read the resolution and, saying there were no objections, moved it forward to the full city commission.
The committee also read and forwarded a routine annual resolution that adopts the income limits and asset-level test for property tax exemption guidelines for tax year 2026. The chair read the specific income limits by household size and restated policy rules: one vehicle is allowed per licensed driver in the household, and the value of assets excluding homestead and vehicles "may not exceed $6,000." The chair noted the income limits reflect state-updated figures.
Commissioner Henry asked whether the $6,000 asset limit is set in stone and noted Benton Harbor's economic challenges, saying, "Benton Harbor, 49% of our people is living below poverty." The city clerk (Tiffany) replied that the city commission can set its own asset level and explained the state’s reasoning that assets are considered an indicator of the ability to pay taxes; she added the board of review would review appeals.
Both resolutions were advanced to the full Benton Harbor City Commission for final consideration; the committee did not record a formal roll-call vote at the legislative meeting.
