Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DECEMBER 2014
NUMBER 329
Over the past few years, discretionary cutbacks in state revenue sharing, as well as
other related fiscal and economic factors, have led to budgetary challenges for local
governments across the country, including those in Michigan. To study this issue in depth,
the author looks at trends in revenue sharing between state and local governments in
Michigan since the early 2000s.
millions of dollars
1,400
percent
70
1,200
60
1,000
50
800
40
600
30
400
20
200
10
2002 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
Statutory
0
1980 84
88
92
96
2000
04
08
12
Constitutional
Note: This figure displays state revenue sharing with local governments as a percentage
of state spending from only state revenue resources for fiscal years 19802013.
Sources: Annual reports titled Statement of the proportion of total state spending from
state sources paid to units of local government (legal basis) from the Library of Michigan.
local governments
own-source revenueraising abilities. More
B. Top five across United States
A. Seventh District
specifically, the deep
Vermont 66.2
Michigan 43.3
drop in Michigan
Arkansas 55.5
Wisconsin 39.6
home values greatly
New Mexico
48.9
Indiana 36.7
stressed local budgets
Delaware 47.1
Iowa 31.3
because local governMichigan 43.3
Illinois 28.5
U.S. 33.1
ments depend so
highly on property
Note: The U.S. value is the total dollar amount in state revenue sharing divided by the total
dollar amount of local government budgets across all states.
taxes to fund their
Source: Authors calculations based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 Annual
services. While local
Survey of State & Local Government Finances, available at http://www2.census.gov/govs/
local/11slsstab1a.xls.
own-source revenues
declined (along with
has fallen since the early 2000s. As shown revenue sharing funds from the state),
local governments were hamstrung in
in figure 2, state revenue sharing as a
raising new revenues themselves from
percentage of state spending from state
resources fell to 56.3% in 2013 from its their own communities. The 1978
Headlee Amendment to the Michigan
peak of 64.3% in 2002.
Constitution explicitly forbids the use
There is a wider context for understanding
of some alternative revenue sources for
the impact of Michigans declining state
local governments in Michigan that
revenue sharing with localities since the
are employed in other states: Local
early 2000s. In 1994, the state imposed
governments are limited in their local
a 2 percentage point increase in its sales
income tax options; they may not institax (from 4% to 6%) to help fund a
tute taxes such as sales or motor fuel
much-expanded local school aid system
taxes; and their use of the local prop(as mandated by Proposal A, which I
erty tax is tightly constrained.18 The
discuss in more detail later).14 And so,
vast majority of states place some limifor most of the 1990s and early 2000s,
tations on the local property tax, but
local governments in Michigan became
Michigan is among the very few with
more dependent on state revenue sharing
all four types of limitations (revenue,
than those in most other statesand this
levy, rate, and assessment limits).19 More
relatively high state dependence remains
specifically, local property and other
in place today. As seen in panel A of
local taxes may not be raised without
figure 3, among communities of states
local voter approval.20 If Michigans
in the Seventh Federal Reserve District,15
property tax revenue base is broadened,
local governments in Michigan are the
property tax rates must decrease. If
most reliant on state funding (with 43.3%
property values (excluding those for
of their budgets funded by the state);
new construction and improvements)
among all U.S. communities, Michigan
increase at a rate greater than inflalocalities rank fifth in this regard (see
tion, property tax rates must be adjustpanel B of figure 3). In fiscal year 2012,
ed in order to maintain the same gross
state revenue sharing with local governrevenue (changing strictly in line with
ments represented almost three-fifths
inflation alone).21 However, property
(nearly $15 billion) of all state spending
tax rates are allowed to drop at a rate
from state resources.16 Figure 2 shows
greater than the inflation rate.22
that the percentage of state resources
dedicated to intergovernmental revenue A related feature currently putting additional fiscal stress on local governments
sharing has fallen since the beginning
is the manner in which Michigan schools
of Michigans one-state recession, but
are funded. Michigan schools operating
has remained above its constitutional
expenditures are funded primarily
mandate (of 48.97%).17
through state tax revenues as a result
Local fiscal ability
of the passage of Proposal A in 1994.23
While this program shifts the responsiMichigans economic collapse during
bility for funding education (equitably
the past decade also directly impacted
3. Share of local government budgets from the state, 2010
Ibid.
See p. 9 of http://sites.udel.edu/ninadavid/
files/2013/09/POLICY-STUDIOCONSTITUTIONAL-REVENUESHARING-REPORT-FINAL-SEPT-2012.pdf.
See www.legislature.mi.gov/
(S(e04gak55sqo4h455o5bbamvb))/
mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName
=mcl-Article-IX-10.
Ibid.
See www.mi.gov/
treasury/0,1607,7-121-1751_2197-5658--,00.
html.
10
11
12
See www.plantemoran.com/perspectives/
articles/2014/Pages/evip-update-and-tifreimbursement-reporting-deadline.aspx
and www.michigan.gov/documents/
treasury/Detailed_Guidance_FY15_
CVT_468245_7.pdf.
13
19
See http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.
aspx?mcl-Article-IX-31.
20
21
See www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/
publications/chicago_fed_letter/2004/
cfljune2004_203.pdf.
22
23
14
15
See www.crcmich.org/
PUBLICAT/2010s/2012/sbn2012-03.html.
16
17
See http://crcmich.org/TaxOutline/
index.html and www.michigantownships.org/
revenue_sources.asp. While the Headlee
18
See www.clinton-county.org/Departments/
Equalization/ProposalATaxableValue
DecliningRealEstate.aspx.
For further details on Proposal A, see
www.michigan.gov/documents/
propa_3172_7.pdf.
See www.freep.com/article/20140203/
NEWS06/302030053/
Snyder-education-funding-increaseMichigan.
24