How to Vote Against the Oakview Millage... And Not Feel Guilty... Ten Valid Reasons

[XLFD]

On Tuesday, August 7, the electors of Mason County have a choice:  to reauthorize a 0.9715 millage rate for Oakview, as they must do every six years, or to deny the millage.  Voting yes authorizes the county to take about one dollar for every thousand dollars your real property is appraised at (SEV).  A no vote means that Oakview will not receive the estimated $1,493,900 this millage would raise for next year.

You have likely seen a few "Vote Yes" signs for this all over the county, read the pleas for this from Oakview staff members in the paper and if you went to the Daily News forum and heard their pleas.  One thing you haven't seen is "Vote No" signs, and any organized counter effort to not reauthorize this millage. How can you not support this millage, when without it we will have general chaos and a bunch of old folks put out on the street?  That may be a little overdramatic, but if you want to hear other similar talk, just tell someone you're voting 'no' on the proposal, and find out how you are totally heartless.

But I do care about old folks, and I would like to see they are well cared for, however, I think it would be a bad idea to pass this millage, and I have arrived at that conclusion by looking closely at the origin and the uses of this millage and gave myself an assignment:  to defend voting against this millage, when everyone out there is saying it's a must.  In that respect, I think I found some serious arguments that can help most anyone justify voting against the Oakview Millage, and offer that in a point by point analysis.

Ten Reasons to Vote Against the Oakview Millage

1)  Personal Survival:  This is the most id-based reason:  you get to keep more of the money you earn, instead of giving it to government planners.  Some of that $1.5 million Oakview rakes in comes from you.  Let's say you brought property with an State Equalized Value (SEV) of $100,000 a few years back and say it's kept its value, while times have been rough for you.

If this passes, you will have about $100 of extra taxes to pay to the county next year just for this millage.  You're flippin' burgers for minimum wage in one of your part time jobs, and find that you are effectively working two full 8 hour days just to pay this part of your yearly taxes off.  Kind of sad when you think you could have spent a fraction of that time rallying against reauthorizing this tax.

2)  The Millage Hampers Economic Development:  This is true economic development, not the type that government says it creates.  When you reduce a County's overall tax rates, every mill smaller you can get may tempt prospective companies into establishing itself in your county, hiring workers, and paying taxes.  Dropping it by about a mill, will not only make the company more likely to locate here, but the vote to reduce it by the people may show the company that it may expect to have more tax relief in the future.

Company's may similarly be turned off by a community that may devote a good share of taxes to non-standard sources of government funded entities, like an adult foster care facility, than to typical recipients.   They may fear future increases or entirely new millages upping their local tax burden.

3)  The Millage Lacks Fairness:  Oakview MCF is a nursing home in Mason County.  So is Grandview AFC, Grancare, Orchardview ARC, Willowbrook, Ludington Woods, and Tendercare.  Do these receive any of this $1.5 million dollars?  No, these are all facilities that do not receive government money, they earn the money to operate by making sound business decisions, not by taking it out of the community's common pot.  Because Oakview does consider itself owned and operated by Mason County, they not only receive this extra cash, but they are also eligible for public grants that private MCFs are not, and can have the County issue bonds for making  improvements.

4)  The Millage Fosters Monopolistic Tendencies:  Consequently to the unfairness, the advantage of the extra $1.5 million, makes Oakview able to offer their comparable services for a less rate than other MCFs in the area.  Competing to do this may make their costs overwhelm their revenues and drive them out of business.  Similarly, those people wishing to open a new MCF do so on equal terms with everyone in the County, except for Oakview.  This has the result of stifling competition, and having prospective MCFs, and beleaguered established ones, to move to places with a level playing field for all.

5)  The Millage is Supplemental Money: Oakview will continue on without the millage.  The millage accounts for 15.38% of the full revenues Oakview takes in each year.  ($1.493 million/$9.714 million.)  Losing that money will hurt, but it surely won't be fatal.  Officials say in FAQs that Oakview would have to reduce staff,and thus quality of medical care, although they claim they are well above the minimums set by state law for staff to resident ratio.

