State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Table of Contents

Distributional Effects of the Decline in Statutory Revenue Sharing to Cities, Villages, and Townships By Elizabeth Pratt, Fiscal Analyst

The Stated Foundation Allowance Vs. What a School District Actually Receives By Kathryn Summers, Associate Director

Michigan State Government Debt By David Zin, Chief Economist

Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board Project Recommendations for Application Year 2015 By Josh Sefton, Fiscal Analyst

Tax Increment Financing in Michigan By Drew Krogulecki, Legislative Analyst

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Distributional Effects of the Decline in Statutory Revenue Sharing to Cities, Villages, and Townships By Elizabeth Pratt, Fiscal Analyst

State revenue sharing provides payments of State revenue to eligible local governments. There are two basic types of revenue sharing programs: constitutional and nonconstitutional (often called "statutory") revenue sharing. Funding for nonconstitutional formula revenue sharing for cities, villages, and townships (CVTs) has declined 69.0% from the peak appropriation of $797.3 million in fiscal year (FY) 1997-98. Although appropriations for formula statutory revenue sharing for CVTs increased from the FY 2011-12 low point of $210.0 million to $248.8 million in FY 2014-15, and eligibility was expanded in FY 2014-15, only 587 out of 1,773 CVTs are eligible for statutory revenue sharing today, compared with FY 2000-01 when all CVTs received statutory revenue sharing. Eligibility and nonconstitutional revenue sharing payments to CVTs are still influenced by statutory revenue sharing reforms of 1998 (which were only partially implemented), the relative tax effort formula in effect prior to those reforms, and the methods used for implementing reductions in revenue sharing appropriations. Considering statutory and constitutional revenue sharing payments together is important to understanding the distribution of State revenue sharing appropriations. Although under current budget bill boilerplate 1,183 CVTs are no longer eligible for statutory revenue sharing, those local units receive a larger share of total revenue sharing appropriations than they did in FY 2002-03 due to the growth in constitutional revenue sharing relative to statutory revenue sharing payments.

Background

Constitutional revenue sharing pays 15.0% of collections from the sales tax levied at a 4.0% rate to cities, villages, and townships, distributed on a per capita basis. (The remaining 2.0% of the 6.0% sales tax is deposited in the School Aid Fund.) All CVTs receive these payments, which were approximately $76.19 per capita in FY 2014-15. Counties are not eligible for constitutional revenue sharing. Nonconstitutional revenue sharing for cities, villages, and townships currently is established annually in budget bill boilerplate. The sales tax earmark for statutory revenue sharing remains in statute and is subject to appropriation. The sales tax earmark is not effective because the funds have not been appropriated. The statutory formula for distributing nonconstitutional CVT revenue sharing expired in FY 2006-07 and had not been fully funded since FY 2000-01.

Previously, a CVT received a greater portion of revenue sharing payments as its millage increased relative to the statewide average. In the 1990s, there were growing concerns about the revenue sharing formula, including that this "relative tax effort formula" gave an incentive for local governments to ask voters for increased millage rates. After lengthy review, a revised revenue sharing formula was adopted in 1998. The 1998 formula was intended to replace the relative tax effort formula after a phase-in period from FY 1998-99 to FY 2006-07. Only three years or 30.0% of the phase-in was completed. Fiscal year 2000-01 was the last year that the earmark under the 1998 formula was fully funded for CVTs. Payments that year became the starting point for a series of cuts to statutory revenue sharing. The history of appropriations for statutory revenue sharing to CVTs is shown in Figure 1. At the low point, statutory revenue sharing appropriations were $210.0 million in FY 2011-12, 73.7% below the peak program funding. At that point, the number of eligible local units also had declined by 72.6%. During the same period, the appropriations for constitutional revenue sharing grew in most years. Since FY 1997-98, constitutional revenue sharing has increased 40.0%.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

This history of growth in constitutional revenue sharing that is received by all CVTs and the method by which declines in the statutory revenue sharing program were implemented still influence eligibility and payment amounts today.

Figure 1 City, Village, and Township Revenue Sharing Constitutional up 40%, Nonconstitutional down 69%

$1,400 $1,359 $1,327 $1,300 $1,248 $1,249 $1,180 $684 $1,200 $797 $1,123 $651 $1,112 $1,102 Statutory down 74% $620 $1,071 $1,076 at low point $600 $589 $1,037 $1,000 $470 $979 $975 $1,000 $947 $443 $939 $918 $422 $249 $405 $236 $388 $314 $225 $800 $388 $310 $210

$739 $751 $722 $600 $669 $680 $688 $708 $628 $643 $660 $649 $653 $666 $649 $665 $580 $562 $629 $400

$200

0 FY 1999-2000 FY 2003-04 FY 2007-08 FY 2011-12 FY 1997-98 FY 2001-02 FY 2005-06 FY 2009-10 FY 2013-14

Nonconstitutional (Statutory) Constitutional Source: Senate Fiscal Agency

Reduction Method Limited Eligibility

Beginning in FY 2003-04, legislation implemented the reductions in statutory revenue sharing by specifying a uniform percentage reduction that each CVT would receive in the total of its statutory and constitutional revenue sharing payments compared with its prior-year allocation. This applied an equal percentage reduction to revenue sharing payments to all CVTs. It was considered a fair way to implement the reductions because most CVTs experienced an equal percentage reduction in total revenue sharing payments.

Over time, however, the percentage reductions to local units could not stay equal using this method. The constitutional portion of a CVT's payment could not be reduced. In fact, in most of the years since FY 2003-04, the constitutional revenue sharing payments grew as sales tax revenue continued to increase. Any payment reduction had to come from the statutory payment. For local units that had relatively small statutory payments relative to the size of their constitutional payments, the statutory payment could be reduced to zero, then reduced no farther. At that point, some CVTs began receiving only constitutional revenue sharing payments, which introduced deviations in percentage increases and decreases among different local units.

This can be seen in a comparison of the total revenue sharing payments to four local units of government: Detroit, Chelsea, Milton Township, and Chikaming Township. Milton and Chikaming each last received statutory revenue sharing payments in FY 2002-03, although they differ in that

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 2 of 7 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Milton had population growth in the 2010 U.S. Census, while Chikaming experienced population loss. Detroit and Chelsea both continually received statutory revenue sharing, but Chelsea had population growth in 2010 while Detroit had population loss. This is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Population Change and Statutory Revenue Sharing Status For Selected Local Governments 2010 Population Increase/(Decrease) Still Receives Statutory Chelsea, Washtenaw County 12.4% Yes Detroit, Wayne County (24.8)% Yes Milton Township, Antrim County 6.4% No; last payment in FY 2002-03 Chikaming Township, Berrien County (15.7)% No; last payment in FY 2002-03a) a) Chikaming received a census adjustment payment in FY 2010-11.

Figure 2 compares the statutory and constitutional revenue sharing payments to these four local units of government. The payments are compared on an index, to show the relative changes in the payments from year to year. In FY 2002-03, the base year for this chart and for the percentage reductions, these four CVTs all received both constitutional and statutory revenue sharing payments. Neither Milton nor Chikaming received a statutory revenue sharing payment after FY 2002-03 (except for a census adjustment payment to Chikaming in FY 2010-11). Although revenue sharing reductions began in FY 2001-02, FY 2002-03 is used for the base year for these comparisons because it was the base for the equal percentage reductions that followed for most years from FY 2003-04 to FY 2009-10.

Figure 2

Revenue Sharing Payments Indexed to Show Relative Changes Total of Statutory and Constitutional Payments 120 Selected Cities and Townships Milton Twn.

110

100 Chelsea 90

Chikaming Twn. 80

70

60 Detroit 50 FY 2003-04 FY 2005-06 FY 2007-08 FY 2009-10 FY 2011-12 FY 2013-14 FY 2002-03 FY 2004-05 FY 2006-07 FY 2008-09 FY 2010-11 FY 2012-13 FY 2014-15

Detroit - Still Eligible for Statutory; Population Down 24.8% Chelsea - Still Eligible for Statutory; Population Up 12.4% Chikaming Township - Statutory Ended FY 2002-03; Population Down 15.7% Milton Township - Statutory Ended FY 2002-03; Population Up 6.4%

Source: Senate Fiscal Agency

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 3 of 7 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

The impact of the equal percentage reductions in the total of statutory and constitutional revenue sharing payments shows in FY 2003-04. Both Chelsea and Detroit received a 10.0% cut in the total of statutory and constitutional revenue sharing from FY 2002-03 to FY 2003-04. Neither Milton Township nor Chikaming Township received statutory revenue sharing beginning in FY 2003-04, but Chikaming had a larger percentage reduction in FY 2003-04 than Milton, because Chikaming's statutory payment was a larger share (9.9%) of its total revenue sharing payment in FY 2002-03, compared with Milton's (7.9%). In percentage terms, the reduction for Chikaming was almost as significant as that for Detroit and Chelsea.

From FY 2003-04 to FY 2009-10, the payments for Milton and Chikaming moved together, either increasing or decreasing, with the changes in constitutional revenue sharing. In FY 2010-11, the new 2010 population figures were used for revenue sharing payments for the first time. Here the lines for Milton and Chikaming diverge. Milton's population grew 6.4% from 2000 to 2010 and its constitutional revenue sharing payments increased in FY 2010-11 due to both sales tax growth and the once-in-a-decade implementation of new population data. Chikaming Township had a decline in population of 15.7%. To cushion the drop in payments, statutory revenue sharing payments in FY 2010-11 included an additional amount to local units that otherwise would have seen a decline in the total of constitutional and statutory revenue sharing from FY 2009-10 to FY 2010-11. This one-year census adjustment payment protected Chikaming from the decline in FY 2010-11; however, the decrease in constitutional revenue sharing payments to Chikaming was effective in FY 2011-12. After the implementation of the population adjustments, the paths for Milton and Chikaming continued to move together with changes in constitutional revenue sharing.

From FY 2003-04 to FY 2007-08, payments to Chelsea and Detroit declined together as equal percentage reductions in the total of statutory and constitutional revenue sharing payments continued. A one-year adjustment in FY 2008-09 that paid an additional 2.0% of a CVT's prior-year statutory payment caused the paths of these two cities to diverge. The impact of this payment on a CVT's total payment varied depending on the relative size of the local unit's statutory and constitutional payments. Fiscal year 2009-10 returned to the policy of equal percentage reductions in the total of statutory and constitutional revenue sharing payments.

In FY 2010-11, U.S. census data from 2010 were used for the first time to calculate constitutional revenue sharing payments. The budget for that fiscal year set statutory revenue sharing such that each CVT received 100% of the total of its FY 2009-10 statutory and constitutional payments (or a lower percentage of that total, if constitutional revenue sharing in FY 2010-11 was less than initially estimated, which was not the case). This resulted in the payment of additional statutory payments called census adjustment payments to local units that had declining population, whether they were otherwise eligible for statutory revenue sharing or not. For a local unit that had increasing population and still received statutory revenue sharing, the statutory revenue sharing payment was reduced for one year by the amount of the increase in constitutional revenue sharing. Figure 2 shows that Chikaming Township (as mentioned previously), Chelsea, and Detroit all had total payments in FY 2010-11 equal to those in FY 2009-10. Detroit's (and Chikaming's) statutory revenue sharing was increased for one year to make up for the impact of declining population on its constitutional payment. For Chelsea, its population grew, which increased its constitutional payment and decreased its statutory payment. Due to the payment anomalies introduced by the FY 2010-11 census adjustments, FY 2009-10 has been the base year for determining statutory revenue sharing payments to individual CVTs in the budgets for FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 4 of 7 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

The Economic Vitality Incentive Program and Subsequent Program Changes

In FY 2011-12, statutory revenue sharing was changed to the Economic Vitality Incentive Program (EVIP), which required compliance with certain reporting and planning requirements in order for a local government to receive full payment. The total appropriation for statutory revenue sharing was reduced 33.3% in FY 2011-12 and additional local units (those that had received a statutory payment of less than $4,500 in FY 2009-10) became ineligible for the program. This reduced the number of local units eligible for the program from 558 in FY 2009-10 to 486 in FY 2011-12. Eligibility remained stable in FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14.

The program name, eligibility, and formula were revised again in FY 2014-15. The renamed City, Village, and Township Revenue Sharing program extended eligibility to all CVTs with a population of more than 7,500 in addition to those CVTs that had received a statutory revenue sharing payment of more than $4,500 in FY 2009-10. This revision made an additional 101 local units (100 townships and one city) eligible for statutory revenue sharing payments. The payment formula also was revised to add a per capita component. Each eligible CVT that complied with accountability and transparency requirements received the greater of 78.51044% of its FY 2009-10 payment or $2.64659 per capita.

In FY 2014-15, 12 years after leaving statutory revenue sharing, Milton Township received 113% of its FY 2002-03 payments, benefitting from its population gain and a 13.7% increase in sales tax collections over this period. In contrast, Chikaming, which lost statutory revenue sharing the same year, received only 88.0% of its FY 2002-03 amount in FY 2014-15. This decline was due to the township's population loss in the 2010 census, a portion of which was offset by sales tax growth that increased the per capita amount paid for the remaining population.

For Detroit and Chelsea, their greater reliance on statutory revenue sharing caused them to take larger cuts in total payments from FY 2003-04 to FY 2009-10. By FY 2009-10 and before the implementation of the 2010 census data, Detroit was receiving only 75.0% of its FY 2002-03 payments and Chelsea only 73.0%. The impact of a 24.8% reduction in population from 2000 to 2010 combined with a 33.3% reduction in statewide appropriations for statutory revenue sharing, cut Detroit's total revenue sharing in FY 2011-12 to nearly half (54.0%) of what it had been in FY 2002-03. Chelsea fared much better in FY 2011-12 due to its 15.7% population growth. In FY 2014- 15, Chelsea's total revenue sharing was 89.0% of its FY 2002-03 amount, slightly higher than Chikaming Township's and well above Detroit's 54.0%.

Distribution of Revenue Sharing Reductions

The impact of the cutbacks in statutory revenue sharing has affected every local unit since FY 2000-01. The severity of the State cuts has been mitigated for CVTs with growth in population that increased their constitutional revenue sharing. Local units that received proportionally less statutory revenue sharing in the early part of the 2000s also have fared better. These were the units that did not do as well under the 1998 reform and the prior relative tax effort system. They typically had taxable value per capita higher than the statewide average and/or lower than average millage rates. These CVTs also have experienced cuts, but because the statutory revenue sharing payments were a smaller part of their total, the growth in constitutional revenue sharing has reduced the impact of the statutory revenue sharing cuts. This is illustrated in Table 2, which shows the distribution of cities, villages, and townships in terms of the relationship of their FY 2013-14 revenue

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 5 of 7 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

sharing payments compared to their payments in FY 2002-03. This compares the distribution prior to the expansion of statutory revenue sharing in FY 2014-15.

