Charlevoix Road Funding

The proposal has sparked controversy due to the ambiguous wording of the ballot language. This FAQ aims not to sway voters one way or another but to shed light on the importance of clarity and transparency in informing voters about how their tax dollars will be allocated. Only with a clear understanding of how the millage revenue will be distributed can voters make an informed decision that aligns with their individual circumstances and perspectives.

Yes, the millage language indicates that funds will be used to rebuild and pave existing roads and streets within the cities, villages, and unincorporated areas (townships) of Charlevoix County. However, according to a list given to the county commissioners, only primary roads within the road commission's jurisdiction will see improvements.

These roads handle higher volumes of traffic and connect major cities, towns, and other points of interest.

No, based on the list of roads projected for improvement over the next 14 years, your tax contribution will only improve primary roads.

Are you aware of the term 'bait and switch'? Take, for example, the language in the 2008 ballot measure where voters were asked to approve a 15-year millage: 'A new additional millage to provide funds for the purpose of paying the cost of rebuilding and repaving existing roads in the townships, cities, and villages of Charlevoix County.' In the end, these funds were designated exclusively for improvements to primary roads.

The language used is technically correct because primary roads run through townships. However, it's questionable from an ethical perspective; it leads voters to believe their local roads will be part of the funding formula, eliciting a "yes" vote.

Yes, here is an example. Notice the part where voters are told clearly how the revenue will be used specifically for primary roads: "This millage is estimated to provide $2 million in the first year of levy. The revenue from this millage will be disbursed solely for primary road maintenance and improvement projects within Charlevoix County, as required by Michigan law, including distribution to cities and villages within the county for their respective road projects."

Charlevoix Road Commission argues that investing in local road upgrades could jeopardize the upkeep of primary roads. However, a 2022 Road Commission audit revealed an unusually large fund surplus, equal to 72% of annual spending. While having some savings is important, experts caution against hoarding funds that could hinder funding for vital services such as local road improvements. In contrast, during the same year, Benzie County Road Commission maintained a more balanced surplus of 46%, enabling them to allocate more resources to local road projects. Furthermore, their countywide millage revenue also contributes to local road improvements.

Fourteen years is a long time period for a road millage. It will cost approximately 1 dollar per $1000 of assessed property value. For example, if your taxable value is $200K, you’ll pay an annual tax of $200 for a total of $2800 over 14 years for roads you may or may not use.

Voters need to consider the long-term implications of the millage. While supporting the millage would ensure that primary roads receive funding, it would also result in 30 years of local road neglect. Voters should weigh the immediate benefits to primary roads against the ongoing deterioration of local roads. Given the current cost of road repairs, some local roads may deteriorate to the point where reverting them to gravel becomes the more affordable option. Sharing the millage with local roads would provide much-needed support to townships and help prevent this outcome. If you live in a smaller township on a local road with a low population, your road could eventually be reverted to gravel—a reality emphasized by the road commission to pressure townships into raising their tax levies for local road improvements. So the answer to the question is: If you don't believe it's fair to divert all the millage funds to primary roads at the ongoing expense of local roads, make sure to vote wisely.

Voting 'no' could send a clear message to the road commission that the current funding proposal fails to meet the community's needs. A 'no' vote could encourage a more balanced distribution of millage funds, ensuring that primary and local road needs are addressed before the proposal is presented to voters again.

Continuing the same funding formula without addressing the needs of local roads could result in further degradation of these roads, potentially leading to unsafe conditions and decreased property values.

Yes, it is a legal mandate. However, this regulation creates a stark imbalance: cities and villages can influence the outcome of the millage while mostly offloading the costs of maintaining primary roads onto townships. This disparity is especially unjust considering that cities reap substantial benefits from well-maintained primary roads, which draw tourists and bolster local commerce. Although the law permits the road commission to request financial contributions from cities and villages for primary road projects that benefit their areas, this action appears not to have been taken, leaving township residents to bear the responsibility for the last 15 years and another 14 if the millage is renewed. For cities and villages, it's a favorable situation—they influence the vote and enjoy the benefits of repaired major arteries, all while watching township citizens foot the bill.

Here’s why, and the answer is redundant from the response above but worth stating again. The cities and villages have enough population to tip the scales in favor of the millage. This means their voters decide whether township residents shoulder the majority of the cost for maintaining primary roads, which mainly benefits the tourist industry. Meanwhile, local roads in townships suffer. The real kicker? Cities get to keep their share of the millage to fix their own local roads.

Yes, this is a feasible alternative. Instead of supporting a countywide millage where the road commission exercises authority over how townships' contributions are allocated, townships would retain decision-making power.

Yes, absolutely, there's an alternative approach to ensure fairer allocation. Instead of directing township contributions solely to primary roads, funds could be evenly divided. Each township would receive allocation for one primary road and one local based on similar criteria - length in miles and overall cost -over a fourteen-year period. This method would evenly distribute the millage revenue, aiding townships in protecting local roads from disproportionate impacts.

There are 185 miles of primary and 528 local roads.

No, the Charlevoix Road Commission has sole legal jurisdiction and is responsible for ensuring all township roads are safe. Further, townships are not legally required to pay for road costs unless voters approve a “township” millage specifically tailored to improving roads.

Generally, governmental entities like road commissions have a certain level of immunity from lawsuits. However, there are exceptions, particularly if it can be proven that the road commission was negligent in maintaining the road or failed to address known hazards. If an injured party can demonstrate that the road commission was aware of the unsafe condition and failed to take reasonable steps to correct it, they may have grounds for a lawsuit. This would involve proving that the unsafe condition directly caused the accident.

