Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delta County hearing on Headley rollback centers on whether to put millage decision to voters
Summary
Commissioners revisited the Headley property-tax rollback and whether to seek a millage increase on the ballot to cover an estimated $732,000 budget gap; public commenters urged protecting taxpayers while others said growth and development are preferable to higher taxes.
Delta County commissioners spent a significant portion of their April 21 meeting discussing the Headley amendment, the state-era mechanism that reduces local property tax millage rates when assessed values rise faster than inflation.
Public commenter Roy Mattson urged the board not to remove or weaken Headley’s protections, saying the amendment and Proposal A work together to prevent local property tax revenue from growing faster than inflation and that preserving those limits protects taxpayers. "The Headley amendment in Delta County, Michigan mandates that if the assessed value of existing property increases faster than inflation, the maximum property tax millage rate must be reduced," Mattson said.
Bob Baron, another public commenter, told commissioners that the policy has given more control to taxpayers and argued local leaders should focus on growing income and development rather than raising taxes. "There is no ‘dark store loophole’ — it was an available legal avenue some parties used at the tax tribunal," Baron said, objecting to the colloquial phrase and urging the county to encourage development.
On the board, commissioners described competing pressures. One commissioner framed the choice as filling an approximate $732,000 shortfall either through cuts or by seeking new revenue; another said many county services are already stretched thin and urged care before making cuts. Several commissioners suggested letting voters decide whether to pursue a ballot measure that would authorize a millage or extension, and staff said final ballot language and comparative millage data for Upper Peninsula counties will be provided before the next meeting.
No formal vote was taken on placing a question on the ballot at this meeting. Commissioners agreed to have county administration and legal staff prepare proposed ballot language and comparative data and to revisit the decision at the next scheduled meeting.
Why it matters: The Headley rollback and Proposal A together influence how much property-tax revenue local government can collect as property values rise. Board members said the outcome could affect what services the county is able to fund without making sizeable cuts.
What’s next: County administration will prepare comparative millage data and proposed ballot language for the board packet ahead of the next meeting so commissioners and the public can review the materials before a decision.