Table 2 Total of Constitutional and Statutory Revenue Sharing Payments Distribution of Payment Changes from FY 2002-03 to FY 2013-14 Constitutional New Plus Statutory Average Statutory Statutory FY 2013-14 Number Number Number Population Recipients Recipients As a Percent of of of of Total Percent in in FY 2002-03 Cities Villages Townships Local Units Change FY 2013-14a) FY 2014-15a) Under 70% 34 45 11 90 (16.3%) 62 3 70% to 79% 167 129 44 340 (5.2) 280 0 80% to 89% 60 50 226 336 (3.5) 103 14 90% to 99% 14 19 439 472 (0.3) 27 27 100% to 109% 1 7 324 332 6.0 5 21 110% or More 3 4 196 203 21.6 3 40 Total 279 254 1,240 1,773 480 105 a) The counts are based on actual payments to recipients. In FY 2013-14, 486 local units were eligible for statutory revenue sharing; however, six did not qualify for any payment. In FY 2014-15, 101 local units were newly eligible, but several other local units qualified for payments for the first time.

The table shows how the changes in revenue sharing from FY 2002-03 to FY 2013-14 (before the expansion of eligibility in FY 2014-15) affected cities, villages, and townships. There are CVTs in each distributional category, so it is not easy to make general statements that hold true by type of local unit. However, with 75.1% of all revenue sharing appropriations distributed on a per capita basis through constitutional revenue sharing in FY 2014-15 compared with 45.5% in FY 2002-03, CVTs with increasing population have fared better than other local units with flat or declining population. For CVTs that received over 110.0% of their FY 2002-03 payment in FY 2013-14, all local units in that category had an increasing population. Only three of the CVTs that fared the best since FY 2002-03 received statutory revenue sharing in FY 2013-14. In contrast, of the 90 CVTs that fared the worst since FY 2002-03 and receive payments less than 70.0% of what they received at that time, 89 had a declining population and 62 were eligible for statutory revenue sharing. The situation of local units in the middle groups, those with payments in FY 2013-14 between 70.0% and 110% of the FY 2002-03 amount, is more complicated, with changes depending on the relative impact of population changes and the share of statutory payments as a share of total revenue sharing.

In FY 2014-15, statutory revenue sharing was expanded to add 101 local units to eligibility. These local governments, however, are not necessarily the ones that were most hurt by the declines in statutory revenue sharing. Sixty-one of the newly eligible local units were already receiving more total revenue sharing in FY 2013-14 than they had received in FY 2002-03, placing them in the top 30.0% of CVTs in terms of payment growth.

Local units that no longer receive any statutory revenue sharing received a greater share of total State revenue sharing appropriations in FY 2014-15 than they received in FY 2002-03. The share of total revenue sharing received by these local units increased from 13.6% in FY 2002-03 to 17.1% in FY 2014-15 as constitutional revenue sharing with its straight per capita distribution has become

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 6 of 7 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

the primary method of distributing State revenue sharing dollars. In FY 2002-03, 52.9% of revenue sharing was distributed through constitutional revenue sharing. In FY 2014-15, constitutional revenue sharing was 75.1% of total CVT revenue sharing. Given the significance of constitutional revenue sharing, CVTs with population growth from 2000 to 2010 were more likely to receive larger total revenue sharing payments in FY 2013-14 than in FY 2002-03.

A Note on Statutory Revenue Sharing in FY 2015-16

The enacted budget for FY 2015-16 maintains the eligibility and distribution formula in effect for FY 2014-15. The appropriation of statutory revenue sharing is $248.8 million in FY 2015-16, the same amount as in FY 2014-15.

Conclusion

The reductions in statutory revenue sharing since FY 2000-01 affected all CVTs. If the funds had been available and appropriated for this purpose according to the statutory formula in effect through FY 2006-07, all CVTs would have received more State funding than actually was paid. Given that this was not the case, the distributional impacts of the cuts that were made can inform revenue sharing policies.

The degree to which a local unit's total revenue sharing payments have been reduced since 2002- 03 depends on the size of a local unit's statutory payment that year relative to its total revenue sharing payment (statutory plus constitutional) and the change in the local unit's population at the 2010 census. The interaction of these factors and the method of reducing revenue sharing payments used from FY 2003-04 to FY 2008-09, mean that individual CVTs have had quite different changes in total revenue sharing between FY 2002-03 and FY 2014-15. The earlier that a local unit lost statutory revenue sharing, the more it was insulated from the cuts to that program by growth in sales tax revenue and thus constitutional revenue sharing payments. Units that were no longer eligible for statutory revenue sharing received a greater share of total revenue sharing payments in FY 2014-15 (17.1%) than they received in FY 2002-03 (13.6%). Those CVTs that received higher statutory payments under the prior statutory revenue sharing formulas (due to higher tax effort and lower than average taxable values) experienced the greatest cuts. Constitutional revenue sharing now constitutes 75.1% of all CVT revenue sharing. Local units with population growth measured in the 2010 census generally have had the greatest growth in total revenue sharing.

The expansion of eligibility for statutory revenue sharing in FY 2014-15 was facilitated by the appropriation of $5.8 million to cover the increased payments due to per capita payments under the statutory program. If appropriations for statutory revenue sharing remain constant, expanding eligibility or revising the formula to increase payments for any one set of local units would reduce payments to another group. The phase-in of any distributional changes would need to be considered as would the ability of local units to absorb payment reductions. Cities, villages, and townships that have experienced declining taxable values as well as declining revenue sharing payments may have comparatively less ability to raise local revenue to cover any shortfall. Many alternative policies could be considered, but the choice depends on the goals of the revenue sharing program, how "fairness" is defined, and what is determined to be the best use of State funds available for statutory revenue sharing.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 7 of 7 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

The Stated Foundation Allowance Vs. What a School District Actually Receives Kathryn Summers, Associate Director

Every year during the budget process, lists of current and proposed foundation allowances for school districts are published. However, the lists may not reflect what a school district actually is receiving or would receive upon enactment of the future budget. Since State support of the foundation allowance accounts for more than 74% ($9.0 billion) of State spending in the K-12 budget, it is important to know the workings of a district's foundation allowance. This article reviews the reasons a school district may be receiving less or more than its stated foundation allowance, along with the magnitude of variances around the State.1

Explanation of a School District's Foundation Allowance

Since the time Michigan voters adopted Proposal A, the school finance reform measure of 1994, schools have been paid a foundation allowance for each pupil counted in membership. The foundation allowance is an unrestricted source of revenue for schools to be used for general operations and paid to school districts on a per-pupil basis. When Proposal A was being implemented, calculations were made to determine how much each school district was receiving from local and State money in fiscal years (FYs) 1992-93 and 1993-94, and those amounts were converted to a foundation allowance, which varied from a minimum of $4,200 per pupil to more than $10,000 in FY 1994-95. A funding structure was implemented that has worked over time to lessen the gap between the minimum and maximum foundation allowances, by setting a "target" foundation allowance, also known as the "basic" foundation allowance. When the budget process uses this gap-closing funding structure, districts with foundation allowances below the basic foundation allowance are provided with a larger per-pupil increase in funding compared with districts with foundation allowances above the basic foundation allowance. In the event a district with a foundation allowance below the basic in one year receives a dollar increase that "catches up" to the basic, the district then receives an amount equal to the basic foundation allowance from that point forward, and yearly foundation allowance increases do not provide any additional gap-closing funds to that district.

Figure 1 shows a general distribution of foundation allowances in FY 1994-95, the first year in which the system of school funding under Proposal A was implemented. As illustrated, out of 570 total districts, 41, or 7%, of districts were at the minimum of $4,200 per pupil; 47%of districts (or 270) were between the minimum and the basic, which was $5,000; 36%(or 207) were between the basic and the State maximum/hold harmless threshold (the point at which State aid ceases and districts must levy additional local mills on homesteads to support the foundation), which was $6,500; and 9% (or 52), were above the hold harmless threshold.

In many of the years since Proposal A was adopted and implemented, when State funding increases were provided in the foundation allowance, districts at the lower end of per-pupil funding received higher dollar increases than those at the upper end of the scale. This emphasis on equity over time has reduced the funding gap between the lowest-funded district and the highest-funded district, from a difference of $6,254 per pupil at the start of Proposal A to just over $5,300 now, and has reduced the gap between the lowest- funded district and the hold-harmless threshold from $2,300 per pupil to $778. Figure 2 shows the general distribution of foundation allowances for FY 2015-16. Comparing Figures 1 and 2 illustrates how much the gap has closed and how the vast majority of school districts (84%, or 708), which include charter schools, now have statutory foundation allowances equal to the minimum, which is $7,391 for FY 2015-16. The total number of school districts has increased over time reflecting the growth in the number of charter school districts.

1 The calculations in the article focus on the funding supporting general education students. The calculations of funding for special education students are more complex and not included here.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Figure 1

FY 1994-95 Distribution of Foundation Allowances

47.4%

270 7.2% 41 52 9.1% 207

36.3%

Total Number of Districts = 570

At Minimum of $4,200 Between Minimum and Basic ($4,200-$5,000) Between Basic and Hold Harmless Threshold ($5,000-$6,500) At or Above Hold Harmless of $6,500

Figure 2

FY 2015-16 Distribution of Foundation Allowances

83.5% 708 57 6.7% 83

9.8%

Total Number of Districts = 848

At Minimum of $7,391 Between Minimum and Basic/Hold Harmless* ($7,391-$8,169) At or Above Basic/Hold Harmless of $8,169

* The basic was “reset” and increased to the Hold Harmless threshold with the return of the “2x” formula in FY 2007-08.

Reasons the Stated Foundation Allowance May Not Be What a District Receives

Figure 2 shows that 83% of school districts, which include charter schools, have statutory foundation allowances equal to the minimum, which is $7,391 per pupil for FY 2015-16. (A full listing of each district's FY 2015-16 statutory foundation allowance may be found at http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Departments/DataCharts/DCk12_DistrictImpact.pdf.) However, the

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 2 of 29 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

amount actually received by a district (that is not a charter school) may differ from the statutory amount due to the interplay with local property tax revenue. For FY 2015-16, charter schools all receive the $7,391 minimum foundation allowance, and they receive 100% of that amount from the State, so there is no difference for charter schools between their statutory foundation allowance and what is actually received in foundation allowance revenue.

The picture is less straightforward for local districts (i.e., school districts that are not charter schools and that levy local property taxes in support of operations). One of the changes under Proposal A requires that all local districts levy property taxes on nonhomesteads (e.g., businesses) to help support the cost of the foundation allowance. The general level of required local taxation is 18 mills, although this varies somewhat for a few districts around the State, if the district was levying something less than 18 mills prior to Proposal A.

The State School Aid Act includes a formula that calculates how much local revenue is generated from the 18-mill levy, with the State making up the difference between a district's foundation allowance, capped at the "hold harmless" or "State maximum" threshold, and that local revenue. To illustrate, a school district may have a foundation allowance of $7,391 and, for example, the 18-mill levy on nonhomestead property may generate $4,000 per pupil. The State then would make a payment to the district equal to the difference between the foundation allowance of $7,391 and the amount generated locally of $4,000, or a payment of $3,391 per pupil.

Headlee Rollbacks

One reason a local district may not receive its statutory foundation allowance relates to the State Constitution. Under Article IX, Section 31, a provision of the so-called Headlee Amendment (adopted in 1978), a school district may be required to "roll back" its 18-mill levy if local revenue increases at a faster rate than inflation, and if the district does not obtain voter approval for additional millage in order to levy the full 18 mills. In the example above, if a district is required to roll its 18-mill levy back to something like 17.5 mills, and does not either seek or receive voter approval for additional millage, the State does not make up the difference in the lost millage because the formula for State support assumes the district is levying the full 18 mills. This, then, is one instance in which districts may receive less foundation allowance funding than statutorily allowed.

The phenomenon described above was much more prevalent before districts realized they could ask voters to authorize a millage rate in excess of 18 mills, which, if approved, could absorb Headlee rollbacks for a period of time, and have no net impact on foundation allowance funding. Even if districts seek and are granted voter approval for a millage rate in excess of 18 mills, statutorily they are not allowed to actually levy that higher millage rate. However, asking for authorization in excess of 18 mills has provided some cushion to districts in the event of Headlee rollbacks, as the rollback is applied to the authorized amount, not to the actual (capped) levy. At the end of FY 2014-15, 56 local districts were levying less than 18 mills in total, due to Headlee rollbacks; the average millage rate among those 56 districts was 17.73 mills; and the average per-pupil foregone revenue equaled $14.

Voter Denial of Operating Millage

As described above, the formula in the School Aid Act that calculates the State's share of a district's foundation allowance assumes the district levies its maximum allowable operating millage, typically 18 mills, on nonhomestead property. However, voters must approve the 18-mill levy on nonhomestead property and, on rare occasions, the vote in a district fails. The State does not make up the lost revenue, and in virtually every case, the district ultimately receives voter approval of the renewal of the 18-mill levy. (Buena Vista did not renew its 18-mill levy, but this occurred after the district was dissolved, and did not affect its operating funding.) If a school district were unsuccessful in its attempts to have voters approve the 18-mill levy, the

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 3 of 29 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

district would forego all associated local revenue, and again, the State would not make up the difference, as provided under the current statute.

Local Revenue Exceeding Statutory Foundation Allowance

A somewhat opposite phenomenon also can occur, when local tax revenue raised by nonhomestead millage exceeds a district's statutory foundation allowance. In FY 2014-15, 37 districts actually received more than their statutory foundation allowance by simply levying their nonhomestead millage. This is allowed under current law, and in fact, in these instances, the State does not make any payment toward the district's foundation allowance costs, since the foundation allowance is funded 100% from local revenue. The State also does not force a return of any excess funding, and districts may retain excess foundation allowance revenue in these situations, as long as the millage complies with any Headlee considerations discussed above.

It is important to note that when a foundation allowance increase is provided for a particular budget year, and lists are published showing the projected dollar increase by district, a district in the above situation (considered "out-of-formula") actually will not likely receive that increase, because its funding is dependent entirely on local revenue, and not dependent on State actions. In other words, then, an increase in the foundation allowance reflects a State funding increase, and out-of-formula districts that receive no State support of the foundation allowance will see no increase in their net operational funding, unless there is an increase in the local revenue generated by the 18-mill levy.

