LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) — The Michigan Supreme Court docket has dominated in opposition to East Lansing in a tax case that would value the town hundreds of thousands – cash metropolis officers must refund to taxpayers.
The case stems from a choice again in 2016 by the town of East Lansing to cost a “franchise fee” to residents who used the Lansing Board of Water and Mild to assist make up for a finances shortfall.
The price, which the Supreme Court docket resolution brings in $1.4 million a 12 months, began in the summertime of 2017. Underneath an settlement with the town, BWL collected the cash and turned it over to the town for a small price.
Legal professional James Heos sued the town, claiming the franchise price was basically an end-run round what’s known as the “Headlee Amendment” to Michigan’s Structure that stated voters wanted to approve tax will increase (which is why voters should approve millage requests in elections).
The large query that labored its means via the courts was whether or not the funds have been a price or a tax. The Michigan Supreme Court docket stated it was.
“We hold that such an arrangement violates the Headlee Amendment because the purported ‘fee’ operates as a tax that has not been approved by the voters of the municipality,” the choice stated.
“Specifically, we conclude that the franchise fee functions as a tax because the feewas imposed for a general revenue-raising purpose, the fee was not proportionate to anycosts the City incurred in LBWL providing electrical services, and the fee was notvoluntary,” the ruling continued.
“I’m just happy that the citizens of East Lansing will be reimbursed for what was taken from them,” stated Heos.
If the price/tax introduced in $1.4 million a 12 months since mid-2017 because the courtroom paperwork counsel, the town could need to reimburse taxpayers to the tune of greater than $10 million {dollars} – and Heos suggests they’re additionally due curiosity on these funds.
4 justices supported Heos within the lawsuit. One justice agreed with a part of the choice and disagreed with a few of it. Two different justices didn’t participate within the resolution.
