|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
From the Center for Community Progress (nonprofit previously run by Dan Kildee)
Roving Michigan NSP2 Consortium Project Closeout Specialist
In January 2010, HUD awarded $223,875,399 in NSP2 funds for Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), 12 cities and 8 land banks in the Michigan NSP2 Consortium. Capital Access, Inc. serves as the Implementation Management Consultant for the Consortium and seeks to hire up to two (2) Project Closeout Specialists. One Closeout Specialist will focus on Genesee County Land Bank and Flint and the other will provide roving on-site technical assistance to cities and land banks in Battle Creek, Benton Harbor, Grand Rapids, Hamtramck, Highland Park, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Pontiac, Saginaw and Wyandotte as directed by MSHDA and Capital Access management.
This is a professional service consulting position where selected candidates will work as an independent contractor. The position will focus on assuring projects are formally closed out on the MSHDA Online Project Administration Link (OPAL) to demonstrate grantee compliance with federal and state regulations and contract provisions are met.
This three (3) month engagement begins November 2012 and ends on February 10, 2013, the end of the HUD NSP2 grant period.
All submission of qualifications must be received by Tuesday November 6, 2012. Interviews will begin on November 7, 2012 in Lansing, MI. Please email resume and letter of interest to: Caitlin Sharp at csharp@capitalaccessinc.com |
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:35 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| Capital Access is still managing Smith Village despite the failure of the porches and other issues. Capital access was addressed by AC Dumas when he spoke to council about the proposed repayments for Smith Villaage. |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:37 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Michigan NSP2 Achieves $173 Million Milestone Expended on Revitalization
November 2012
As of November 2012, the Michigan NSP2 Consortium has expended $173 million of its $223 million grant award. 98% of the award is under contract for demolition or construction to be completed by February 2013. The Michigan NSP2 Consortium includes twelve cities, eight land banks, the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Center for Community Progress and Capital Access. read more…
HUD awarded the Michigan NSP2 Consortium the largest grant in a $2 billion dollar national competition. NSP2 provides capital to help communities reposition neighborhoods that have suffered from foreclosure, abandonment and blight. Capital Access developed the vision for the Consortium, drafted the application for funding, and serves as the implementation management consultant for this NSP2 award. The firm has twenty project and grants management staff deployed in service to the Consortium.
The Consortium is on schedule to demolish 3,200 dilapidated structures and produce 1,050 rehabilitated and new housing units by February 2013.
Capital Access is delighted to see robust initial sales of homes assisted with NSP2 funds. Removing blight, producing a move up home at a starter home price, and bringing the financing to the buyer are the key components of this program that are helping restore neighborhood markets in Michigan.
|
|
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:43 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Issue Date: March 30, 2012
Audit Report No.2012-CH-1007
Title: The State of Michigan Lacked Adequate Controls Over Its Use of Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 for a Project
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the State of Michigan’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program administered by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2011 annual audit plan. We selected the State based upon our designation of the Program as high risk and citizens’ complaints to our office. Our objective was to determine whether the State complied with Federal requirements in its use of Program funds under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 regarding the citizens’ complaints to our office.
The State lacked sufficient documentation to support that it followed Federal requirements in its use of $3.3 million in Program funds for a project. As a result, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) lacked assurance that the Authority’s use of $3.3 million in Program funds for the acquisition of a building was reasonable and met Federal requirements.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Community Planning and Development require the State to (1) provide sufficient documentation to support that the Authority’s use of $3.3 million in Program funds for the purchase of the building was reasonable or reimburse its Program from non-Federal funds as appropriate and (2) implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that it maintains sufficient documentation to support that the Authority’s use of Program funds is for eligible project costs. |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:53 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Ac Dumas brought the Department of Justice in about Flint's failure to follow HUD rules in Smith Village and other NSP programs. Although Flint and the Genesee County Land bank are one of the sub-grantees of the money sent by the federal government to MSHDA, Mshda has failed to properly monitor the grant.
