2004 House Bill 5929: Repeal certain school recreation tax power

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Rep. James Koetje (R) on May 20, 2004, to eliminate the authority of a school district to levy a property tax for the operation of a public recreation system and playgrounds. See also 2003 House Bill 4146, now Public Act 135 of 2003, which would not be repealed by the bill.
- Referred to the House Tax Policy Committee on May 20, 2004.
  - Reported in the House on June 23, 2004, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Bill Huizenga (R) on September 29, 2004, to require the governing bodies of the communities served by a school district to approve any proposed school recreation tax; require the recreation tax receipts to be segregated and audited to ensure that new local millage revenues are not used to cover regular school operating expenses in violation of Proposal A; prohibit more than one recreation tax election within a two year period; and impose other conditions on the imposition of this tax. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on September 29, 2004.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Then I think that we have a solution here. by Anonymous Citizen on May 30, 2004
If the majority wants to pay for a particular service or program, there is absolutely NOTHING preventing them from reaching into their own pocket and paying for it themselves.

But to compel the remainder of residents who do not support it to pay for something they neither want nor need is nothing less than theft, pure and simple!
Reply

Line

2) The real issue is local control - by Anonymous Citizen on May 26, 2004
Whether I’m for or against local school millages to support rec programs is a non-issue here. The real issue is local control over my school district.

If a majority of voters in my district agree to such taxes for themselves, why should they be prevented by State law from making such a choice?

It is inconsistent to demand that schools and the programs they offer be responsive to the demands of community “customers” while supporting measures that erode their capacity to be so.
Reply

Line

3) "Free" Swim by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2004
Dittos - Open up your own wallet and accept the responsibility for your health.

I'm sure you could find a hotel in your area that would allow you to swim for a minimal fee. If you are so concerned about the health of the general public, make a public service announcement that you will provide the funding for a number of citizens to swim/exercise "on you".
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation