In the EUP area of Michigan, the Superior District Library has proposed a property tax millage increase, set to appear on the February 27th primary ballot. The proposed millage will renew the existing .4976 millage and add another .5 to bring the total to .9976. This move comes after a significant defeat of a proposed school millage in the previous November 2023 election, which saw a resounding rejection by voters.

The decision to place the library millage on the February ballot, separate from the controversial school bond—which is likely to be voted on again later in 2024—was strategic. The library board aims to avoid associating its request with the unpopular school millage, hoping for a more positive reception from voters.

Voter turnout is drastically different between primary elections and general elections, with less than 24% participation1 in the 2020 presidential primary, compared to over 68%2 participation in the 2020 general election.

Library Director Waskin outlined several reasons for the timing of the millage proposal during the library board's November meeting3. She emphasized the opportunity for the library to secure necessary funding ahead of the school bond re-vote and noted the potential for success given the expected low-controversy February ballot. The strategy also includes giving the library multiple opportunities within the year to pass the millage if the initial attempt fails.

The proposed tax increase is presented as a solution to inflationary pressures affecting the library's operations. Despite the fact that millage revenues naturally adjust with inflation—demonstrated by an 8.5% revenue increase from property taxes for the library in fiscal year 202345 without altering the millage rate—the library leadership asserts that an increased millage is important for sustaining its existing services.

In the discourse surrounding the proposed millage increase for the Superior District Library, there's also a conversation about the "ratchet effect" in taxes. This concept refers to the tendency for tax rates, once increased, to remain high rather than being adjusted downward when the initial reasons for the increase, such as inflationary pressures, no longer apply.

As the community weighs the merits of the proposed millage increase, the outcome will not only reflect the public's willingness to increase local library funding but also impact how local public bodies request funds in the future.

Background of the Proposal

The bond aimed to provide $57 million to the Sault Ste. Marie Area Public Schools, proposing new construction deemed essential by its proponents. Advocates claimed that the investment was critical for enhancing the educational facilities, thereby improving the overall quality of education for students.

The Mail Campaign Effort

Sault Ste. Marie Area Public Schools expended $10,100 on a mail campaign. The design of this campaign was to inform the voters about the bond's potential benefits. The mailers emphasized the positive impact the bond could have on the school system and student learning experiences.

Community Opposition and Debates

Despite these efforts, the proposal faced significant opposition. Critics of the bond highlighted what they saw as excessive spending for a school system grappling with declining enrollment and a diminishing taxpayer base. They questioned the financial prudence of such a large investment, especially given the broader economic context.

Another point of opposition was the allocation of funds within the bond for new building projects, which opponents argued included unnecessary and extravagant design elements. These elements, they argued, would inflate costs without contributing to the educational quality or effectiveness.

The mail campaign itself faced scrutiny. Many who opposed the bond felt that the campaign represented an attempt to propagandize voters rather than transparently engage their concerns and explore alternative options.

Landslide Election Result

The overwhelming defeat of the bond, with 70.6% of voters rejecting the proposal, underscores a pronounced disconnect between the school district's plans and the community's willingness to support them financially. The landslide vote reflects deep-seated concerns about fiscal management, the necessity of proposed construction, and the prioritization of educational spending.