Future Flint leades may argue that since MSHDA is the legitimate grantee and they failed to ensure compliance, then MSHDA should be on the hook for any funds that must be repaid.
Even the OIG Alexandra Graemer might be held at least partially responsible because she failed to properly investigate complaints made at the beginning of the Smith Village saga.
HUD initially refused to investigate complaints and referred them to MSHDA since the money was awarded to the State of Michigan.
Kurtz failed to comply with HUD rules his first time around when he allocated funds to Greater Eastside and Flint West Village when they did not meet HUD criteria for the grant money. In the end, Flint lost far more than $1 million because of his actions.
Nothing has changed except for the worse-there are multiple conflicts-of -interest between Brown and Flint nonprofits. Flint is awash with his political cronies who receive hefty salaries, |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:09 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
untanglingwebs schreef:
Nothing has changed except for the worse-there are multiple conflicts-of -interest between Brown and Flint nonprofits. Flint is awash with his political cronies who receive hefty salaries,
Hey, cronies gotta eat too. You can't expect them to get real jobs. Besides, it's only taxpayers' money. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:38 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Plenty more where that came from in fact I hear "THE ONE" is on the phone with China as we speak. But hey thats why you libs gave him 4 more.  |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:56 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
During the RICO gang case of the Cobras, Delaware Street on Flint's east side was one of the main streets associated with the case. Despite the decline and continuing gang operation in this neighborhood, MSHDA financed the construction of 2 heavily subsidized homes on Delaware for the now defunct Greater eastside Communnity Association.
These upgraded homes each cost over $150,000 to build and were sold for approximately 50% of their cost. These homes were the subject of HUD findings because the income of one home, 1717 Delaware, did not include all of the residents in the home. 2012
On 10/27/2010 1717 Delaware was the subject of a Sheriffs sale for $70,454.83. Since then the value of the home has steadily declined.
The current value is down to $30,0000 and the neighborhood has seriously deteriorated.
Parcel #:
41-05-183-045
Address:
1717 DELAWARE AVE
Classification:
Residential Improved
Lot Size:
Front: 44 Depth: 125.75
Current Year (2012)
Previous Year (2011)
State Equalized Value
15000
27800
Taxable Value
15000
27800 |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:37 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The second house was sold to a retired GM exec, who took out a mortgage for $73,550 in 2009.
The home is now valued at $29,000.
Parcel #:
41-05-183-047
Address:
1729 DELAWARE AVE
FLINT, MI 48506
Classification:
Residential Improved
Front: 44 Depth: 119
Current Year (2012)
Previous Year (2011)
State Equalized Value
14500
19800
Taxable Value
14500
19800 |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:46 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
These homes were financed after the City of Flint refused to honor Kurtz's "lame duck" resolution giving the agency money. The refusal was based on the financial audits showing the agency could fail as a viable entity and the foreclosures of 3 properties for unpaid taxes.
MSHDA had to bail the agency out because of issues that arose during construction and declined to build any more homes for the agency.
All of the homes had numerous upgrades, including granite counters and all appliances included. |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:52 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
But then MSHDA awarded financing to GECA to purchase and renovate 3 homes for sale on the east side. They held up on the deal until GECA paid over $3,000 in unpaid property taxes. Two of the houses were on Delaware, 1700 and 1706. One of the homes was the former residence of a Cobra leader. The third home was 2601 Burns. After completion none of the homes was able to be sold. MSHDA financed their sale to the Shelter of Flint, obviously to cover some one's behind.
That block of Delaware has not been improved by the development in that block because of continuing gang violence in that area. The majority of other homes in that block have been abandoned or demolished. A recent fire occured next door to the recently refurbished home.
it should come as no surprise that MSHDA does not have the proper people in place to ensure complaince with HUD regulations.