Hold Harmless Districts that Choose Not to Levy Available Hold Harmless Mills

As mentioned above, implementation of Proposal A included a movement toward reducing the equity gap among school districts, and the State did this by providing larger dollar increases to districts with lower foundation allowances than to those with higher foundation allowances. In fact, the current formula is colloquially referred to as the "2x" formula, because when it is used it provides twice the dollar increase to districts at the minimum foundation allowance than to those with foundation allowances at or above the basic foundation allowance. (Districts with foundation allowances in excess of the minimum, but less than the basic, receive something in between "1x" and "2x" applied to the dollar increase in the basic foundation allowance.) When formulas are used in the School Aid Act to reduce the equity gap, they are striving to bring the districts between the minimum and the basic up to the basic foundation allowance over time.

The target level of per-pupil funding according to the current formula is the basic foundation allowance, which also can be referred to as the "State maximum" or the "hold harmless threshold". Each of these effectively means the same thing, namely the level beyond which a district must start levying "hold harmless" mills in order to achieve its full, statutory foundation allowance because State support is capped.

As an example of foundation allowance funding for a hold harmless district, Grosse Ile Township Schools in Wayne County had a foundation allowance of $8,404 in FY 2014-15. The district levied 18 mills on nonhomestead property, which brought in $645 per pupil in local revenue. The State then made a payment equal to the difference between the basic (also called the State maximum or hold harmless threshold) of $8,099 (adjusted to $7,818 because of the interplay with former Section 20j calculations2) and the local revenue of $645, for State support of the foundation allowance equal to $7,173 per pupil.

2 Section 20(4) calculates the State share of the foundation allowance for hold harmless districts and yields differing State maximum figures based on 20j calculations and a district's FY 1998-99 foundation. In essence, the cap found in Section 1211 of the Revised School Code that restricts the combined State and local revenue for hold harmless districts from increasing more rapidly than inflation was implemented by capping the State share supporting these districts' foundation allowances, and not by capping the hold harmless mills levied.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 4 of 29 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

In order for Grosse Ile (a "hold harmless" district) to receive its full statutory foundation of $8,404, it then also levied, with voter approval, more than two additional mills on principal residence (homestead), industrial personal, and commercial personal property in the district. The 2.23 mills on principal residence and industrial and commercial personal property, then, raised the rest of the district's foundation allowance revenue, which is the difference between the district's statutory foundation allowance of $8,404 and the adjusted State maximum capped amount for this district of $7,818, or $586. Figure 3 shows the makeup of Grosse Ile's foundation allowance.

Figure 3 The Components of Grosse Ile's Foundation Allowance $10,000

Step 3: Hold Harmless Local Revenue $8,000 $586

$6,000 Step 2: State Payment up $7,173 to Basic/State Maximum $4,000

$2,000

Step 1: 18-Mill Local $645 Revenue 0

Local Hold Harmless Millage Revenue State Aid (up to Basic, Capped by Inflation) Local 18-Mill Revenue

However, some "hold harmless" districts (those that, since Proposal A, have had statutory foundation allowances in excess of the basic/State maximum threshold) voluntarily choose not to levy hold harmless mills, or not to levy the allowable number of hold harmless mills. The primary reason for a "hold harmless" district to choose not to levy all available hold harmless mills is to qualify for At Risk funding. At Risk funding provides additional support to school districts based on the number of children in the district eligible for free lunch, but the funding is available only to districts whose combined State and local per-pupil operating revenue is less than the basic/State maximum foundation allowance. A district also may choose not to levy hold harmless mills if the allowable mills would generate such a small amount of revenue that the district has determined it is not worthwhile to impose the cost on taxpayers, or perhaps the taxpayers have rejected the hold harmless millage in question.

While 44 districts are eligible to levy hold harmless mills, only 24 actually did so for FY 2014-15. Of the 20 hold harmless districts that do not levy hold harmless mills, 15 are part of the "out-of-formula" group mentioned earlier, where their basic (18-mill) local nonhomestead millage revenue brings in more revenue than their statutory foundation level, and therefore they do not need (and in fact then are ineligible) to levy hold harmless mills on homestead property. The remaining five hold harmless districts that do not levy hold harmless mills (Bangor Township, Colfax, Jefferson, Melvindale, and Warren Woods) have chosen to entirely forego levying hold harmless millage and therefore qualify for At Risk funding.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 5 of 29 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Turning to the 24 hold harmless districts that do levy hold harmless mills, two of the districts (River Rouge and Romulus) levy only at a millage rate that ensures that their combined State and local revenue does not exceed the threshold for qualifying for At Risk funds. Therefore, a total of seven hold harmless districts (the five that do not levy any extra mills and the two that levy only enough to remain eligible for At Risk) are receiving less than their statutory foundation allowances from not levying all available hold harmless mills, although they do receive At Risk payments that may or may not more than offset the foregone foundation allowance revenue.

Of the 22 hold harmless districts that do levy hold harmless mills but do not receive At Risk funding (i.e., their combined State and local revenue exceeds the basic/State maximum), most levy at a rate that provides the statutory foundation allowance, or something very close. In order to determine the level of hold harmless mills to levy each year, districts must estimate both the number of pupils and homestead taxable values. If a district charges too much in one year, it must reduce the millage assessed in the subsequent year, and vice versa. Therefore, there can be slight, and sometimes not so slight, differences between the statutory foundation and what the hold harmless district receives if estimates of pupils and taxable values are different than actual figures, but in most cases, the differences are then made up or returned in subsequent years.

Appendix A lists all of the districts, including charter schools, and their statutory FY 2014-15 foundation allowance along with their estimated actual operating revenue per pupil. The appendix also notes if the variance in a hold harmless district's statutory foundation allowance compared with actual revenue received is due only to technical differences because of estimating, or if there is an intent to levy fewer mills than authorized, which is the case for a few districts.3

As an example, Troy School District's board of education decided to omit schools-of-choice students from the hold harmless levy calculation, and in so doing, is foregoing approximately $53 per student. Southfield Public Schools made a decision not to recoup lost hold harmless revenue due to reductions in homestead taxable value, and is foregoing more than $700 per pupil. Since the adoption of Proposal A, Lamphere Public Schools never levied the fully allowable hold harmless millage rate, and the district is foregoing more than $900 per pupil.

Summary of Foundation Allowance Funding

Figure 4 shows the distribution of districts in terms of how their statutory foundation allowance compares with funding actually received. As shown, the majority of districts (87.4%) do receive an amount per pupil equal to their statutory foundation allowance. However, if charter schools are excluded (since all of them are 100% State funded), then the percentage of local districts that receive an amount equal to their statutory foundation allowance declines to 80.3%, the percentage of local districts receiving an amount less than their statutory foundation allowance in order to qualify for At Risk increases to 1.3%, the percentage of local districts receiving an amount less than their statutory foundation allowance for other reasons increases to 11.6%, and the percentage of local districts receiving more than their statutory foundation allowance increases to 6.8%.

3 Appendix A may show variances in dollar amounts but will indicate "No Difference" if the variances are driven entirely by the fact that the millage levy is based on estimates of pupils and taxable values.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 6 of 29 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Figure 4 Distribution of School Districts' Actual vs. Statutory Foundation Allowances

(F) 0.7% 6 (A) 87.4% 744 (E) 0.8% 7 (D) 4.3% 37 (C) 0.1% 1 (B) 6.6% 56

(A) Receiving Statutory Foundation (B) Receiving less than Statutory due to Headlee Rollbacks (C) Receiving less than Statutory due to not Levying Basic 18 mills (D) Receiving more than Statutory in Local Revenue (E) Choosing to Receive less than Statutory to Qualify for At Risk (F) Other Reasons for Hold Harmless Disctircts Receiving less than Statutory

Other Sources of Funding

School districts receive more than just the foundation allowance for funding programs and operations, but most of the other funding received is for specified purposes, as opposed to the unrestricted operational dollars in the foundation allowance. As noted earlier, the foundation allowance makes up 74% of the State's K-12 budget ($8.9 billion in FY 2014-15), and when combined with local revenue (both the 18-mill levy and any hold-harmless mills), which totals an estimated $2.2 billion, accounts for roughly 80% of a district's available revenue. Other large State-funded appropriations include special education funding, grants to districts to assist with and stabilize retirement costs, At Risk funding, and Great Start preschool funding. In addition, districts also receive Federal grants.