They have supplemented that by saying they will postpone building improvement projects, delay putting in air conditioning, not allow them to offer WiFi, or allow a hospitality suite.  All of which other area MCFs would like to offer, I'm sure.

6)  The Millage Money is Managed by Politicians:  The millage is not only only controlled ultimately by the Mason County Board of Commissioners, that group also has the say in the direction of this facility's other monies.  In 1998 and 1999 they lowered the millage to .8 and .7 respectively, just before a reauthorization.  COLDNews 12-27-2000:  "An increase of $6.2 million in revenues and expenditures is proposed for the Special Revenue Fund. Much of that difference reflects a transfer in funds through Oakview Medical Care facility. The county never knows how much the facility will receive from the federal government, so it does not budget the money at the beginning of the year, County Administrator Fabian Knizacky said".

The County Board can decide to reduce funding anywhere below the reauthorization, and decide to raise money via bonds to supplement the millage.  With the power the Board possesses to control other private facilities in the county and to raise money in ways a private facility could not, fairness is thrown out the window.

7)  Millage Money has been Used to Buy Improvements the People have Voted Down:  The voters resoundingly authorized the Oakview millage back in August of 2006, COLDNEWS 8-8-2006:   "the Oakview millage request passed 2,988 to 971"

They decided to go for more, two months afterward: COLDNews 10-11- 2006:  "Oakview Medical Care Facility Administrator Donald Hall announced to the Mason County Board of Commissioners Tuesday that his board would like to ask voters for $24 million in bonds to renovate the facility."  This was reduced before it got to the voters:

COLDNews 4-14-2007:  "Oakview Medical Care Facility administrators hope to convince the public that a bond request for proposed new construction at the facility fulfills what 80 percent of the community recognized as a need in a 2004 survey.  The facility seeks to sell bonds of up to $19.9 million to pay for the project. Oakview would agree to pay back the bonds over a period no longer than 25 years with a property tax increase.

The county would have to levy .865 mills."

The 80% of the 2004 community quoted in the article, fell to less than 30% when this was voted on:

COLDNews 5-9-2007: "Oakview Medical Care Facility's $19.9 million bond initiative Tuesday failed by more than 70 percent of the vote.

The funds would have ensured a 96-bed capacity with 76 of those beds in neighborhood-setting private rooms dedicated to general geriatric care and 20 for specialized Alzheimer's and dementia care."

They scaled down the project, and paid for it with the extra money the older millage afforded and a $2.5 million bond courtesy of the County Board"

COLDNews 6-22-2009: " Voters defeated a plan that would have overhauled Oakview in addition to adding the Alzheimer’s unit, but the Oakview board and county commissioners decided the possibility of getting the licensed Medicare/Medicaid Alzheimer’s beds in Mason County was important enough they’d bond for that smaller project — just the Alzheimer’s unit — and pay it back with existing income.

The cost was $3.7 million and the project was on time and in budget, said Oakview Director Don Hall.

It added 14,230 square feet of new construction and 3,500 feet of renovated kitchen and food service area to accommodate the additional 20 patients soon to be housed in the center."

So effectively, the voters voted against the expansion by 3 to 1, and yet the County Commissioners overrode that vote by putting up a bond, paid with public funds in reserve.  When Fred Hackert ran in 2010, he noted the problem:  COLDNews 7-19-2010:  "He feels the county board has made some bad choices over the years. One example was the Alzheimer’s unit for Oakview Medical Care Facility that was defeated by voters on the ballot in May 2007 and the board then issued bonds to pay for the addition to the facility.

“I don’t think that’s necessarily the right thing to do when the people said no. We are the taxpayers. They need to get more in tune to the taxpayers.”