BUT THE BIGGEST QUESTION IS WHAT WILL THE VALUE OF THESE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOMES BE AS THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IS STILL PLAGUED WITH VIOLENCE AND OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. ALSO, THE RESIDENTS OF UNIVERSITY PARK ARE EXPERIENCING LOWERED PROPERTY VALUES AND THEY PAID MARKET VALUE FOR THEIR HOME. |
|
|
|
Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:00 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Snyder doesn't mind breaking laws as he did when he altered revenue sharing.
Michigan municipalities question Gov. Rick Snyder's revenue sharing proposal
Published: Tuesday, February 21, 2012, 4:28 PM Updated: Tuesday, February 21, 2012, 5:04 PM
By Melissa Anders | manders@mlive.com
LANSING – Michigan’s local governments have a lot of questions and concerns about Gov. Rick Snyder’s budget that ties revenue sharing to requirements for accountability, transparency, consolidation of services and employee compensation.
For the most part, cities, villages, townships and counties don’t seem to mind considering merging services or offering a citizen’s guide and performance dashboard. But employee compensation is a sticking point for some governments.
Kent County, for example, has already reigned in its benefit costs and doesn’t necessarily want to impost the state requirements, like making new employees pay 20 percent of their health insurance costs.
“We believe that implementing a one size fits all strategy is not a good way to do it,” County Administrator/Controller Daryl Delabbio told a House committee Tuesday morning.
Rep. Earl Poleski, R-Jackson, said he’ll scrutinize the employee compensation portion of the Economic Vitality Incentive Program.
“(It’s) a theme we’ve heard a few times this morning which is the compensation aspect of EVIP is potentially problematic and maybe doesn’t save the money that we’re hoping that local units would save,” he said. “So I think we’ll get a real hard look at that as we go through the budget process.”
Detroit Mayor Dave Bing also spoke before the committee on Tuesday, asking them to keep Detroit high on their agenda as the city fights to become financially stable.
Snyder’s fiscal 2013 budget continues a program created last year that requires cities, villages and townships to meet certain conditions to receive their share of what used to be statutorily given out each year. This proposal also expands that program to include most Michigan counties.
Gov. Rick Snyder proposed maintaining what used to be known as statutory revenue sharing for eligible cities, villages and townships at this year’s level of $210 million, while constitutional revenue sharing would increase 2 percent to $711.1 million.
Counties fall under a different set of funding. Snyder’s budget includes $125.6 million in sales tax revenue for the 61 counties that have or will exhaust their revenue sharing reserve funds next fiscal year, up from $115 million for the current fiscal year.
Michigan’s 83 counties halted revenue sharing in 2005 to help balance the budget. They agreed to return to the program once revenue sharing reserve funds were exhausted.
Snyder also recommended increasing a competitive grant program from $5 million to $25 million. The grants are available to offset costs incurred when local governments combine services or operations.
The Michigan Association of Counties has expressed frustration with the funding level, but was unavailable to testify before a House subcommittee hearing on the issue Tuesday morning.
The Michigan Municipal League spoke on behalf of most of the state’s cities, villages and urban townships.
“We understand that in difficult times we can’t expect to see increases in funding and we are pleased we’re not being cut a third like last year, however now that total state revenue estimates are looking up, we need to start looking at how we’re going to invest in our community and restore some basic funding long term,” said Andy Schor, assistant director of state affairs for the Michigan Municipal League.
The Michigan Township Association urged lawmakers to include more townships in the economic incentive program. Just 34 of the 1,240 are eligible for the program.
