Time to finally settle library millage question

The time has long passed for the city of Birmingham to settle once and for all the decades long argument over who truly has the authority to set the millage rate for the independent Baldwin Public Library.

The question is once again back before the city because of a recent suggestion that if the library would lower its millage rate in the future, then the proposed bond issue for construction of a community center to house the Next senior citizen group and the YMCA could be paid off without an increase in the overall millage rate for taxpayers.

It’s nice in theory but the library has objected to the proposal. Library officials say the city is treating it as if it were a department of the city rather than a truly independent government unit. And dictating to the library what millage can be sought is a violation of state law, according to library folk.

City and library officials, along with legal counsel for both, were scheduled to meet as we were going to press with this issue to see if the library and city could come to some agreement to lower the Baldwin millage rate that was raised in past years to help fund a $9 million series of construction projects at the library building, which is owned by the city. Under the proposed suggestion for a lower millage rate, the library would return its tax rate to what existed before the construction projects started.

Regardless of whether library officials agree to some reduction in the Baldwin tax rate, the overall argument about who has the power to set the library millage rate still needs to be resolved.

Here’s how the argument stacks up. The charter for the city of Birmingham calls for a public library, which was formed according to Michigan Act 164 (1a). That state law gives specific autonomy to the library.

Some city officials say that the controlling document is the city charter, which does not say that the city commission has the power to set the tax limit for the library. In fact, the charter is vague on this specific point, saying “It shall be the duty of the (library) board of directors to prepare an estimate of the amount of money necessary for the support and maintenance of such library for the ensuing fiscal year, which estimate shall not exceed one and three-quarters (1¾) mills on the dollar of the taxable property of the city and to report such estimate prior to April 1 of each year to the city commission for assessment and collection as provided by law.” The city charter also provides that the library board “shall have the exclusive control of the expenditure of all moneys deposited to the credit of the library fund.”

When we point this out to city officials, they say past city attorneys have issued opinions on this, giving control to the city commission. When we counter that an opinion from the Michigan Attorney General says otherwise, we are told that the opinion involved a township library, not a city library. We say that is nonsense – the Michigan law governing formation of libraries covers all libraries, township, village and city ones. You get our drift – both sides are prepped for endless debate.

To finally settle the issue, the library and city have two choices.

First, the city or library could ask state Representative Natalie Price to request that the state Attorney General clarify that a past opinion should also govern the current debate in Birmingham or perhaps issue a new opinion itself, keeping in mind that the office of Attorney General does not have to honor all requests.

Failing to get a review from Lansing, then the library could file a friendly lawsuit to ask a court to decide this issue for the city. It has been done before in other municipalities where the courts have determined that independent units of a government, like a parks and recreation commission for example, are not beholden to the overall government unit.

Regardless of whether the recent city and library meeting produces an agreement, it is time for this issue to finally be put to rest.