8)  Hamlin Resident Walter Olmstead Says So:  Because of (7), many taxpaying people in the know were discontented by the machinations of the Oakview and County Boards.  Olmstead had the nerve to say something about it to the Commissioners who all voted for the bond issue:

COLDNews 9-27-2007:  "The Mason County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to approve a $2.5 million bond request from the Human Services Board, money that will go toward the $3.4 million project. The Human Services Board will contribute $898,000 from Oakview's public improvement fund to fund the rest of the project.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, Hamlin Township's Walt Olmstead urged commissioners to vote against the request, calling it an end-run around the voters.

It appears this is possible through over-taxation, Olmstead said.  Why is the county choosing to do this with tax dollars when it could be done by a non-governmental organization?

Olmstead said he wished the county board would think of the county's economy and jobs when making these decisions. Over-burdensome taxes are not keeping the youths here, he said.

Cutting grass and cleaning condo toilets just doesn't cut it, Olmstead said.

Oakview will pay for a portion of the project's cost through the excess revenue it generates via its operational millage, which the board approved at .9646 mills for 2008. That excess revenue had been set aside in the public improvement fund, which is currently valued at $1.3 million, about the amount the operational millage will generate in 2008."

9)  The Millage takes $1.5 Million in Private Money from the Local Economy:  The money collected from the millage typically goes to an account that either is put in savings or used for projects that are decided on by bureaucrats.  The few jobs the money affords the facility to offer, would be offset by the $1.5 million circulating and recirculating throughout the local economy creating jobs and opportunities along the way.  Without the stifling effect already noted in (2) for new businesses and old businesses to move in or expand, and for other MCFs to compete fairly as noted in (3).

If you think a group of bureaucrats can handle your money better than you, send in more of your hard earned money to them, but leave the rest of the County out of it, and those outside the County who own property here, who are effectively disenfranchised by this millage.

10)  Oakview Overspent Money in Attaining Dougherty Property:  In 2005, the Oakview brain trust were looking to expand, and why not with that extra money the millage brings in.  COLDNews 12-7-2005:   They asked the Mason County Board of Commissioners in November to approve the purchase of property to use for future expansion. Oakview representatives asked the board for $600,000 to come from the medical care facility improvement fund to buy the nearly one-acre parcel that currently houses the office of Dr. Donn Dougherty at 1000 Lawndale St., immediately north of Oakview...  Some people might question paying $600,000 for one acre, Hall said, but put into perspective, the property's location was a determining factor.  (The building there was sold for $75,000 and moved as per 3-15-2006 COLDNews article.)."

I dare question the $600,000 price for that less than an acre of land ($525,000 if you consider the sale of the building into it.).  Currently, over an acre of property on Ludington Avenue with a motel on it just down the road, is valued for the land at $138,600. A review of the tax records show it has lost about 20% of its value since 2005.  That still leads me to believe that the Oakview Board bought at well over twice what the property was worth.

Also, for what it's worth, in 2005, the William Sutter estate brought lakeshore property at 714 N Lakeshore, a little less than an acre, for  $260,000.  That's including the cost of the building; the land was valued at $76,000.  Sutter's name appears on the new Alzheimer's wing of Oakview. 

[masonco]

I have felt there was an insider contact with Oakview, since they almost never get "surprise" visits.

There was enough question, the federal government came in for an inspection and found a few things. Boy did Oakview go overboard to "fix" that. Then again. The members of the administrative row walk around all day with their clipboards peeking in on rooms, checking how staff is caring for patients (often without knocking) and the list goes on.

[XLFD]

While I am not surprised that this millage passed, I am disappointed that it received almost 70% of the vote. 

With all the signs around the county asking to vote "yes" on this millage, the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) presenting only editorials, letters to the editor, and forum coverage only to the pro-millage side, the radio running only pro-millage commercials, shows that they really wanted that $10,000,000 of taxpayer money over the next six years, more than they want you to consider the actual issue of whether this money might be better used, for fairer purposes. 

One can imagine what might have been the outcome of this vote would have been if everything was placed out on the table, and the anti-millage forces actually got motivated.  What could have been, if instead of telling everyone that there is no increase in the tax rates if this passes, we told everyone that this was tax relief for all, during times when we all need it, that would actually level the playing field for all MCFs in the area, and incentivize new businesses to move here.