Email Melissa Anders at manders@mlive.com. Follow her on Twitter: @MelissaDAnders. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:52 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Among the responses to the above story Sherryann47 was right on:
Tom Swift
If the population drops why shouldn,t revenue sharing??
sherryann47
A little history of the taxation in Michigan the created the income tax and sales tax which then became the income stream for revenue sharing. Both taxes were created when the VOTERS approved them. This is important because the law in Michigan on revenue created by voters is that it MUST BE DEDICATED TO THE PURPOSE STATED IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE. The language stated it was to go back to the cities and townships. ALL OF IT. The law created to enact collection has to follow the ballot language. THE GOVENOR BY LAW DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO WITHHOLD IT. And the 2 cent sales tax increase voted in 1994 is to fully be paid out to schools! Why will no one challenge this?! Politics.
|
|
|
|
Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:55 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Revenue Sharing
BACKGROUND
[APRIL 1, 1998] Michigan’s revenue-sharing program began in the early 1930s and through numerous changes has evolved into the current system.
In the 1930s the state began taxing enterprises holding licenses to sell alcoholic beverages; 85 percent of the revenue was returned to cities, villages, and townships. Later a portion of the intangibles tax revenue was added to the revenue-sharing pot.
In 1946 a portion of the state sales tax revenue also was earmarked (dedicated) for local government.
The 1963 state constitution (Article IX, section 10) expanded the locals’ share of state sales tax revenue, dedicating one-eighth of it to cities, villages, and townships.
In 1967 the state income tax was enacted and 11.5 percent of the gross receipts allocated to local governments: 50 percent to county governments (the first significant unrestricted state aid to counties) and 50 percent to cities, villages, and townships. This and all the above were distributed on a per capita basis.
In the 1970s there were several substantial changes, and the system took the form that existed until 1996. The most significant revision occurred in 1972 with Public Act 212, which, for the first time tied cities’, villages’, and townships’ share of state income tax revenue to their relative tax effort (RTE). A unit’s RTE is measured by comparing its property, income, and excise taxes to the statewide average of all local units. The rationale for this formula is that tax effort better measures local need than does population alone. Local governments have different needs for public services and different revenue-raising ability not directly related to population. (For example, Detroit has a higher crime rate than Troy, and therefore, has a greater need for police services; but to raise the same revenue per capita as Troy, Detroit also must levy higher tax rates because Detroit’s property values are much lower than Troy’s.)
In 1974, following voter approval of the food/drugs exemption from the sales tax, the state constitution was amended, increasing the tax revenue earmarked for revenue sharing from one-eighth to one-fifth (raising the percentage of total sales tax revenue allocated to locals from 12 percent to 15 percent).
In 1975 the single business tax (SBT) was enacted and part of the revenue directed into revenue sharing; a portion of the new revenue-sharing payments was based on RTE and, because one levy that the SBT replaced was the personal property tax on inventories (a local government revenue source), a portion of it was based on the inventory taxes collected that year by local government. Also in 1975 the percentage distribution of the income tax revenue to (1) counties and (2) cities, villages, and townships was changed from 50-50 to 35-65; the adjustment reflected state takeover of county welfare costs.
In the 1980s and early 1990s there were periodic reductions in payments to deal with short-term state budget problems, and there were adjustments (to reflect changes in tax rates) in the percentage of the sales, income, and SBT tax revenue shared with local governments.
In 1996 there were two major changes in state revenue sharing—one having to do with the basis on which the funds are distributed and the other with the source of the funds.
Distribution Public Act 342 of 1996 changed the revenue-sharing distribution formula, effective October 1, 1996 (the beginning of the state’s 1996–97 fiscal year). (1) The amount paid under the RTE formula now is capped at the FY 1996–97 level, and any growth in that revenue source (primarily from the sales tax) will be distributed on a per capita basis. (2) A bipartisan revenue-sharing task force was established and is charged with recommending future changes in revenue-sharing sources or distribution. If the legislature fails to act on the task force’s recommendations (due in March 1998, but at this writing the task force had not completed its work), in FY 1998–99 local governments will receive payments equal to that of the previous year; any growth that has occurred in the revenue source will go into in a revenue-sharing reserve fund that will be distributed when the legislature finally acts.