There are several signs of road deficiencies that may indicate an unsafe road. Potholes, heaving, ruts, flooding, large cracks, and other issues can all contribute to accidents. For instance, if you notice that a road seems unsafe because the sides are crumbling, forcing drivers to veer towards the center, or if a large pothole is causing drivers to swerve to avoid it, you have the option to contact the road commission and report these unsafe conditions. If the road commission fails to address the issues in a timely manner and an accident occurs, resulting in damages or injuries, there could be grounds for a lawsuit. It's crucial to keep records of any calls made to report unsafe conditions, and in the event of an accident, seek legal advice promptly to ensure compliance with the statute of limitations.

The Charlevoix Road Commission has legal jurisdiction and is accountable for ensuring the safety of all township roads. Townships aren't legally obliged to provide funds for such repairs and improvements unless they opt to construct a new road. In such instances, a 50% match is required.

Yes, that assessment is accurate. But let’s delve into the origins of this issue. For over 15 years, the road commission has neglected major improvements to local roads, foregoing crucial preventative measures that would have extended their safe condition. As a result, the roads have deteriorated to a point where, in many cases, complete reconstruction is the only viable solution—a prohibitively expensive and challenging task for small townships. Due to this neglect, potholes and other deficiencies have become so prevalent that all available Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) dollars are being consumed by the continuous need to fill these holes with asphalt and crack sealer—a clear sign of short-sighted management.

Generally, well-maintained roads have a lifespan of 30 years or more. However, with the initial 15-year millage focused solely on primary roads and an additional 14 years if the 2024 millage is approved, many local roads risk deteriorating beyond feasible repair. Consequently, townships may need to seek additional funding from their voters to offset the road commission's prioritization of tourist-oriented roads.

Addressing this issue isn't straightforward. Without additional funding from the state of Michigan, we're compelled to ensuring available resources are managed prudently. This entails devising fair strategies and safeguarding funds from being diverted away from local roads to partly bolster the tourist industry. Currently, a significant portion of the countywide millage designated for primary roads is funded by contributions from township residents. Therefore, it's reasonable to consider reallocating some of these funds to support local township roads. However, committing to another 14 years of neglect for local roads, totaling 30 years, is simply not a sustainable approach.

That's a valid question. Each Charlevoix County Commissioner is assigned to one of six districts, encompassing multiple townships in each. To see what district your township belongs to visit "Boards, Commissions & Committees" on charlevoixcounty.org website. The primary responsibility of these commissioners is to advocate for the interests of their respective constituents.

However, during the discussion surrounding the proposed ballot language for the road millage, there was a noticeable absence of questions regarding its potential for being misleading. Rather than engaging in debate, the process saw a swift motion for approval, followed by a unanimous vote. This lack of robust dialogue is concerning, particularly given the insights presented in documents preceding the vote, which highlighted the potential for confusion among voters and raised questions about the fairness of the millage funding formula.

First, the most used argument is that primary roads are the most traveled and deserve all the millage revenue. Second, they state that the ballot language was constructed to give them flexibility if money becomes available for local roads at some point during the 14 years.

Local roads are crucial in our daily lives, connecting neighborhoods, schools, and businesses. Equitably distributing millage funds to these roads ensures that all residents benefit, not just those using primary routes. Prioritizing major maintenance on local roads enhances our quality of life by reducing vehicle damage, shortening travel times, and alleviating congestion, all while safeguarding property values throughout the community. Investing in local roads is not only financially prudent but also prevents the need for costly overhauls and prevents them from deteriorating into gravel paths after years of neglect.

While the tourist economy is valuable, it should not come at the expense of township residents. This underscores the importance of ensuring fair and equitable millage funding that prioritizes the needs of local communities.

However, the assertion that the ballot language allows for local roads to receive any leftover funding is deceptive. A recent list presented to county commissioners outlines repairs planned for various primary roads, meticulously matched with anticipated annual millage revenue. Road engineers assess each primary road, estimate repair costs, and allocate funds accordingly over the next 14 years. Considering the rising costs and historical allocation patterns over the past 15 years, it is highly improbable that any suitable funds will remain available.

Yet, the ballot only offers voters a vague promise: "...funds will be used for rebuilding and paving existing roads and streets within the cities, villages, and unincorporated areas (townships) of Charlevoix County." Without a comprehensive understanding of road funding intricacies and historical context, most voters may view the countywide millage as a potential solution for their deteriorating local roads, unaware that it may not directly benefit them.

As extreme as it may sound, if this millage is passed in its present form, it could essentially be a death warrant for many local roads. Thirty years of local road funding starvation will have that effect. It is crucial for county commissioners to engage more thoroughly with the communities they serve, to hear their concerns and ensure fair and effective road funding solutions. While everyone knows there is a shortage of road funds from the State of Michigan, when taxes are levied at the county level, both local and primary roads across the county should receive even distribution. This is especially important since township citizens are paying the bill. Excluding the safety of local roads from this distribution is unacceptable and must be addressed.

It is important to note that the Road Commission does not have the authority to levy taxes; this responsibility falls on the county commissioners. Therefore, in the interest of transparency, each county commissioner should communicate with township boards and their constituents in their assigned districts to solicit input before moving forward on new or renewed millages, especially a road millage that was not approved by townships in 2008. Unfortunately, there were no public meetings on the matter, nor was any input solicited in any form. Consequently, voters will go to the polls reading ballot language designed to elicit a yes vote, potentially under misleading pretenses, similar to what occurred in 2008. Please consider this when current county commissioners seek your vote for reelection. When their name appears on the ballot think about your local roads and whether they truly represent the interests of the townships in their assigned districts.