Conclusion

While it is useful to know a school district's statutory foundation allowance, it is also important to understand that what is stated may not be what is actually received by the district. There are numerous reasons why the statutory foundation allowance may vary from actual revenue received; in some cases, the variance is minor, and in others, the variance is significant. While the foundation allowance is only one part of a district's source of revenue, it is the primary method of funding a district's operations, and understanding the makeup of the foundation allowance and the factors that influence actual revenue received will help policymakers who represent those districts better understand the districts' funding environment.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 7 of 29 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Appendix A FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) ALCONA 01010 ALCONA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS $7,126 $7,126 $0 No Difference ALGER COUNTY 02010 AUTRAIN-ONOTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,293 21,369 14,076 Out Of Formula ALGER COUNTY 02020 BURT TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 9,997 21,478 11,481 Out Of Formula ALGER COUNTY 02070 MUNISING PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALGER COUNTY 02080 SUPERIOR CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALLEGAN COUNTY 03010 PLAINWELL COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,121 (5) Headlee Rollback ALLEGAN COUNTY 03020 OTSEGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALLEGAN COUNTY 03030 ALLEGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALLEGAN COUNTY 03040 WAYLAND UNION SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALLEGAN COUNTY 03050 FENNVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALLEGAN COUNTY 03060 MARTIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALLEGAN COUNTY 03070 HOPKINS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALLEGAN COUNTY 03080 SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8,130 8,149 19 No Difference ALLEGAN COUNTY 03100 HAMILTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALLEGAN COUNTY 03440 GLENN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,883 11,496 3,613 Out Of Formula ALLEGAN COUNTY 03900 INNOCADEMY ALLEGAN CAMPUS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALLEGAN COUNTY 03902 OUTLOOK ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALPENA 04010 ALPENA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ALPENA 04901 BINGHAM ARTS ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ANTRIM COUNTY 05010 ALBA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,169 7,169 0 No Difference ANTRIM COUNTY 05035 CENTRAL LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,649 8,217 568 Out Of Formula ANTRIM COUNTY 05040 BELLAIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,583 9,242 1,659 Out Of Formula ANTRIM COUNTY 05060 ELK RAPIDS SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ANTRIM COUNTY 05065 ELLSWORTH COMMUNITY SCHOOL 7,158 7,158 0 No Difference ANTRIM COUNTY 05070 MANCELONA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ARENAC COUNTY 06010 ARENAC EASTERN SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ARENAC COUNTY 06020 AU GRES-SIMS SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ARENAC COUNTY 06050 STANDISH-STERLING COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BARAGA COUNTY 07010 ARVON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,091 41,461 33,370 Out Of Formula BARAGA COUNTY 07020 BARAGA AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BARAGA COUNTY 07040 L'ANSE AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 Headlee Rollback BARRY COUNTY 08010 DELTON KELLOGG SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BARRY COUNTY 08030 HASTINGS AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,121 (5) Headlee Rollback BARRY COUNTY 08050 THORNAPPLE KELLOGG SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BAY COUNTY 09010 BAY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BAY COUNTY 09030 BANGOR TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BAY COUNTY 09050 ESSEXVILLE-HAMPTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,361 7,361 0 No Difference BAY COUNTY 09090 PINCONNING AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BAY COUNTY 09901 BAY-ARENAC COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference 1 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) BAY COUNTY 09902 BAY COUNTY PSA 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BAY COUNTY 09903 BAY CITY ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BENZIE COUNTY 10015 BENZIE COUNTY CENTRAL SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BENZIE COUNTY 10025 FRANKFORT-ELBERTA AREA SCHOOLS 7,846 10,561 2,715 Out Of Formula BERRIEN COUNTY 11010 BENTON HARBOR AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11020 ST. JOSEPH PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,257 7,257 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11030 LAKESHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT (BERRIEN) 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11033 RIVER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,517 11,996 4,479 Out Of Formula BERRIEN COUNTY 11160 GALIEN TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 137,899 130,773 Out Of Formula BERRIEN COUNTY 11200 NEW BUFFALO AREA SCHOOLS 9,934 19,196 9,262 Out Of Formula BERRIEN COUNTY 11210 BRANDYWINE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11240 BERRIEN SPRINGS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11250 EAU CLAIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11300 NILES COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11310 BUCHANAN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11320 WATERVLIET SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11330 COLOMA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,125 (1) Headlee Rollback BERRIEN COUNTY 11340 BRIDGMAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8,155 9,126 971 Out Of Formula BERRIEN COUNTY 11670 HAGAR TOWNSHIP S/D #6 7,126 7,120 (6) Headlee Rollback BERRIEN COUNTY 11830 SODUS TOWNSHIP S/D #5 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11901 COUNTRYSIDE ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11903 BENTON HARBOR CHARTER SCHOOL ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11904 MILDRED C. WELLS PREPARATORY ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BERRIEN COUNTY 11905 DREAM ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BRANCH COUNTY 12010 COLDWATER COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BRANCH COUNTY 12020 BRONSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,113 (13) Headlee Rollback BRANCH COUNTY 12040 QUINCY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BRANCH COUNTY 12901 PANSOPHIA ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13010 ALBION PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13020 BATTLE CREEK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,168 7,168 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13050 ATHENS AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13070 HARPER CREEK COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13080 HOMER COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13090 LAKEVIEW SCH. DISTRICT (CALHOUN) 7,255 7,255 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13095 MAR LEE SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13110 MARSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13120 PENNFIELD SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13130 TEKONSHA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference BRANCH COUNTY 13135 UNION CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,121 (5) Headlee Rollback CALHOUN COUNTY 13900 BATTLE CREEK MONTESSORI ACADEMY 7,168 7,168 0 No Difference 2 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) CALHOUN COUNTY 13901 ARBOR ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13902 ENDEAVOR CHARTER ACADEMY 7,168 7,168 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13903 MARSHALL ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CALHOUN COUNTY 13904 BATTLE CREEK AREA LEARNING CENTER 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference CASS COUNTY 14010 CASSOPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CASS COUNTY 14020 DOWAGIAC UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CASS COUNTY 14030 EDWARDSBURG PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CASS COUNTY 14050 MARCELLUS COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CHARLEVOIX COUNTY 15010 BEAVER ISLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOL 10,203 24,819 14,616 Out Of Formula CHARLEVOIX COUNTY 15020 BOYNE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,243 7,243 0 No Difference CHARLEVOIX COUNTY 15030 BOYNE FALLS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 11,675 4,549 Out Of Formula CHARLEVOIX COUNTY 15050 CHARLEVOIX PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8,046 8,046 0 No Difference CHARLEVOIX COUNTY 15060 EAST JORDAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CHARLEVOIX COUNTY 15901 CONCORD ACADEMY - BOYNE 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference CHARLEVOIX COUNTY 15902 CHARLEVOIX MONTESSORI ACADEMY FOR THE ARTS 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference CHEBOYGAN COUNTY 16015 CHEBOYGAN AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CHEBOYGAN COUNTY 16050 INLAND LAKES SCHOOLS 7,126 7,124 (2) Headlee Rollback EMMET COUNTY 16070 MACKINAW CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,855 11,140 3,285 Out Of Formula CHEBOYGAN COUNTY 16100 WOLVERINE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,710 7,710 0 No Difference CHIPPEWA COUNTY 17010 SAULT STE. MARIE AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CHIPPEWA COUNTY 17050 DETOUR AREA SCHOOLS 8,890 16,680 7,790 Out Of Formula CHIPPEWA COUNTY 17090 PICKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CHIPPEWA COUNTY 17110 RUDYARD AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CHIPPEWA COUNTY 17140 BRIMLEY AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CHIPPEWA COUNTY 17160 WHITEFISH TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS 10,871 37,042 26,171 Out Of Formula CHIPPEWA COUNTY 17901 JOSEPH K. LUMSDEN BAHWETING ANISHNABE ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CHIPPEWA COUNTY 17902 OJIBWE CHARTER SCHOOL 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CHIPPEWA COUNTY 17903 DETOUR ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference CLARE COUNTY 18010 CLARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,097 (29) Headlee Rollback CLARE COUNTY 18020 FARWELL AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CLARE COUNTY 18060 HARRISON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CLINTON COUNTY 19010 DEWITT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CLINTON COUNTY 19070 FOWLER PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CLINTON COUNTY 19100 BATH COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CLINTON COUNTY 19120 OVID-ELSIE AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,125 -1 Headlee Rollback CLINTON COUNTY 19125 PEWAMO-WESTPHALIA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,144 7,144 0 No Difference CLINTON COUNTY 19140 ST. JOHNS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference CRAWFORD COUNTY 20015 CRAWFORD AUSABLE SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference DELTA COUNTY 21010 ESCANABA AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference DELTA COUNTY 21025 GLADSTONE AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference 3 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) DELTA COUNTY 21060 RAPID RIVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference DELTA COUNTY 21065 BIG BAY DE NOC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MENOMINEE COUNTY 21090 BARK RIVER-HARRIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,096 (30) Headlee Rollback DELTA COUNTY 21135 MID PENINSULA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference DICKINSON COUNTY 22010 IRON MOUNTAIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,119 (7) Headlee Rollback DICKINSON COUNTY 22025 NORWAY-VULCAN AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,123 (3) Headlee Rollback DICKINSON COUNTY 22030 BREITUNG TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference DICKINSON COUNTY 22045 NORTH DICKINSON COUNTY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EATON COUNTY 23010 BELLEVUE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EATON COUNTY 23030 CHARLOTTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EATON COUNTY 23050 EATON RAPIDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,120 (6) Headlee Rollback EATON COUNTY 23060 GRAND LEDGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EATON COUNTY 23065 MAPLE VALLEY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EATON COUNTY 23080 OLIVET COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EATON COUNTY 23090 POTTERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EATON COUNTY 23490 ONEIDA TOWNSHIP S/D #3 10,613 9,213 (1,400) Unknown INGHAM COUNTY 23900 LIFE TECH ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EATON COUNTY 23901 ISLAND CITY ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EATON COUNTY 23902 RELEVANT ACADEMY OF EATON COUNTY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EATON COUNTY 23903 INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MICHIGAN 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EMMET COUNTY 24020 HARBOR SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,287 11,322 3,035 Out Of Formula EMMET COUNTY 24030 ALANSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EMMET COUNTY 24040 PELLSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EMMET COUNTY 24070 PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF PETOSKEY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EMMET COUNTY 24901 CONCORD ACADEMY - PETOSKEY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25010 FLINT, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 7,566 7,566 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25030 GRAND BLANC COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,386 7,386 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25040 MT. MORRIS CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25050 GOODRICH AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25060 BENDLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25070 GENESEE SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25080 CARMAN-AINSWORTH COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,855 7,855 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25100 FENTON AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25110 KEARSLEY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25120 FLUSHING COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25130 ATHERTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,116 (10) Headlee Rollback GENESEE COUNTY 25140 DAVISON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25150 CLIO AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25180 SWARTZ CREEK COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25200 LAKE FENTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,307 7,307 0 No Difference 4 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) GENESEE COUNTY 25210 WESTWOOD HEIGHTS SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25230 BENTLEY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,225 7,225 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25240 BEECHER COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,515 7,515 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25250 LINDEN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25260 MONTROSE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,342 7,342 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25280 LAKEVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25900 GENESEE STEM ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25902 WOODLAND PARK ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25903 GRAND BLANC ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25904 NORTHRIDGE ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25905 INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF FLINT 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25907 LINDEN CHARTER ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25909 BURTON GLEN CHARTER ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25910 RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25911 MADISON ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25912 THE NEW STANDARD ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25914 GREATER HEIGHTS ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GENESEE COUNTY 25915 WAY ACADEMY - FLINT 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference GLADWIN COUNTY 26010 BEAVERTON RURAL SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GLADWIN COUNTY 26040 GLADWIN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GOGEBIC COUNTY 27010 BESSEMER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,124 (2) Headlee Rollback GOGEBIC COUNTY 27020 IRONWOOD AREA SCHOOLS OF GOGEBIC COUNTY 7,126 7,105 (21) Headlee Rollback GOGEBIC COUNTY 27070 WAKEFIELD-MARENISCO SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,461 7,461 0 No Difference GOGEBIC COUNTY 27080 WATERSMEET TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,963 12,421 4,458 Out Of Formula GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY 28010 TRAVERSE CITY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WEXFORD COUNTY 28035 BUCKLEY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY 28090 KINGSLEY AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY 28901 WOODLAND SCHOOL 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY 28902 GRAND TRAVERSE ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY 28904 THE GREENSPIRE SCHOOL 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GRATIOT COUNTY 29010 ALMA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,129 7,129 0 No Difference GRATIOT COUNTY 29020 ASHLEY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GRATIOT COUNTY 29040 BRECKENRIDGE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GRATIOT COUNTY 29050 FULTON SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GRATIOT COUNTY 29060 ITHACA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference GRATIOT COUNTY 29100 ST. LOUIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HILLSDALE COUNTY 30010 CAMDEN-FRONTIER SCHOOL 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HILLSDALE COUNTY 30020 HILLSDALE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HILLSDALE COUNTY 30030 JONESVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HILLSDALE COUNTY 30040 LITCHFIELD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference 5 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) HILLSDALE COUNTY 30050 NORTH ADAMS-JEROME PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HILLSDALE COUNTY 30060 PITTSFORD AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,124 (2) Headlee Rollback HILLSDALE COUNTY 30070 READING COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HILLSDALE COUNTY 30080 WALDRON AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HILLSDALE COUNTY 30901 HILLSDALE PREPARATORY SCHOOL 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HILLSDALE COUNTY 30902 WILL CARLETON CHARTER SCHOOL ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HOUGHTON COUNTY 31010 HANCOCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HOUGHTON COUNTY 31020 ADAMS TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HOUGHTON COUNTY 31030 PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF CALUMET, LAURIUM & KEWEENAW 7,126 7,096 (30) Headlee Rollback HOUGHTON COUNTY 31050 CHASSELL TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HOUGHTON COUNTY 31070 ELM RIVER TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,099 41,207 33,108 Out Of Formula HOUGHTON COUNTY 31100 DOLLAR BAY-TAMARACK CITY AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HOUGHTON COUNTY 31110 HOUGHTON-PORTAGE TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HOUGHTON COUNTY 31130 LAKE LINDEN-HUBBELL SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HOUGHTON COUNTY 31140 STANTON TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HURON COUNTY 32010 BAD AXE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HURON COUNTY 32030 CASEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,452 7,452 0 No Difference HURON COUNTY 32040 CHURCH SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 5,961 (1,165) Doesn't Levy Basic 18 Mills HURON COUNTY 32050 ELKTON-PIGEON-BAY PORT LAKER SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HURON COUNTY 32060 HARBOR BEACH COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HURON COUNTY 32080 NORTH HURON SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HURON COUNTY 32090 OWENDALE-GAGETOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,150 7,150 0 No Difference HURON COUNTY 32130 PORT HOPE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 8,805 9,252 447 Out Of Formula HURON COUNTY 32170 UBLY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,116 (10) Headlee Rollback HURON COUNTY 32260 COLFAX TOWNSHIP S/D #1F 8,664 7,836 (828) Qualifies for At Risk HURON COUNTY 32610 SIGEL TOWNSHIP S/D #3F 7,126 46,098 38,972 Out Of Formula HURON COUNTY 32620 SIGEL TOWNSHIP S/D #4F 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference HURON COUNTY 32630 SIGEL TOWNSHIP S/D #6 7,555 7,555 0 No Difference HURON COUNTY 32650 VERONA TOWNSHIP S/D #1F 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33010 EAST LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,099 8,099 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33020 LANSING PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,418 7,410 (8) Headlee Rollback INGHAM COUNTY 33040 DANSVILLE SCHOOLS 7,126 7,118 (8) Headlee Rollback INGHAM COUNTY 33060 HASLETT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33070 HOLT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,349 7,323 (26) Headlee Rollback INGHAM COUNTY 33100 LESLIE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33130 MASON PUBLIC SCHOOLS (INGHAM) 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33170 OKEMOS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8,099 8,099 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33200 STOCKBRIDGE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference EATON COUNTY 33215 WAVERLY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 8,483 8,472 (11) No Difference 6 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) INGHAM COUNTY 33220 WEBBERVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33230 WILLIAMSTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33901 COLE ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33902 EL-HAJJ MALIK EL-SHABAZZ ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33904 MID-MICHIGAN LEADERSHIP ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33906 WHITE PINE ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33909 WINDEMERE PARK CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33910 LANSING CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33911 MICHIGAN CONNECTIONS ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33913 NEXUS ACADEMY OF LANSING 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33914 GREAT LAKES CYBER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference INGHAM COUNTY 33915 BLENDED LEARNING ACADEMIES CREDIT RECOVERY HIGH SCH. 