Source Public Act 342 also changed the source of revenue-sharing funds, removing income tax and SBT revenue and replacing it with additional sales tax revenue; thus, virtually all revenue sharing now comes from sales tax revenue. This likely will slow the growth in revenue-sharing payments, because historically, revenue from the sales tax has grown more slowly than that from the income tax and SBT.
Exhibit 1 presents the recent history of state revenue-sharing payments to locals. Over this 16-year period from 1981 to 1997, state revenue-sharing payments grew 140 percent, while total state spending from state resources grew about 135 percent. Adjusted for inflation, the payments increased roughly 43 percent.
Exhibit 2 shows that cities receive the lion’s share—well over half—the revenue sharing in Michigan; in contrast, villages receive a very small percentage. The exhibit also shows how important this money is to the budgets of the various types of government: On average, state revenue sharing makes up only about 10 percent of county general fund budgets, but it accounts for more than 40 percent of the townships’ (FY 1994–95 data are used, which is the latest comparable information available).
In Michigan, revenue sharing is unrestricted—that is, the state imposes no constraints on how it is spent by the local government that receives it. The amount of unrestricted money that states share with local units varies widely nationwide, and Michigan is more generous than most. Michigan’s unrestricted aid
as a share of state General Fund expenditures is 4.4 percent (the national average is 2.6 percent); and
as a share of total intergovernment aid (includes school aid and certain other payments) is 13.5 percent (the national average is 7.8 percent).
Most states, including Michigan, earmark revenue from a specific tax (most frequently, income and sales taxes) for revenue-sharing payments; a few also make General Fund appropriations.
The basis on which revenue-sharing is distributed also varies widely among the states, but the formulae fall roughly into four categories: property tax reimbursement, population, tax effort, and origin.
Population Funds are awarded on a per capita basis: e.g., number of people, per capita income, or urban population.
Tax effort Help is given to those that help themselves. The state funding that a local receives is based on how much the local is taxing itself; this approach is used in many states.
Property tax reimbursement (or payment in lieu of taxes) Funds are given to local governments to reimburse them for local tax revenue they have lost due to state legislation. For example, in Michigan the state reimburses locals for revenue they lost when the state repealed the personal property tax on inventory.
Origin Funds are awarded in proportion to a local’s contribution to state government revenue from a particular tax.
In FY 1994–95, before the major changes of 1996, Michigan distributed 53 percent of revenue sharing on the basis of population, 38 percent on tax effort, and 9 percent on the property tax reimbursement. Origin is not used in Michigan.
DISCUSSION
The main purposes of unrestricted revenue sharing are to
equalize revenue among local governments, which have widely differing capability to raise revenue, and
supplement the relatively limited revenue-raising ability of most local governments.
An alternative to revenue sharing is to give local governments access to revenue sources in addition to the property tax. For example, in Michigan, cities are allowed to levy up to a one percent income tax (up to 3 percent in Detroit). A drawback to this is that a jurisdiction that levies an income tax may be at a competitive disadvantage with neighboring jurisdictions without such a tax. A classic case is Detroit, which levies a 3 percent income tax (as well as high property taxes), needed partly because it has a low property tax base (that is, the value of its taxable property is low relative to other cities, in part because high city taxes have driven residents and businesses from the city—a vicious circle). A state revenue-sharing program allows local governments to levy lower taxes and mitigates competition among jurisdictions.
In the early years, revenue-sharing distribution was almost all per capita. In the 1970s, tax effort became accepted by public-finance experts and policymakers as the more equitable distribution basis. In the 1990s, however, per capita distribution once again has gained substantial support in the Michigan Legislature. One reason is that the legislative influence of Detroit and other older urban jurisdictions, which historically have received the lion’s share of revenue sharing, has declined significantly. In FY 1994–95 Detroit received 25 percent of all unrestricted revenue-sharing payments ($292 million, or $285 per capita); in contrast, Grand Rapids received only 1.7 percent ($19.5 million, or $103 per capita). A shift to a formula based only on population will equalize per capita amounts in Detroit and Grand Rapids and reduce the disparity in payments. If a per capita formula ($126 per person) had been used in FY 1994–95, aid to Detroit would have been reduced by more than half and accounted for 11 percent of total revenue-sharing payments; aid to Grand Rapids would have increased almost a quarter and accounted for 2 percent of revenue-sharing payments.
One argument against shifting from tax effort to per capita is that such a shift exacerbates urban sprawl and migration from central urban areas. Reducing their revenue-sharing payments will require cities such as Detroit and Flint to raise taxes or reduce services, which will drive even more residents and businesses to suburban areas, where higher revenue-sharing payments will result in residents/businesses having lower taxes or more public services. This will encourage (1) the inefficient, costly practice of abandoning serviceable infrastructure (e.g., highways, sewer systems) in urban areas and duplicating this infrastructure in suburban and rural areas, and (2) continued development of land currently used for farming or recreation.
Supporters of per capita distribution of local aid argue that a tax-effort formula (1) deprives many jurisdictions of their fair share of state aid, (2) encourages local governments to raise taxes in order to get increased state aid, and (3) provides too much aid to Detroit.
See also Business Taxes; State-Local Relations.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Citizens Research Council
38200 West Ten Mile, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48335-2806
(248) 474-0044
(248) 474-0090 FAX
www.crcmich.org
Michigan Association of Counties
935 North Washington,
Lansing, MI 48906
(517) 482-5374
(517) 482-4599 FAX
www.miaco.org
Michigan Department of Management and Budget
P.O. Box 30026
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-1004
(517) 373-7268 FAX
www.michigan.gov/dmb/
Office of Revenue and Tax Analysis
Michigan Department of Treasury
430 West Allegan Street
Lansing, MI 48922
(517) 373-2864
(517) 373-8414 FAX
www.michigan.gov/treasury/0,1607,7-121-1751---,00.html
Michigan Municipal League
320 North Washington Square
Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 485-1314
(517) 372-7476 FAX
www.mml.org
Michigan Townships Association
512 Westshire Street
Lansing, MI 48917
(517) 321-6467
(517) 321-8908 FAX
www.michigantownships.org
Senate Fiscal Agency
201 North Washington Square
Victor Center, Suite 800
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
(517) 373-2768
(517) 373-1986 FAX
www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/ |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:04 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
What is Revenue Sharing?
• Local governments use state funding, called revenue sharing, to pay for services that make our communities the types of places where people want to live and businesses want to locate.
•
Revenue sharing was promised to local communities in the Michigan Constitution to help pay for core government services such as police protection, fire services,roads, water, sewer and garbage collection services
.
•
It started in the 1920s when the State of Michigan promised communities it would streamline tax collection by eliminating local taxes and replacing them with state taxes. The State collects and records these taxes and is suppose to reimburse local jurisdictions to off set the general budgets of local communities.
•
In every budget since 2000, the State has not fully returned revenue sharing as required by statute. Ten consecutive years of cuts have left local communities more than $4 billion short on revenue sharing.
• The Michigan Legislature needs to recognize the connection between the
essential services provided by local communities as it relates to quality of life and the economic vitality of our state.
• Local communities are the foundation of successful economic development in Michigan. Safe streets and functioning infrastructure are critical to attracting and maintaining businesses.
• Communities have reduced their services, eliminated public safety positions and consolidated services to deal with lost revenue.
•
According to the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards, there are 1,800 fewer police officers on the streets of Michigan since 2001.
• Michigan’s Fire Marshall Office reports 2,400 fewer fire fighters since 2001.
• Senior, recreation and public library programs have been drastically cut or eliminated.
•
Local governments cannot continue to provide essential services if funding is continually redistributed to other budget priorities.
|
|
|
|
Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:11 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
