Another Illegal Tax?

The agenda for the Iron County Board of Commissioners on 

13 May 2014 contains the following item: “Discussion and 

Possible Action on the Iron County Construction Code's 

Request to Increase House Numbering Fee”

During last month's meeting, the board reversed an earlier 

increase of the FOIA per page charge of 30 cents because, 

as attorney Tinti pointed out to Commissioner Patti Peretto 

before the meeting, “You can't do it that way.” But the 30 cent 

“fee” had been in effect for some time and is one of the counts 

in the lawsuit brought by the undersigned against Iron River and 

Iron County.

Now here we are, with another department asking for an 

increase in a fee, this time for something as simple as “house 

numbering.” Why? Because “fee for service” is one place 

where a local government can gin up some extra income. The 

entire principle of collecting fees is to help offset the cost of a 

governmental department existing. Back in the 1970's the 
Federal Communications Commission tried it and were sued 
by the National Cable TV Association[1] which handily won 
the case with the Supreme Court establishing the credo that 
“The phrase "value to the recipient" is, we believe, the 
measure of the authorized fee. The words 'public policy or 
interest served, and other pertinent facts' would not seem 
relevant to the present case, whatever may be their ultimate 
reach. “

Since this was a Supreme Court case it applies universally 
to every jurisdiction in the USA. In the famous Michigan 
Bolt v. Lansing case[2], our Supreme Court (repeating from 
an earlier case) stated that, “"Exactions which are imposed 
primarily for public rather than private purposes are taxes. 
Revenue from taxes, therefore, must inure to the benefit of 
all, as opposed to exactions from a few for benefits that will 
inure to the persons or group assessed."

Applying the Court's reasoning, for whose benefit is “house 

numbering” generated and applied? It seems to the 
undersigned that significant thought ought to be given to this 
topic before changes are applied, with consideration 
given to the possibility that this exaction should be eliminated 
since the service being provided is to the community as a 
whole, not to the person whose property gets a number. 
Once the consequence of the exaction benefits the entire 
community, it is a tax prohibited by the Michigan 
Constitution rather than a fee for service unless it was 
permitted as a tax prior to the enactment of the Headlee 
Amendment to the constitution.

Because local governments in Michigan are so careless 
in applying their power, it seems to the undersigned that 
an initiative needs to be undertaken by the citizens to 
assure that we are not being taxed inappropriately. The 
system that is currently in place encourages inefficiency 
on the part of government employees because they can 
simply improve their lot by applying to the county board 
or equivalent governing body at lower levels for a “fee” 
increase every few years. In the meanwhile the entire 
premise of the Headlee Amendment is defeated with 
the exception of an occasional whimper by someone 
paying an illegal tax. The only way to stop this is for 
citizens to band together and study the problem, 

bringing lawsuits whenever and wherever necessary 
to enforce the law that citizens enacted by voting for 
it.

So as soon as the lawsuit in which the undersigned is 

presently engaged is completed, this describes the new 

initiative I will undertake. All local government bodies 
keep saying that they welcome greater participation by 
the public. Here's a chance for everyone to participate 
without actually attending those generally boring meetings 
where the public knows little, and usually understands 
even less, of what happens during those meetings. Here 
is a chance for the public to sink their teeth into how 
government functions where it is significant and 
meaningful.

We will make a difference!

[1] National Cable TV Association v. United States, 
    415 US 336, 1974

[2] Bolt v. City of Lansing, 587 NW 2d 264, 1998

Bill Vajk