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference IONIA COUNTY 34010 IONIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IONIA COUNTY 34040 PALO COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IONIA COUNTY 34080 BELDING AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IONIA COUNTY 34090 LAKEWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IONIA COUNTY 34110 PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IONIA COUNTY 34120 SARANAC COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IONIA COUNTY 34140 BERLIN TOWNSHIP S/D #3 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IONIA COUNTY 34340 EASTON TOWNSHIP S/D #6 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IONIA COUNTY 34360 IONIA TOWNSHIP S/D #2 7,126 9,977 2,851 Out Of Formula IOSCO COUNTY 35010 OSCODA AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IOSCO COUNTY 35020 HALE AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IOSCO COUNTY 35030 TAWAS AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IOSCO COUNTY 35040 WHITTEMORE-PRESCOTT AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IOSCO COUNTY 35902 ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY OF IOSCO COUNTY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference IRON COUNTY 36015 FOREST PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,033 (93) Headlee Rollback IRON COUNTY 36025 WEST IRON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,087 (39) Headlee Rollback ISABELLA COUNTY 37010 MT. PLEASANT CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ISABELLA COUNTY 37040 BEAL CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ISABELLA COUNTY 37060 SHEPHERD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ISABELLA COUNTY 37901 RENAISSANCE PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ISABELLA COUNTY 37902 MOREY MONTESSORI PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38010 WESTERN SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38020 VANDERCOOK LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38040 COLUMBIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38050 GRASS LAKE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38080 CONCORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38090 EAST JACKSON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38100 HANOVER-HORTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference 7 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) JACKSON COUNTY 38120 MICHIGAN CENTER SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38130 NAPOLEON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38140 NORTHWEST COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38150 SPRINGPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38170 JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38900 JACKSON PREPARATORY & EARLY COLLEGE 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38901 DA VINCI INSTITUTE 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference JACKSON COUNTY 38902 PARAGON CHARTER ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39010 KALAMAZOO PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,501 7,501 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39020 CLIMAX-SCOTTS COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39030 COMSTOCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39050 GALESBURG-AUGUSTA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39065 GULL LAKE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39130 PARCHMENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39140 PORTAGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39160 SCHOOLCRAFT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39170 VICKSBURG COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39900 LAKESIDE CHARTER SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39903 OAKLAND ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39905 PARAMOUNT CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39906 YOUTH ADVANCEMENT ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39907 FOREST ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALAMAZOO COUNTY 39908 EVERGREEN ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KALKASKA COUNTY 40020 FOREST AREA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALKASKA COUNTY 40040 KALKASKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KALKASKA COUNTY 40060 EXCELSIOR TOWNSHIP S/D #1 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41010 GRAND RAPIDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,135 7,135 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41020 GODWIN HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,867 7,867 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41025 NORTHVIEW PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41026 WYOMING PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41040 BYRON CENTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,518 7,518 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41050 CALEDONIA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 8,012 8,012 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41070 CEDAR SPRINGS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 Headlee Rollback KENT COUNTY 41080 COMSTOCK PARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41090 EAST GRAND RAPIDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,500 7,498 (2) Headlee Rollback KENT COUNTY 41110 FOREST HILLS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8,084 8,084 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41120 GODFREY-LEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41130 GRANDVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41140 KELLOGGSVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41145 KENOWA HILLS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,259 7,259 0 No Difference 8 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) KENT COUNTY 41150 KENT CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41160 KENTWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,197 7,197 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41170 LOWELL AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41210 ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41240 SPARTA AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41900 COVENANT HOUSE ACADEMY GRAND RAPIDS 7,135 7,135 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41901 NEW BRANCHES CHARTER ACADEMY 7,135 7,135 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41904 WEST MI ACADEMY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41905 EXCEL CHARTER ACADEMY 7,197 7,197 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41908 BYRON CENTER CHARTER SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41909 VISTA CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41910 VANGUARD CHARTER ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41911 GRATTAN ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41914 KNAPP CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41915 WALKER CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41916 CROSS CREEK CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41917 WILLIAM C. ABNEY ACADEMY 7,135 7,135 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41918 CREATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41919 RIDGE PARK CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41920 CHANDLER WOODS CHARTER ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41921 GRAND RAPIDS CHILD DISCOVERY CENTER 7,135 7,135 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41922 LIGHTHOUSE ACADEMY 7,197 7,197 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41923 WELLSPRING PREPARATORY HIGH SCHOOL 7,135 7,135 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41924 WEST MICHIGAN AVIATION ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41925 MICHIGAN VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY 7,135 7,135 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41926 HOPE ACADEMY OF WEST MICHIGAN 7,135 7,135 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41927 GRAND RAPIDS ELLINGTON ACADEMY OF ARTS & TECHNOLOGY 7,135 7,135 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41928 RIVER CITY SCHOLARS CHARTER ACADEMY 7,135 7,135 0 No Difference KENT COUNTY 41929 NEXUS ACADEMY OF GRAND RAPIDS 7,135 7,135 0 No Difference KEWEENAW COUNTY 42030 GRANT TOWNSHIP S/D #2 12,336 30,769 18,433 Out Of Formula LAKE COUNTY 43040 BALDWIN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,175 10,853 3,678 Out Of Formula LAPEER COUNTY 44010 LAPEER COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LAPEER COUNTY 44020 ALMONT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,110 (16) Headlee Rollback LAPEER COUNTY 44050 DRYDEN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LAPEER COUNTY 44060 IMLAY CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LAPEER COUNTY 44090 NORTH BRANCH AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LAPEER COUNTY 44901 CHATFIELD SCHOOL 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LEELANAU COUNTY 45010 GLEN LAKE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 9,404 2,278 Out Of Formula LEELANAU COUNTY 45020 LELAND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,898 7,898 0 No Difference LEELANAU COUNTY 45040 NORTHPORT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,898 18,634 9,736 Out Of Formula 9 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) LEELANAU COUNTY 45050 SUTTONS BAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LEELANAU COUNTY 45901 LEELANAU MONTESSORI PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LENAWEE COUNTY 46010 ADRIAN, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LENAWEE COUNTY 46020 ADDISON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LENAWEE COUNTY 46040 BLISSFIELD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LENAWEE COUNTY 46050 BRITTON DEERFIELD SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LENAWEE COUNTY 46060 CLINTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LENAWEE COUNTY 46080 HUDSON AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LENAWEE COUNTY 46090 MADISON SCHOOL DISTRICT (LENAWEE) 7,942 7,942 0 No Difference LENAWEE COUNTY 46100 MORENCI AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LENAWEE COUNTY 46110 ONSTED COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LENAWEE COUNTY 46130 SAND CREEK COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LENAWEE COUNTY 46140 TECUMSEH PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LIVINGSTON COUNTY 47010 BRIGHTON AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LIVINGSTON COUNTY 47030 FOWLERVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LIVINGSTON COUNTY 47060 HARTLAND CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LIVINGSTON COUNTY 47070 HOWELL PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LIVINGSTON COUNTY 47080 PINCKNEY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LIVINGSTON COUNTY 47901 KENSINGTON WOODS SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LIVINGSTON COUNTY 47902 CHARYL STOCKWELL ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LIVINGSTON COUNTY 47903 FLEXTECH HIGH SCHOOL 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference LUCE COUNTY 48040 TAHQUAMENON AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MACKINAC COUNTY 49010 ST. IGNACE AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MACKINAC COUNTY 49020 BOIS BLANC PINES SCHOOL DISTRICT 15,486 28,459 12,973 Out Of Formula MACKINAC COUNTY 49040 LES CHENEAUX COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,348 9,264 1,916 Out Of Formula MACKINAC COUNTY 49055 ENGADINE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS 7,562 7,562 0 No Difference MACKINAC COUNTY 49070 MORAN TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 17,598 10,472 Out Of Formula MACKINAC COUNTY 49110 MACKINAC ISLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 11,207 18,973 7,766 Out Of Formula MACKINAC COUNTY 49901 THREE LAKES ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50010 CENTER LINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 9,433 9,227 (206) Unknown MACOMB COUNTY 50020 EAST DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,592 7,592 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50030 ROSEVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,547 7,547 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 50040 ANCHOR BAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50050 ARMADA AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50070 CLINTONDALE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,393 7,338 (55) Headlee Rollback MACOMB COUNTY 50080 CHIPPEWA VALLEY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50090 FITZGERALD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8,099 8,099 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50100 FRASER PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8,081 8,081 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50120 LAKE SHORE PUBLIC SCHOOLS (MACOMB) 8,033 8,033 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50130 LAKEVIEW PUBLIC SCHOOLS (MACOMB) 7,902 7,902 0 No Difference 10 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) MACOMB COUNTY 50140 L'ANSE CREUSE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,501 7,501 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50160 MOUNT CLEMENS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,900 7,900 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50170 NEW HAVEN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,191 7,191 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50180 RICHMOND COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50190 ROMEO COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,479 7,479 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50200 SOUTH LAKE SCHOOLS 8,804 8,530 (274) Unintentional Undercharge MACOMB COUNTY 50210 UTICA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,441 7,437 (4) Headlee Rollback MACOMB COUNTY 50220 VAN DYKE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,824 7,824 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50230 WARREN CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS 8,936 8,943 7 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50240 WARREN WOODS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8,568 7,829 (739) Qualifies for At Risk MACOMB COUNTY 50901 MACOMB ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50902 CONNER CREEK ACADEMY EAST 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50903 HURON ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50904 GLOBAL PREPARATORY ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50905 ARTS ACADEMY IN THE WOODS 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50906 MERRITT ACADEMY 7,191 7,191 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50908 MT. CLEMENS MONTESSORI ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50909 PREVAIL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50911 ACADEMY OF WARREN 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50912 REACH CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50913 NOOR INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50914 MACOMB MONTESSORI ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50915 RISING STARS ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 50916 SUCCESS MILE ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MANISTEE COUNTY 51020 BEAR LAKE SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MANISTEE COUNTY 51045 KALEVA NORMAN DICKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,271 7,271 0 No Difference MANISTEE COUNTY 51060 ONEKAMA CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS 8,009 8,009 0 No Difference MANISTEE COUNTY 51070 MANISTEE AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MANISTEE COUNTY 51903 CASMAN ALTERNATIVE ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MANISTEE COUNTY 51905 MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES VIRTUAL ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MARQUETTE COUNTY 52015 NICE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MARQUETTE COUNTY 52040 GWINN AREA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MARQUETTE COUNTY 52090 NEGAUNEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MARQUETTE COUNTY 52100 POWELL TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS 8,086 18,531 10,445 Out Of Formula MARQUETTE COUNTY 52110 REPUBLIC-MICHIGAMME SCHOOLS 8,399 9,798 1,399 Out Of Formula MARQUETTE COUNTY 52160 WELLS TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,771 23,391 14,620 Out Of Formula MARQUETTE COUNTY 52170 MARQUETTE AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MARQUETTE COUNTY 52180 ISHPEMING PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference 11 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) MARQUETTE COUNTY 52901 NORTH STAR ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MASON COUNTY 53010 MASON COUNTY CENTRAL SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MASON COUNTY 53020 MASON COUNTY EASTERN SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MASON COUNTY 53040 LUDINGTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,252 7,252 0 No Difference LAKE COUNTY 53900 MACKINAC PREPARATORY ACADEMY 7,175 7,175 0 No Difference MECOSTA COUNTY 54010 BIG RAPIDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MECOSTA COUNTY 54025 CHIPPEWA HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MECOSTA COUNTY 54040 MORLEY STANWOOD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MECOSTA COUNTY 54901 CROSSROADS CHARTER ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MENOMINEE COUNTY 55010 CARNEY-NADEAU PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,082 (44) Headlee Rollback MENOMINEE COUNTY 55100 MENOMINEE AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MENOMINEE COUNTY 55115 NORTH CENTRAL AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MENOMINEE COUNTY 55120 STEPHENSON AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MENOMINEE COUNTY 55901 NAH TAH WAHSH PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MIDLAND COUNTY 56010 MIDLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8,221 8,211 (10) No Difference MIDLAND COUNTY 56020 BULLOCK CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MIDLAND COUNTY 56030 COLEMAN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MIDLAND COUNTY 56050 MERIDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MIDLAND COUNTY 56901 WINDOVER HIGH SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MIDLAND COUNTY 56902 MIDLAND ACADEMY OF ADVANCED AND CREATIVE STUDIES 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MIDLAND COUNTY 56903 ACADEMIC AND CAREER EDUCATION ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MISSAUKEE COUNTY 57020 LAKE CITY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MISSAUKEE COUNTY 57030 MCBAIN RURAL AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONROE COUNTY 58010 MONROE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONROE COUNTY 58020 AIRPORT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONROE COUNTY 58030 BEDFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONROE COUNTY 58050 DUNDEE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONROE COUNTY 58070 IDA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONROE COUNTY 58080 JEFFERSON SCHOOLS (MONROE) 11,110 7,950 (3,160) Qualifies for At Risk MONROE COUNTY 58090 MASON CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS (MONROE) 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONROE COUNTY 58100 SUMMERFIELD SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONROE COUNTY 58110 WHITEFORD AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE COUNTY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONROE COUNTY 58901 NEW BEDFORD ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONROE COUNTY 58902 TRIUMPH ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MONTCALM COUNTY 59020 CARSON CITY-CRYSTAL AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONTCALM COUNTY 59045 MONTABELLA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONTCALM COUNTY 59070 GREENVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONTCALM COUNTY 59080 TRI COUNTY AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONTCALM COUNTY 59090 LAKEVIEW COMMUNITY SCHOOLS (MONTCALM) 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONTCALM COUNTY 59125 CENTRAL MONTCALM PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference 12 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) MONTCALM COUNTY 59150 VESTABURG COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MONTMORENCY COUNTY 60010 ATLANTA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,837 711 Out Of Formula MONTMORENCY COUNTY 60020 HILLMAN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61010 MUSKEGON, PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF 7,353 7,353 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61020 MUSKEGON HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,500 0 (7,500) Headlee Rollback MUSKEGON COUNTY 61060 MONA SHORES PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61065 OAKRIDGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61080 FRUITPORT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61120 HOLTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61180 MONTAGUE AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61190 ORCHARD VIEW SCHOOLS 7,128 7,128 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61210 RAVENNA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61220 REETHS-PUFFER SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61230 NORTH MUSKEGON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61240 WHITEHALL DISTRICT SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61900 MUSKEGON MONTESSORI ACADEMY FOR ENVIRON. CHANGE 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61902 TIMBERLAND ACADEMY 7,128 7,128 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61904 THREE OAKS PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61905 MUSKEGON HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY SYSTEM 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MUSKEGON COUNTY 61906 MUSKEGON COVENANT ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference NEWAYGO COUNTY 62040 FREMONT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference NEWAYGO COUNTY 62050 GRANT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference NEWAYGO COUNTY 62060 HESPERIA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference NEWAYGO COUNTY 62070 NEWAYGO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference NEWAYGO COUNTY 62090 WHITE CLOUD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference NEWAYGO COUNTY 62470 BIG JACKSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63010 BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS 11,854 11,843 (11) No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63020 FERNDALE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,808 7,808 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63030 PONTIAC CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,130 7,130 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63040 ROYAL OAK SCHOOLS 8,688 8,579 (109) One-Time Undercharge/ No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63050 BERKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,823 7,823 0 No Difference Intentional OAKLAND COUNTY 63060 SOUTHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 10,901 10,195 (706) Undercharge OAKLAND COUNTY 63070 AVONDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,099 8,099 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63080 BLOOMFIELD HILLS SCHOOLS 11,934 11,991 57 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 63090 CLARENCEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,099 8,099 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63100 NOVI COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,409 8,405 (4) No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63110 OXFORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,195 7,195 0 Headlee Rollback

13 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) OAKLAND COUNTY 63130 HAZEL PARK, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 7,485 7,485 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63140 MADISON DISTRICT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63150 TROY SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,885 8,832 (53) Intentional Undercharge OAKLAND COUNTY 63160 WEST BLOOMFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,726 8,715 (11) Headlee Rollback OAKLAND COUNTY 63180 BRANDON SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE COUNTIES OF OAKLAND 7,126 7,124 (2) Headlee Rollback OAKLAND COUNTY 63190 CLARKSTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,190 7,190 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63200 FARMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 9,975 9,895 (80) No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63210 HOLLY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63220 HURON VALLEY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63230 LAKE ORION COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,927 7,927 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63240 SOUTH LYON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63250 OAK PARK, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 7,849 7,849 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63260 ROCHESTER COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,972 7,972 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63270 CLAWSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,982 7,982 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63280 LAMPHERE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 10,359 9,440 (919) Intentional Undercharge OAKLAND COUNTY 63290 WALLED LAKE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS 8,245 8,236 (9) No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63300 WATERFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,282 7,282 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63900 SARAH J. WEBBER MEDIA ARTS ACADEMY 7,130 7,130 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63901 AGBU ALEX-MARIE MANOOGIAN SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63903 ACADEMY OF SOUTHFIELD 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63906 PONTIAC ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE 7,130 7,130 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63907 GREAT LAKES ACADEMY 7,130 7,130 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63909 OAKSIDE SCHOLARS CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63910 DR. JOSEPH F. POLLACK ACADEMIC CENTER OF EXCELLENCE 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63911 HOLLY ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 63912 OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63913 WALTON CHARTER ACADEMY 7,130 7,130 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 63914 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63915 ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY ACADEMY OF PONTIAC 7,130 7,130 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63916 ACADEMY OF WATERFORD 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63917 BRADFORD ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63918 LAURUS ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63920 LIFE SKILLS CENTER OF PONTIAC 7,130 7,130 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63921 CRESCENT ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 63922 GREAT OAKS ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63923 FOUR CORNERS MONTESSORI ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 63924 MICHIGAN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63925 TAYLOR INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference 14 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) OAKLAND COUNTY 63926 FAXON LANGUAGE IMMERSION ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63927 MICHIGAN SCHOOL FOR THE ARTS 7,130 7,130 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63928 MOMENTUM ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63929 WATERFORD MONTESSORI ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63930 NEXUS ACADEMY OF ROYAL OAK 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63931 OAKLAND FLEXTECH ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63933 JEFFERSON INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63934 KINGSBURY COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL 7,195 7,195 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 63936 EARLY CAREER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OCEANA COUNTY 64040 HART PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OCEANA COUNTY 64070 PENTWATER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,845 8,577 732 Out Of Formula OCEANA COUNTY 64080 SHELBY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,132 7,132 0 No Difference OCEANA COUNTY 64090 WALKERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OGEMAW COUNTY 65045 WEST BRANCH-ROSE CITY AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,111 (15) Headlee Rollback OGEMAW COUNTY 65900 ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY OF OGEMAW COUNTY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ONTONAGON COUNTY 66045 EWEN-TROUT CREEK CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ONTONAGON COUNTY 66050 ONTONAGON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OSCEOLA COUNTY 67020 EVART PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OSCEOLA COUNTY 67050 MARION PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OSCEOLA COUNTY 67055 PINE RIVER AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OSCEOLA COUNTY 67060 REED CITY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OSCODA COUNTY 68010 MIO-AUSABLE SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OSCODA COUNTY 68030 FAIRVIEW AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTSEGO COUNTY 69020 GAYLORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTSEGO COUNTY 69030 JOHANNESBURG-LEWISTON AREA SCHOOLS 7,422 7,422 0 No Difference OTSEGO COUNTY 69040 VANDERBILT AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 8,432 1,306 Out Of Formula OTTAWA COUNTY 70010 GRAND HAVEN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,340 7,340 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70020 HOLLAND CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70040 ALLENDALE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,104 (22) Headlee Rollback OTTAWA COUNTY 70070 WEST OTTAWA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70120 COOPERSVILLE AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70175 JENISON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70190 HUDSONVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70300 SPRING LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70350 ZEELAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70901 WALDEN GREEN MONTESSORI 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70902 WEST MI ACADEMY OF ARTS AND ACADEMICS 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70904 BLACK RIVER PUBLIC SCHOOL 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70905 VANDERBILT CHARTER ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70906 EAGLE CREST CHARTER ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference 15 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) OTTAWA COUNTY 70908 INNOCADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference OTTAWA COUNTY 70909 ICADEMY GLOBAL 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference PRESQUE ISLE COUNTY 71050 ONAWAY AREA COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference PRESQUE ISLE COUNTY 71060 POSEN CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference PRESQUE ISLE COUNTY 71080 ROGERS CITY AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference PRESQUE ISLE COUNTY 71902 PRESQUE ISLE ACADEMY II 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ROSCOMMON COUNTY 72010 ROSCOMMON AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ROSCOMMON COUNTY 72020 HOUGHTON LAKE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ROSCOMMON COUNTY 72901 CHARLTON HESTON ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73010 SAGINAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 7,202 7,202 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73030 CARROLLTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 Headlee Rollback SAGINAW COUNTY 73040 SAGINAW TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73080 BUENA VISTA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,872 0 (7,872) Headlee Rollback SAGINAW COUNTY 73110 CHESANING UNION SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73170 BIRCH RUN AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73180 BRIDGEPORT-SPAULDING COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,162 7,162 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73190 FRANKENMUTH SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,574 7,560 (14) Headlee Rollback SAGINAW COUNTY 73200 FREELAND COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73210 HEMLOCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73230 MERRILL COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73240 ST. CHARLES COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73255 SWAN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73908 SAGINAW PREPARATORY ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73909 FRANCIS REH PSA 7,202 7,202 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73910 NORTH SAGINAW CHARTER ACADEMY 7,202 7,202 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73911 SAGINAW LEARN TO EARN ACADEMY 7,202 7,202 0 No Difference SAGINAW COUNTY 73912 INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF SAGINAW 7,162 7,162 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74010 PORT HURON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74030 ALGONAC COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74040 CAPAC COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74050 EAST CHINA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,595 7,595 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74100 MARYSVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74120 MEMPHIS COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,124 (2) Headlee Rollback ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74130 YALE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74900 EAST SHORE LEADERSHIP ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74901 ST. CLAIR COUNTY LEARNING ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74903 LANDMARK ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74906 BLUE WATER LEARNING ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74910 ST. CLAIR COUNTY ACADEMY OF STYLE 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74911 ST. CLAIR COUNTY INTERVENTION ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference 16 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74912 VIRTUAL LEARNING ACADEMY OF ST. CLAIR COUNTY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74913 ST. CLAIR COUNTY CAREER PREP ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. CLAIR COUNTY 74914 BLUE WATER MIDDLE COLLEGE 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. JOSEPH COUNTY 75010 STURGIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,110 (16) Headlee Rollback ST. JOSEPH COUNTY 75020 BURR OAK COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. JOSEPH COUNTY 75030 CENTREVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. JOSEPH COUNTY 75040 COLON COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. JOSEPH COUNTY 75050 CONSTANTINE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. JOSEPH COUNTY 75060 MENDON COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. JOSEPH COUNTY 75070 WHITE PIGEON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. JOSEPH COUNTY 75080 THREE RIVERS COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference ST. JOSEPH COUNTY 75100 NOTTAWA COMMUNITY SCHOOL 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SANILAC COUNTY 76060 BROWN CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SANILAC COUNTY 76070 CARSONVILLE-PORT SANILAC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SANILAC COUNTY 76080 CROSWELL-LEXINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SANILAC COUNTY 76090 DECKERVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 6,954 (172) Headlee Rollback SANILAC COUNTY 76140 MARLETTE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SANILAC COUNTY 76180 PECK COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SANILAC COUNTY 76210 SANDUSKY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SCHOOLCRAFT COUNTY 77010 MANISTIQUE AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SHIAWASSEE COUNTY 78020 BYRON AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SHIAWASSEE COUNTY 78030 DURAND AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SHIAWASSEE COUNTY 78040 LAINGSBURG COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SHIAWASSEE COUNTY 78060 MORRICE AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,086 (40) Headlee Rollback SHIAWASSEE COUNTY 78070 NEW LOTHROP AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SHIAWASSEE COUNTY 78080 PERRY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SHIAWASSEE COUNTY 78100 CORUNNA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference SHIAWASSEE COUNTY 78110 OWOSSO PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference TUSCOLA COUNTY 79010 AKRON-FAIRGROVE SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference TUSCOLA COUNTY 79020 CARO COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference TUSCOLA COUNTY 79030 CASS CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference TUSCOLA COUNTY 79080 KINGSTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference TUSCOLA COUNTY 79090 MAYVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference TUSCOLA COUNTY 79100 MILLINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference TUSCOLA COUNTY 79110 REESE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,108 (18) Headlee Rollback TUSCOLA COUNTY 79145 UNIONVILLE-SEBEWAING AREA S.D. 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference TUSCOLA COUNTY 79150 VASSAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference VAN BUREN COUNTY 80010 SOUTH HAVEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference VAN BUREN COUNTY 80020 BANGOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (VAN BUREN) 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference VAN BUREN COUNTY 80040 COVERT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 9,264 28,474 19,210 Out Of Formula 17 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) VAN BUREN COUNTY 80050 DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference VAN BUREN COUNTY 80090 BLOOMINGDALE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference VAN BUREN COUNTY 80110 GOBLES PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference VAN BUREN COUNTY 80120 HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,130 7,128 (2) Headlee Rollback VAN BUREN COUNTY 80130 LAWRENCE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,123 (3) Headlee Rollback VAN BUREN COUNTY 80140 LAWTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,106 (20) Headlee Rollback VAN BUREN COUNTY 80150 MATTAWAN CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference VAN BUREN COUNTY 80160 PAW PAW PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference VAN BUREN COUNTY 80240 BANGOR TOWNSHIP S/D #8 8,109 7,711 (398) Qualifies for At Risk WASHTENAW COUNTY 81010 ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS 9,100 9,114 14 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81020 YPSILANTI COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,613 7,613 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81040 CHELSEA SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,287 7,287 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81050 DEXTER COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,569 7,569 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81070 LINCOLN CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81080 MANCHESTER COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,152 7,152 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81100 MILAN AREA SCHOOLS 7,126 7,125 (1) Headlee Rollback WASHTENAW COUNTY 81120 SALINE AREA SCHOOLS 7,280 7,280 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81140 WHITMORE LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81150 WILLOW RUN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,414 0 (7,414) Headlee Rollback WASHTENAW COUNTY 81900 GLOBAL TECH ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81901 HONEY CREEK COMMUNITY SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81902 CENTRAL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81903 WASHTENAW TECHNICAL MIDDLE COLLEGE 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81904 ANN ARBOR LEARNING COMMUNITY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81905 SOUTH ARBOR CHARTER ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81906 FORTIS ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81908 MULTICULTURAL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81909 ARBOR PREPARATORY HIGH SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81910 EAST ARBOR CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81911 WSC ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 81912 SOUTH POINTE SCHOLARS CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82010 DETROIT CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,296 7,296 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82020 ALLEN PARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,282 7,282 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82030 DEARBORN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,412 8,402 (10) No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82040 DEARBORN HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT #7 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82045 MELVINDALE-NORTH ALLEN PARK SCHOOLS 8,605 7,832 (773) Qualifies for At Risk WAYNE COUNTY 82050 GARDEN CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,383 7,383 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82055 GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 9,794 9,749 (45) No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82060 HAMTRAMCK, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82070 HIGHLAND PARK CITY SCHOOLS 7,567 0 (7,567) Headlee Rollback 18 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) WAYNE COUNTY 82080 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF INKSTER 7,673 0 (7,673) Headlee Rollback WAYNE COUNTY 82090 LINCOLN PARK, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 7,126 7,125 (1) Headlee Rollback WAYNE COUNTY 82095 LIVONIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL DISTRICT 8,099 8,099 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82100 PLYMOUTH-CANTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,241 7,241 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82110 REDFORD UNION SCHOOLS, DISTRICT NO. 1 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82120 RIVER ROUGE, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 8,435 8,007 (428) Qualifies for At Risk WAYNE COUNTY 82130 ROMULUS COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 8,472 7,996 (476) Qualifies for At Risk WAYNE COUNTY 82140 SOUTH REDFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,803 7,803 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82150 TAYLOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,759 7,759 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82155 TRENTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8,356 8,353 (3) No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82160 WAYNE-WESTLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82170 WYANDOTTE, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 7,126 7,122 (4) Headlee Rollback WAYNE COUNTY 82180 FLAT ROCK COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,633 7,633 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82230 CRESTWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,448 7,448 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82240 WESTWOOD COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,802 7,802 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82250 ECORSE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,515 7,496 (19) Headlee Rollback WAYNE COUNTY 82290 GIBRALTAR SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82300 GROSSE ILE TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS 8,404 8,407 3 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82320 HARPER WOODS, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 8,099 8,099 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82340 HURON SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,287 7,287 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82365 WOODHAVEN-BROWNSTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,357 7,357 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82390 NORTHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 8,099 8,099 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82400 RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,883 7,883 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82405 SOUTHGATE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 7,174 7,174 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82430 VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,422 7,422 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82700 DETROIT ACHIEVEMENT ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82701 UNIVERSITY PREPARATORY SCIENCE AND MATH (PSAD) 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82702 UNIVERSITY PREPARATORY ACADEMY (PSAD) 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82703 HENRY FORD ACADEMY: SCHOOL FOR CREATIVE STUDIES (P 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82704 DETROIT PUBLIC SAFETY ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82705 BRANCH LINE SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82706 THE JAMES AND GRACE LEE BOGGS SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82707 EXPERIENCIA PREPARATORY ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82710 WAY MICHIGAN 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82711 CANTON PREPARATORY HIGH SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82713 NEW PARADIGM COLLEGE PREP 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82714 DETROIT DELTA PREPARATORY ACADEMY FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82715 SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE DETROIT 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82716 VISTA MEADOWS ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82717 ACHIEVE CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference 19 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) WAYNE COUNTY 82718 QUEST CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82719 WASHINGTON-PARKS ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82722 DETROIT LEADERSHIP ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82723 LEGACY CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82724 UNIVERSITY YES ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82725 GLOBAL HEIGHTS ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82727 REGENT PARK SCHOLARS CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82728 JALEN ROSE LEADERSHIP ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82729 SOUTH CANTON SCHOLARS CHARTER ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82730 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82731 GEE EDMONSON ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82732 GEE WHITE ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82733 HAMILTON ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82734 NEW PARADIGM GLAZER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82735 NEW PARADIGM LOVING ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82736 STARR DETROIT ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82737 PATHWAYS ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82738 ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82739 DETROIT INNOVATION ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82741 CORNERSTONE HEALTH AND TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82742 MADISON-CARVER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82743 PLYMOUTH SCHOLARS CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82744 ESCUELA AVANCEMOS 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82745 CANIFF LIBERTY ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82746 W-A-Y ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82747 INTERNATIONAL PREPARATORY ACADEMY - MACDOWELL CAMP 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82748 RUTHERFORD WINANS ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82749 HIGHLAND PARK PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY SYSTEM 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82750 WOLVERINE ACADEMY (SDA) 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82751 MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL CHOICE CENTER 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82752 CAPSTONE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL (SDA) 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82754 TIPTON ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82755 SOUTHWEST DETROIT LIGHTHOUSE CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82756 TAYLOR PREPARATORY HIGH SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference OAKLAND COUNTY 82757 GRAND RIVER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82759 REGENTS ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82904 PLYMOUTH EDUCATIONAL CENTER CHARTER SCHOOL 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82905 NATAKI TALIBAH SCHOOLHOUSE OF DETROIT 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82907 MICHIGAN TECHNICAL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82910 MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. EDUCATION CENTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference 20 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) WAYNE COUNTY 82911 GAUDIOR ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82913 WOODWARD ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference MACOMB COUNTY 82915 EATON ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82916 SUMMIT ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82918 CESAR CHAVEZ ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82919 COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82921 ACADEMY FOR BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82923 CHANDLER PARK ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82924 MARVIN L. WINANS ACADEMY OF PERFORMING ARTS 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82925 DETROIT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82926 HENRY FORD ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82928 THE DEARBORN ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82929 DETROIT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82930 DOVE ACADEMY OF DETROIT 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82933 TIMBUKTU ACADEMY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82937 GEORGE CROCKETT ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82938 SUMMIT ACADEMY NORTH 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82940 VOYAGEUR ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82941 STAR INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82942 HOPE ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82943 WESTON PREPARATORY ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82945 DETROIT EDISON PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82947 DAVID ELLIS ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82948 ROSS-HILL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82950 UNIVERSAL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82953 DETROIT SERVICE LEARNING ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82955 ALLEN ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82956 OLD REDFORD ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82957 HOPE OF DETROIT ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82958 JOY PREPARATORY ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82959 WEST VILLAGE ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WASHTENAW COUNTY 82962 NEW BEGINNINGS ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82963 GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82967 METRO CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82968 CANTON CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82969 CREATIVE MONTESSORI ACADEMY 7,174 7,174 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82970 WARRENDALE CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82971 BLANCHE KELSO BRUCE ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82973 TRILLIUM ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82974 DETROIT MERIT CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference 21 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2014-15 STATUTORY FOUNDATION ALLOWANCES AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL REVENUE PER PUPIL FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 Actual Reason for Foundation Revenue Difference Difference County Code District Name Per Pupil Per Pupil Per Pupil (if known) WAYNE COUNTY 82975 RIVERSIDE ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82976 KEYSTONE ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82977 HAMTRAMCK ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82979 DETROIT ENTERPRISE ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82981 AMERICAN MONTESSORI ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82982 UNIVERSAL LEARNING ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82983 BRIDGE ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82985 DETROIT PREMIER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82986 HANLEY INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82987 FRONTIER INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82991 COVENANT HOUSE ACADEMY DETROIT 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82994 DAVID ELLIS ACADEMY WEST 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82995 TAYLOR EXEMPLAR ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82996 CLARA B. FORD ACADEMY (SDA) 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82997 FLAGSHIP CHARTER ACADEMY 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 82998 ACE ACADEMY (SDA) 7,218 7,218 0 No Difference WEXFORD COUNTY 83010 CADILLAC AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WEXFORD COUNTY 83060 MANTON CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS 7,126 7,121 (5) Headlee Rollback WEXFORD COUNTY 83070 MESICK CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS 7,126 7,126 0 No Difference WAYNE COUNTY 84060 EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT AUTHORITY OF MICHIGAN 7,296 7,296 0 No Difference

22 State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Michigan State Government Debt By David Zin, Chief Economist

The Michigan Constitution of 1963 provides the State of Michigan with the ability to raise cash through the issuance of long-term debt. The State raises the cash by issuing bonds and selling them in capital markets. Debt issued by the Michigan State government falls into two broad categories: 1) general obligation bonds, which are debt instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the State, and 2) nongeneral obligation bonds, which are debt instruments backed by dedicated restricted revenue sources.

The difference between the two categories reflects the degree of certainty that the debt will be repaid: Bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the State will be paid no matter what, meaning that under extreme circumstances programs could be reduced or eliminated, or taxes increased, in order to ensure the bonds are repaid. In contrast, the repayment of bonds backed by dedicated restricted revenue sources generally will be repaid only to the extent that the dedicated restricted revenue is sufficient to cover the repayment. As a result, bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the government generally pay a lower interest rate, reflecting the lower level of risk, than other bonds.

General obligation bonds are issued pursuant to Sections 15 and 16 of Article IX of the State Constitution. Section 15 authorizes the State to borrow money for specific purposes only after a positive two-thirds vote of the members serving in the House of Representatives and the Senate and a positive vote of the electors in a general election. Current examples in Michigan are bonds issued for environmental cleanup programs and public recreation bonds. Section 16 authorizes the State to borrow funds for the purpose of making loans to school districts. These bonds also are backed by the full faith and credit of the State.

Nongeneral obligation bonds are issued pursuant to Sections 9 and 13 of Article IX of the State Constitution. These sections enable public bodies to issue bonds subject to constitutional restrictions and State law. As noted above, these bonds are backed by dedicated revenue sources and are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the State. Current examples in Michigan are bonds issued by the State Building Authority and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority.

This Senate Fiscal Agency State Notes article provides a summary of the current level of debt issued by the Michigan State government. Included is a discussion of the current types of bonds outstanding and the recent history of the level of debt outstanding. The article also provides a comparison of the level of State debt outstanding in Michigan and in other states. Finally, the article reviews the State budget impact of debt service payments on certain outstanding State bonds.

Michigan Government Debt Outstanding

The State of Michigan reported $26.6 billion of debt outstanding on September 30, 2014, including $1.9 billion in general obligation bonds and $24.6 billion in nongeneral obligation bonds. Table 1 provides a summary of the general obligation and nongeneral obligation bonds outstanding at the end of each fiscal year (FY) from FY 1978-79 through FY 2013-14. As of September 30, 2014, bonds issued for loans to school districts totaled $1.1 billion, or 54.7% of the total general obligation debt outstanding. The remainder of the general obligation debt outstanding consisted of the

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

following: environmental protection bonds of $236.7 million; Clean Michigan Initiative bonds of $431.1 million; Great Lakes Water Quality bonds of $203.3 million; and public recreation bonds of $2.3 million. Michigan voters authorized the public recreation bonds and the environmental protection bonds in November 1988, the Clean Michigan Initiative bonds in November 1998, and the Great Lakes Water Quality bonds in November 2002.

The nongeneral obligation debt of $24.6 billion outstanding on September 30, 2014, consisted of debt issued by numerous State agencies and special authorities created by the State. The following information provides a summary of these nongeneral obligation bond issues.

Michigan Department of Transportation Bonds: Article IX, Section 9 of the State Constitution authorizes the issuance of bonds by the Department of Transportation to support transportation projects across the State. The debt service on these bonds is paid from dedicated transportation revenue. As of September 30, 2014, there were $2.0 billion of bonds outstanding, of which approximately $1.1 billion represented bonds related to the State Trunkline Fund, $0.7 billion represented grant anticipation bonds, and the remainder reflected debt associated with comprehensive transportation projects.

Michigan State Housing Development Authority Bonds: The Michigan State Housing Development Authority was created by Public Act 38 of 1969, to issue bonds and notes to finance housing for sale or rental to families with low to moderate incomes and to finance home improvements. The debt service on these bonds is paid from mortgage payments and rental charges from housing projects. As of September 30, 2014, $2.0 billion of bonds remained outstanding.

State Building Authority Bonds: The State Building Authority was created by Public Act 183 of 1964, to issue bonds to finance the acquisition or renovation of buildings for use by the State or public institutions of higher education. The debt service on these bonds is paid by rental charges levied against the occupants of the buildings. As of September 30, 2014, there were $3.1 billion of bonds outstanding.

Michigan State Park Revenue Bonds: The Department of Natural Resources was granted the authority to issue revenue bonds for State parks by Public Act 149 of 1960. The debt service on these bonds is paid from State park-generated revenue. As of September 30, 2014, there were $8.7 million of bonds outstanding. On Table 1, these are reflected under the Other Authorities column.

Michigan Finance Authority Bonds: Executive Order 2010-2 consolidated 10 public finance authorities under the Michigan Finance Authority: the Michigan Municipal Bond Authority, the Michigan State Hospital Finance Authority; the Michigan Higher Education Facilities Authority; the Michigan Higher Education Assistance Authority; the Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority; the Michigan Public Educational Facilities Authority; the Michigan Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority; the Michigan Underground Storage Tank Financial Assurance Authority; the Michigan State Higher Education Facilities Commission; and the Michigan Forest Finance Authority. While many of the authorities previously authorized to issue nongeneral obligation debt continue to exist as subfunds under the Michigan Finance Authority, legislation governing the Michigan Finance Authority also has authorized additional bond activity. As of September 30, 2014, the Michigan Finance Authority held $17.5 billion of bonds outstanding.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 2 of 9 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Of the authorities consolidated under Executive Order 2010-2, four represent the majority of outstanding debt managed by the Michigan Finance Authority: the Michigan State Hospital Finance Authority, the Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority, the Michigan Municipal Bond Authority, and the Michigan Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority. As of September 30, 2009, these four authorities represented 94.7% of the debt consolidated under the Michigan Finance Authority. For reference, the history and purpose of these authorities are described below:

Hospital Finance Authority Bonds: Michigan's State Hospital Finance Authority was created by Public Act 38 of 1969, for the purpose of lending money to nonprofit, nonpublic hospitals and health care corporations. The Authority used the volume of borrowing available to receive lower interest rates that were in turn passed on to the health care corporations. The debt service on these bonds is paid from the loan repayments from hospitals. Bonds issued by the Hospital Finance Authority represented approximately 38.8% of the bonds consolidated under the Michigan Finance Authority.

Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority Bonds: The Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority was created by Public Act 222 of 1975, for the purpose of making loans to qualified students attending higher educational institutions in the State. The debt service on these bonds is paid from the loan repayments from students once their education is completed. Bonds issued by the Higher Education Student Loan Authority represented approximately 15.4% of the bonds consolidated under the Michigan Finance Authority.

Michigan Municipal Bond Authority Bonds: The Michigan Municipal Bond Authority was created by Public Act 227 of 1985, to assist local units of government in reducing their financing costs for public improvements, deficit reduction, and various other municipal purposes. The Authority pooled the borrowing needs of various local units of government and issued bonds that were used to make loans to local units. The debt service on these bonds is paid from the loan repayments from local units of government. Bonds issued by the Municipal Bond Authority represented approximately 33.1% of the bonds consolidated under the Michigan Finance Authority.

Michigan Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority Bonds: The Michigan Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority was created by Public Act 226 of 2005, for the purpose of making loans and grants to encourage economic development projects in Michigan. The debt service on these bonds is paid from revenue the State is receiving from the 1999 settlement between 46 states and the United States tobacco industry. Bonds issued by the Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority represented approximately 7.4% of the bonds consolidated under the Michigan Finance Authority.

Historical Levels of Michigan State Government Debt

The amount of debt held by the Michigan State government has remained stable in recent years and has grown at an average annual rate of only 2.6% since the end of FY 2006-07. As shown in Table 1, total debt outstanding at the close of FY 1978-79 was $2.3 billion. Over the next 35 fiscal years, the level of State debt outstanding increased to $26.6 billion. During this time period, the growth in nongeneral obligation debt exceeded the growth in general obligation debt. In FY 1978- 79, general obligation debt accounted for 21.3% of the total State debt outstanding. By FY 2013- 14, general obligation debt accounted for only 7.3% of the total State debt outstanding.

In order to analyze the growth in State government debt in recent years, Figure A provides a graphical summary of the growth in appropriations for State government debt service payments, Michigan personal income, and State appropriations, as measured by total gross appropriations, over the

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 3 of 9 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

period FY 1998-99 through FY 2013-14. Michigan personal income is the best available measure of the growth in the Michigan economy as a whole. Over this 15-fiscal year period, State government debt service appropriations increased 64.9%, while Michigan personal income increased 43.9% and State spending, as measured by total gross appropriations, increased 53.3%. The growth in State government debt service exceeded the growth in the Michigan economy (as measured by personal income) and State appropriations over this time period, primarily due to increased debt service costs under the School Bond Loan Program and from bonds issued by the Michigan Department of Transportation. Much of the increase under the School Bond Loan Program reflects increases in outstanding debt, which grew 226.6% over the 15-fiscal year period, while the Transportation bonds reflect a mix of increased debt (136.8% growth) and when payments were structured. Although Transportation debt accounts for a meaningful portion of the increase in debt over the FY 1998-99 to FY 2013-14 period, as shown in Table 1, outstanding Transportation debt primarily increased before FY 2008-09, and has declined in every fiscal year since FY 2008-09.

Figure A Debt Service Appropriations Growth Compared to Total Appropriations and Personal Income 180 Debt Service Appropriations Total State Appropriations 160 Personal Income

140

120

100

80 1999-2000 2001-02 2003-04 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13 Fiscal Year Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce and Senate Fiscal Agency

Michigan State Budget Impact of Debt

The majority of the debt service payments on State debt outstanding do not show up directly in the State budget. Most of the State debt outstanding in Michigan is repaid by the educational institutions, local units of government, and hospitals for which the borrowing is undertaken. These repayments do not involve direct State appropriations. The most direct impact on the State budget of debt service costs results from the repayment of general obligation bonds and bonds issued by the State Building Authority. These debt service payments are made primarily from General Fund/General Purpose appropriations although some are made from Federal and State Restricted funds. Most debt service payments on nongeneral obligation debt are not appropriated, and as indicated above, are paid from the dedicated revenue generated by the authorities that issued the debt.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 4 of 9 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

As with other appropriations, not all debt service appropriations are spent. Table 2 shows the actual expenditure on both principal and interest, as well as the relative magnitude of these payments to debt outstanding, revenue, expenditures, and personal income. Most debt service is directed at nongeneral obligation debt, reflecting the greater portion that type of debt comprises of total debt. While debt service as a share of outstanding debt can vary greatly from year to year, when compared with factors such as personal income, revenue, or expenditures, the burden is relatively small, so swings appear less significant. For general obligation debt, which is backed by tax revenue, over the last 35 years debt service has generally represented between 0.6% and 1.3% of combined earmarked General Fund and School Aid Fund revenue. Similarly, debt service on nongeneral obligation debt has generally represented between 5.9% and 9.8% of total revenue. As a percentage of total State expenditures, debt service has generally ranged from 0.2% to 0.6% for general obligation debt and between 6.0% and 9.5% for nongeneral obligation debt. As a percentage of personal income, debt service has averaged 0.05% for general obligation debt and 1.0% for nongeneral obligation debt.

State Government Debt in Michigan Compared with Other States

The United States Bureau of the Census publishes annual data regarding the levels of debt outstanding in each state. The Bureau of the Census data include both general obligation and nongeneral obligation state debt. In order to provide a meaningful comparison among states, the Bureau of the Census data also are published on a per-capita basis.

Table 3 provides the rankings of state debt per capita for fiscal years 1994-95, 1999-2000, 2004- 05, 2009-10, and 2012-13. Over this time period, Michigan generally remained a middle- to low- ranking state in debt outstanding, ranking 28th in FY 1994-95, and 30th in FY 2012-13, the most recent year for which data comparing the states are available.

With the exception of Nevada, outstanding debt per person increased in every state over the FY 1994-95 to FY 2012-13 period. Michigan's per capita debt increased 136.4%, slightly above the 121.1% average increase for the nation as a whole, and ranking Michigan 21st among the 50 states. State debt per capita grew the most in Kansas, where it increased 432.5% over the FY 1994-95 to FY 2012-13 period. In Michigan, outstanding debt per person grew more slowly than in any of the other four Great Lakes states: Indiana (264.5%), Illinois (167.4%), Ohio (159.8%), and Wisconsin (151.8%).

Conclusion

The State of Michigan issues debt that falls into two broad categories: 1) general obligation bonds, which are debt instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the State, and 2) nongeneral obligation bonds, which are debt instruments backed by dedicated restricted revenue sources. The difference between the two categories reflects the degree of certainty the debt will be repaid: bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the State will be paid no matter what, while bonds backed by dedicated restricted revenue sources will generally be repaid only to the extent that the dedicated restricted revenue is sufficient to cover the repayment. As a result, bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the government generally pay a lower interest rate, reflecting the lower level of risk, than other bonds.

The State of Michigan reported $26.6 billion of debt outstanding on September 30, 2014, including $1.9 billion in general obligation bonds and $24.6 billion in nongeneral obligation bonds. As of

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 5 of 9 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

September 30, 2014, bonds issued for loans to school districts totaled $1.1 billion or 54.7% of the total general obligation debt outstanding. More than 66% of nongenergal obligation debt is held by the Michigan Finance Authority. Similarly, the majority of the increase in debt outstanding since FY 2007-08 has reflected debt under the School Bond Loan program and the Michigan Finance Authority. Over the last 35 years, nongeneral obligation debt has generally grown more rapidly than general obligation debt.

Payments to service outstanding debt vary from year to year and will depend on the amount of debt outstanding, the payment structure agreed to under existing bonds, and the degree to which bonds are refinanced. In FY 2013-14, the State spent slightly less than $4.7 billion on payments of interest and principal on outstanding debt; of that amount, $277.5 million represented payments on general obligation debt and $4.4 billion represented payments on nongeneral obligation debt. Debt service payments in FY 2013-14 represented less than 10% of total State spending and less than 1.2% of Michigan personal income. In FY 2013-14, debt service on general obligation bonds represented 1.4% of combined General Fund and School Aid Fund revenue, and 0.6% of total expenditures.

