 |
 |
Proposal Text
|
|
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THAT MONEY HELD IN
CONSERVATION AND RECREATION FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THEIR
INTENDED PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
* Create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the Constitution and establish existing conservation and recreation accounts as components of the fund.
* Use current funding sources such as state park entrance and camping fees; snowmobile, ORV and boating registration fees; hunting and fishing license fees; taxes and other revenues to fund accounts.
* Establish the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.
* Provide that money held in Funds can only be used for specific purposes related to conservation and recreation and cannot be used for any purpose other than those intended.
Should this proposal be adopted?
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS
BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
* Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.
* Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)
Should this proposal be adopted?
A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 160 OF 2004 -- AN ACT TO ALLOW THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A HUNTING SEASON FOR MOURNING DOVES
Public Act 160 of 2004 would:
* Authorize the Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunting season for mourning doves.
* Require a mourning dove hunter to have a small game license and a $2.00 mourning dove stamp.
* Stipulate that revenue from the stamp must be split evenly between the Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund.
* Require the Department of Natural Resources to address responsible mourning dove hunting; management practices for the propagation of mourning doves; and participation in mourning dove hunting by youth, the elderly and the disabled in the Department's annual hunting guide.
Should this law be approved?
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT FROM
TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN PRIVATE
PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
* Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
* Provide that if an individual’s principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property’s fair market value.
* Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.
* Preserve existing rights of property owners.
Should this proposal be adopted?
A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY SCHOOL FUNDING LEVELS
The proposed law would:
* Increase current funding by approximately $565 million and require State to provide annual funding increases equal to the rate of inflation for public schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges, and higher education (includes state universities and financial aid/grant programs).
* Require State to fund any deficiencies from General Fund.
* Base funding for school districts with a declining enrollment on three-year student enrollment average.
* Reduce and cap retirement fund contribution paid by public schools, community colleges and state universities; shift remaining portion to state.
* Reduce funding gap between school districts receiving basic per-pupil foundation allowance and those receiving maximum foundation allowance.
Should this proposed law be approved?
Shall the tax limitation imposed under Article IX, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution on general ad valorem property taxes within the Township of Almont be increased by one and one-quarter (1 1/4) mills ($1.25 per $1,000.00 of taxable value) for a period of ten (10) years, 2007 through 2016 inclusive, for the purpose of funding the operations of the Almont District Library so as to support the current level of library services; and shall the District levy such millage for said purpose, thereby raising in the first year an estimated $319,081?
REASONS FOR DEMANDING RECALL OF LONNIE HAYES FROM THE OFFICE OF BURNSIDE TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR The above-named official voted in favor, on August 22, 2005, to rescind the complaint form from 2-23-04 requiring filing of written complaints for certain enforcement actions and to replace with the new one presented on 8-22-05 without signatures or a need for a written complaint. The above-named official voted in favor, on January 24, 2005, to accept the Burnside Township's Indemnification of Township Officers and Employees Resolution. LONNIE HAYES JUSTIFICATION OF CONDUCT IN OFFICE I have served the residents of Burnside Township for about 20 years. I served on the planning commission and have been Supervisor for the past 6 years. I have always tried to conscientiously look at what is best for the majority of our residents. When it was brought to the attention of the Township Board that our employees may be personally at risk of incurring the cost of protecting themselves in a lawsuit brought against them while serving our township, we passed the Indemnity Resolution. This resolution states that if an employee of Burnside Township is sued while doing their job the township will provide legal counsel. This does not mean someone could do something illegal or unethical and still be protected. It simply means that our election workers, planning commissioners, or any other employee would be covered if sued personally for doing what we, as a township, have asked them to do. To have it any other way, in my mind, would be unthinkable. I trust the citizens of Burnside Township will see through the misinformation that is being presented and will cast a no vote so we can keep our township moving forward. RECALL QUESTION Shall Lonnie Hayes be recalled from the office of Burnside Township Supervisor, Lapeer County, Michigan?
REASON FOR DEMANDING RECALL OF LOUIS MARTUS FROM THE OFFICE OF BURNSIDE TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE The above-named official voted in favor, on January 24, 2005, to accept the Burnside Township's Indemnification of Township Officers and Employees Resolution. LOUIS MARTUS JUSTIFICATION OF CONDUCT IN OFFICE I have lived in Burnside Township all 51 years of my life and I have served on the Township Board for approximately 6 years - I have always done my best to vote my conscience and to serve the residents of Burnside Township to the best of my ability. I took an oath to follow the law without regard to the individuals involved. Some residents have tried to keep the law from being followed by constantly threatening to sue township officials, including the Zoning Administrator. Township officials who fulfill their duty to follow the law deserve to know that the Township will stand behind them if they are sued by those who would prefer that they ignore the law. In voting for the resolution, I joined all 4 other Township Board Members in refusing to let the Township be run by those who believe the law should be enforced only against their enemies. I thank the people of Burnside for the privilege of serving them and I ask for the privilege of doing so in the future. RECALL QUESTION Shall Louis Martus be recalled from the office of Burnside TownshipTrustee, Lapeer County, Michigan?
Shall the annual meeting of the electors be reestablished for the Township of Deerfield?
Shall the Township of Deerfield raise money by special assessment for the purpose of fire protection for the three fiscal years beginning 2006-2007 with the following maximum assessments: $38.00 per year for each residential dwelling, commercial building, and industrial building, not including barns, garages, and sheds; and $11.00 per year for each parcel of property that is vacant or contains no buildings other than barns, garages, or sheds; And shall the Township levy such an assessment for said purpose, thereby raising in the first year an estimated $101,702.00?
Shall the Dryden Township Library impose an increase of .75 mills ($0.75 per $1,000 of taxable value) in the tax limitation imposed under Article IX, Sec. 6 of the Michigan Constitution and levy it for 5 years, 2007 through 2011 inclusive, for providing public library services, raising an estimated $169,000 in the first year in which the millage is levied of which a small portion (estimated at approximately 2.5% in the first year of levy) will be disbursed to the Village of Dryden Downtown Development Authority, to the extent required by law?
Shall the tax limitation on general ad valorem taxes within Goodland Township imposed under Article IX, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution be increased by 1 mill ($1.00 per $1,000 of taxable value) for five (5) years, 2006-2010 inclusive, for the purpose of repairing and maintaining roads, and shall the Township levy such increase, thereby raising in the first year an estimated $60,505?
Shall the Township of Hadley raise money by special assessment for the purpose of police protection for the five fiscal years beginning with the 2006-2007 fiscal year with the following maximum assessments? $42.00 per year for each dwelling $21.00 per year for parcels that do not contain a dwelling.
Shall the previous voted increase in the tax limitation imposed under Article IX, Sec. 6 of the Michigan Constitution on general ad valorem taxes within Imlay Township reduced by the required rollback to 0.9418 mills be renewed at 1.00 mill ($1.00 per $1,000 of taxable value) for the period 2006 through 2011 inclusive, for continued enforcement of the Township Zoning Ordinance, legal defense and amendments required under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act of 2006 and shall the Township levy such renewal in millage for said purpose, thereby raising in the first year an estimated $101,000.00?
Shall the tax limitation on general ad valorem taxes within Imlay Township imposed under Article IX, Sec. 6 of the Michigan Constitution be increased for said Township by 1.25 mills ($1.25 per $1,000 of taxable value) for the period 2006 through 2011 inclusive, for the purpose of construction, improvement and maintenance of all Township roads, for which such increase in millage for that purpose will raise in the first year an estimated $126,250.00?
Shall the tax limitation on general ad valorem taxes within Imlay Township imposed under Article IX, Sec. 6 of the Michigan Constitution be increased for said Township by 1/2 mill ($.50 per $1,000 of taxable value) for the period 2006 through 2011 inclusive, for the limited purpose of maintenance of all of the Township fire protection, for which such increase in millage for that purpose will raise in the first year an estimated $50,500?
Shall the limitation on taxes which may be imposed each year for all purposes on residential real property in the Township of Imlay, County of Lapeer, Michigan be increased and the Township Board of the Township of Imlay, Michigan be authorized to establish a Special Assessment District and levy a fee not to exceed $150.00 per year as a single lot assessment for a period of 3 years, beginning with the levy made in 2006, in order to provide residential solid waste collection and disposal services, pursuant to the Contract between the Township of Imlay and a solid waste hauler? If approved and levied in its entirety, this Special Assessment would raise estimated revenues of $204,000.00 in the first year following authorization.
Shall the Lapeer District Library, County of Lapeer, Michigan, be authorized to levy a new additional tax annually upon the taxable value of all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the Library District in an amount not to exceed 1.25 mills ($1.25 for each $1,000 of taxable value) for a period of ten (10) years, 2007 through 2016, inclusive, to provide funds for all Library purposes authorized by law? This millage would raise an estimated $2,779,236 if the millage is approved and levied by the Library in the first year of the levy. To the extent required by law, a small portion of the total revenues from the tax levy (approximately 1.1% in the first year of the levy) will be captured within the districts of and disbursed to the Village of Clifford Downtown Development Authority, Village of Columbiaville Downtown Development Authority, Village of Metamora Downtown Development Authority, and the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority of the City of Lapeer.
Shall the Township of Oregon raise money by special assessment for the purpose of fire protection for five years, 2007-2011 inclusive, with the following maximum assessments: $45.00 per year for each residential dwelling unit, commercial building, and industrial building, not including barns, garages, and sheds; and $20.00 per year for each parcel of property that is vacant or contains no buildings other than barns, garages, or sheds?
Shall the tax limitation imposed under Article IX, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution on general ad valorem propoerty taxes within the Ruth Hughes Memorial Library District (Attica Township, Imlay Township, and Imlay City) be increased to one and one-quarter (1-1/4) mills $1.25 per $1,000.00 of taxable value) for a period of ten (10) years, 2007 through 2016 inclusive, for the purpose of funding the operations of the Ruth Hughes Memorial District Library; and shall the District levy such millage for said purpose, thereby raising in the first year an estimated $477,000, of which an estimated 4.9% will be captured by and disbursed to the Imlay City Downtown Development Authority?