Compared to other states, Michigan's debt per person has grown at about the same rate as the national average and more slowly than that of any of the other Great Lakes states. Between FY 1994-95 and FY 2012-13, Michigan's debt per person increased 136.4%, compared to the national average of 121.1%, and ranking 21st among the 50 states. Michigan's debt per person, including both general obligation and nongeneral obligation debt, averaged $3,068 per person in FY 2012- 13, below the national average of $3,594 per person, and ranking Michigan 30th among the 50 states.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 6 of 9 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa Table 1 Composition of Michigan State Government Debt (dollars in millions)

Debt Non-General Obligation Debt Outstanding General Obligation Debt MI State State Hospital Higher Ed Municipal Tobacco Michigan Total at end of School Env. Clean MI Dept. of Housing Dev. Building Finance Student Loan Bond Settlement Finance Other State Gov. Fiscal Year Loan Protection Initiative Other Total Trans. Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority Fin. Authority Authority Authorities Total Debt

1978-79 $66.5 $416.0 $482.5 $151.0 $945.9 $89.5 $469.2 $49.0 $74.6 $1,779.2 $2,261.7 1979-80 56.1 383.0 439.1 231.9 1,182.5 89.5 647.0 128.0 $88.9 2,367.8 2,806.9 1980-81 61.6 348.0 409.6 255.7 1,325.8 89.5 740.7 168.0 $112.8 2,692.3 3,101.9 1981-82 53.0 308.0 361.0 227.8 1,452.2 189.2 914.9 211.0 $210.7 3,205.8 3,566.8 1982-83 44.3 265.0 309.3 339.7 1,657.9 444.0 1,081.6 267.0 $269.3 4,059.5 4,368.8 1983-84 35.3 224.0 259.3 425.7 1,810.0 542.5 1,366.6 252.0 $393.3 4,790.2 5,049.5 1984-85 26.7 215.0 241.7 409.9 1,949.4 539.5 1,699.0 193.0 $710.8 5,501.6 5,743.3 1985-86 27.0 171.0 198.0 423.7 1,930.0 616.2 1,827.8 140.7 570.4 $1,122.6 6,631.3 6,829.3 1986-87 20.7 137.0 157.7 403.9 1,896.8 778.8 1,686.3 123.4 564.5 $1,207.9 6,661.5 6,819.2 1987-88 14.5 115.0 129.5 397.8 1,887.0 906.9 1,715.3 104.5 604.5 $1,208.2 6,824.3 6,953.8 1988-89 10.4 96.0 106.4 381.4 1,974.0 993.8 1,631.1 149.2 561.9 $1,187.1 6,878.5 6,984.9 1989-90 9.7 90.0 88.0 187.7 500.7 2,091.9 1,083.6 1,819.7 206.6 712.0 $1,204.8 7,619.5 7,807.2 1990-91 0.0 87.1 75.0 162.1 482.1 2,110.2 1,237.2 1,957.8 203.8 910.0 $1,548.0 8,449.1 8,611.3 1991-92 11.8 230.9 160.2 402.9 780.2 2,516.2 1,490.8 2,092.0 376.0 968.7 $1,653.5 9,877.4 10,280.3 1992-93 34.6 241.5 144.7 420.8 763.5 2,034.6 1,453.1 2,147.7 528.5 1,066.5 $1,673.9 9,667.8 10,088.7 1993-94 55.8 254.7 127.6 438.0 903.5 1,976.5 1,494.4 2,303.0 531.3 1,403.9 $1,816.7 10,429.2 10,867.3 1994-95 180.0 386.9 139.1 706.0 888.1 1,985.9 1,453.4 2,467.7 557.9 1,469.1 $2,251.2 11,073.3 11,779.3 1995-96 180.0 377.8 127.2 685.0 854.2 1,987.3 1,478.9 2,777.0 625.4 1,368.0 $2,397.4 11,488.3 12,173.3 1996-97 174.4 368.9 111.8 655.2 873.7 2,068.4 1,616.7 2,887.8 672.9 1,591.9 $2,396.2 12,107.6 12,762.8 1997-98 328.7 450.7 94.7 874.1 866.0 2,088.6 1,996.8 3,586.5 817.4 1,686.0 $417.8 11,459.1 12,333.1 1998-99 322.7 439.9 76.9 839.4 827.9 2,026.5 1,945.1 3,569.3 782.4 2,243.6 $406.2 11,801.0 12,640.3 1999-2000 316.4 421.7 96.9 65.3 900.2 801.8 2,058.3 1,957.8 3,735.5 835.6 2,555.1 $398.9 12,343.1 13,243.3 2000-01 386.0 480.6 92.3 39.5 998.3 1,481.1 2,010.9 2,159.3 3,751.2 929.4 2,883.8 $449.0 13,664.8 14,663.1 2001-02 448.3 453.8 144.4 34.8 1,081.3 1,726.8 2,030.9 2,582.1 3,845.5 1,419.3 2,961.1 $523.2 15,088.9 16,170.1 2002-03 550.1 485.2 301.0 34.8 1,371.0 1,723.9 1,841.4 2,606.8 4,087.1 1,299.4 3,095.1 $544.8 15,198.5 16,569.5 2003-04 625.5 513.1 314.7 44.7 1,498.0 1,868.8 1,713.1 2,544.6 4,093.5 1,860.4 3,435.2 $574.9 16,090.5 17,588.5 2004-05 721.2 487.3 375.5 32.9 1,617.0 1,766.8 1,732.9 2,614.5 4,384.0 2,287.1 3,809.5 $460.2 17,055.0 18,672.0 2005-06 759.4 482.6 450.0 74.1 1,766.1 1,920.1 1,766.2 3,449.3 4,857.9 2,355.4 3,456.5 490.5 $478.3 18,774.2 20,540.3 2006-07 502.7 454.0 434.9 71.7 1,463.4 2,360.3 1,785.2 3,365.7 5,130.8 2,318.0 4,145.9 1,013.5 $685.7 20,805.2 22,268.6 2007-08 502.7 437.8 464.2 72.6 1,477.3 2,256.9 2,397.0 3,375.1 5,282.7 2,277.9 4,346.9 1,080.1 $760.0 21,776.5 23,253.7 2008-09 655.5 419.4 513.9 70.9 1,659.7 2,474.5 2,337.9 2,968.7 5,600.0 2,219.1 4,775.5 1,071.2 $771.7 22,218.5 23,878.3 2009-10 671.2 408.3 513.8 67.8 1,661.1 2,368.6 2,526.2 3,008.0 a) a) a) a) 14,885.2 $13.5 22,801.6 24,462.7 2010-11 861.9 406.5 523.4 77.9 1,869.7 2,260.8 2,474.2 3,175.3 a) a) a) a) 14,048.1 $12.8 21,971.2 23,840.9 2011-12 1,003.6 361.6 503.3 134.7 2,003.2 2,225.9 2,338.6 3,103.3 a) a) a) a) 17,107.0 $12.0 24,786.8 26,790.1 2012-13 1,130.9 302.3 468.1 130.9 2,032.2 2,105.1 2,114.6 3,181.6 a) a) a) a) 16,079.3 $11.3 23,491.8 25,524.0 2013-14 1,053.9 236.7 431.1 205.6 1,927.3 1,960.4 2,020.1 3,105.9 a) a) a) a) 17,537.3 $10.4 24,634.1 26,561.3

Notes: a) Executive Order 2010-2 consolidated 10 public finance authorities under the Michigan Finance Authority: Michigan Municipal Bond Authority, Michigan State Hospital Finance Authority; Michigan Higher Education Facilities Authority; Michigan Higher Education Assistance Authority; Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority; Michigan Public Educational Facilities Authority; Michigan Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority; Michigan Underground Storage Tank Financial Assurance Authority; Michigan State Higher Education Facilities Commission; and the Michigan Forest Finance Authority. b) Excludes General Obligation notes issued pursuant to Article IX, Section 14 of the State Constitution and excludes activity of the Michigan Strategic Fund. c) State Building Authority bonds are not General Obligation debt, but debt service is often paid from General Fund revenue. d) Payments of principal can be boosted above scheduled amounts by refunding and refinancing.

Source: Annual Report of the State Treasurer, Michigan Department of Treasury, various years Table 2 State Government Debt Outstanding and Debt Service (dollars in millions)

Debt Outstanding at End of Fiscal Year Payment of Interest and Principal Gen. Obligation Debt Payments Non-General Obligation Debt Payments General Non-General Gen. Ob. Non-General Pct. of Debt Pct. of GF+SAF Pct. of Total Pct. of Pct. of Debt Pct. of Total Pct. of Total Pct. of Fiscal Year Obligation Obligation Total Bonds Obligation Total Outstanding Tax Revenue Expenditures Pers. Income Outstanding Revenue Expenditures Pers. Income

1978-79 $482.5 $1,779.2 $2,261.7 $70.2 $157.1 $227.3 14.6% 1.5% 0.8% 0.08% 8.8%1.7%1.8%0.18% 1979-80 439.1 2,367.8 2,806.9 66.4 257.9 324.3 15.1% 1.4% 0.7% 0.07% 10.9% 2.7% 2.6% 0.28% 1980-81 409.6 2,692.3 3,101.9 66.8 231.1 297.9 16.3% 1.3% 0.7% 0.07% 8.6% 2.3% 2.3% 0.23% 1981-82 361.0 3,205.8 3,566.8 68.6 358.7 427.2 19.0% 1.3% 0.6% 0.07% 11.2% 3.5% 3.4% 0.35% 1982-83 309.3 4,059.5 4,368.8 69.3 424.8 494.1 22.4% 1.2% 0.6% 0.06% 10.5% 3.7% 3.9% 0.39% 1983-84 259.3 4,790.2 5,049.5 65.1 530.7 595.8 25.1% 0.9% 0.5% 0.05% 11.1% 4.1% 4.4% 0.44% 1984-85 241.7 5,501.6 5,743.3 64.6 719.8 784.4 26.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.05% 13.1% 5.2% 5.4% 0.55% 1985-86 198.0 6,631.3 6,829.3 64.1 1,284.9 1,349.0 32.4% 0.7% 0.5% 0.05% 19.4% 9.1% 9.2% 0.92% 1986-87 157.7 6,661.5 6,819.2 51.2 1,501.6 1,552.8 32.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.04% 22.5% 10.2% 10.2% 1.03% 1987-88 129.5 6,824.3 6,953.8 36.9 2,056.7 2,093.6 28.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.02% 30.1% 13.1% 13.1% 1.34% 1988-89 106.4 6,878.5 6,984.9 33.1 1,546.6 1,579.7 31.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.02% 22.5% 9.4% 9.4% 0.93% 1989-90 187.7 7,619.5 7,807.2 29.9 1,072.6 1,102.5 15.9% 0.3% 0.2% 0.02% 14.1% 5.2% 6.1% 0.61% 1990-91 162.1 8,449.1 8,611.3 42.8 1,213.9 1,256.7 26.4% 0.5% 0.2% 0.02% 14.4% 6.5% 6.2% 0.68% 1991-92 402.9 9,877.4 10,280.3 28.7 1,379.2 1,407.9 7.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.02% 14.0% 6.7% 6.9% 0.73% 1992-93 420.8 9,667.8 10,088.7 70.0 1,802.4 1,872.4 16.6% 0.7% 0.3% 0.04% 18.6% 8.5% 8.4% 0.91% 1993-94 438.0 10,429.2 10,867.3 117.2 1,657.1 1,774.3 26.8% 1.0% 0.5% 0.06% 15.9% 6.9% 7.3% 0.78% 1994-95 706.0 11,073.3 11,779.3 251.7 2,535.7 2,787.4 35.6% 1.7% 0.9% 0.11% 22.9% 9.5% 9.5% 1.12% 1995-96 685.0 11,488.3 12,173.3 54.2 2,263.9 2,318.0 7.9% 0.3% 0.2% 0.02% 19.7% 8.0% 7.9% 0.95% 1996-97 655.2 12,107.6 12,762.8 63.9 1,752.5 1,816.5 9.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.03% 14.5% 5.9% 6.0% 0.70% 1997-98 874.1 11,459.1 12,333.1 63.8 1,980.6 2,044.3 7.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.02% 17.3% 6.3% 6.5% 0.75% 1998-99 839.4 11,801.0 12,640.3 71.3 2,222.7 2,293.9 8.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.03% 18.8% 6.9% 7.0% 0.80% 1999-2000 900.2 12,343.1 13,243.3 85.6 2,086.0 2,171.6 9.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.03% 16.9% 6.1% 6.2% 0.70% 2000-01 998.3 13,664.8 14,663.1 138.2 2,634.4 2,772.5 13.8% 0.7% 0.4% 0.05% 19.3% 7.1% 7.0% 0.87% 2001-02 1,081.3 15,088.9 16,170.1 423.9 2,461.3 2,885.1 39.2% 2.3% 1.1% 0.14% 16.3% 6.6% 6.3% 0.81% 2002-03 1,371.0 15,198.5 16,569.5 78.6 3,696.2 3,774.7 5.7% 0.4% 0.2% 0.03% 24.3% 9.8% 9.5% 1.20% 2003-04 1,498.0 16,090.5 17,588.5 285.7 3,063.1 3,348.8 19.1% 1.5% 0.7% 0.09% 19.0% 7.8% 7.8% 0.96% 2004-05 1,617.0 17,055.0 18,672.0 112.8 3,146.2 3,259.0 7.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.03% 18.4% 7.9% 7.9% 0.96% 2005-06 1,766.1 18,774.2 20,540.3 113.8 3,863.0 3,976.8 6.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.03% 20.6% 9.3% 9.3% 1.14% 2006-07 1,463.4 20,805.2 22,268.6 140.8 2,320.0 2,460.8 9.6% 0.7% 0.3% 0.04% 11.2% 5.6% 5.6% 0.67% 2007-08 1,477.3 21,776.5 23,253.7 80.4 2,977.3 3,057.7 5.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.02% 13.7% 6.9% 6.9% 0.84% 2008-09 1,659.7 22,218.5 23,878.3 105.2 3,326.0 3,431.2 6.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.03% 15.0% 7.4% 7.4% 0.97% 2009-10 1,661.1 22,801.6 24,462.7 108.4 4,844.0 4,952.4 6.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.03% 21.2% 10.4% 10.4% 1.41% 2010-11 1,869.7 21,971.2 23,840.9 57.2 4,623.6 4,680.8 3.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.02% 21.0% 9.4% 9.7% 1.27% 2011-12 2,003.2 24,786.8 26,790.1 232.1 7,819.3 8,051.5 11.6% 1.2% 0.5% 0.06% 31.5% 16.6% 16.8% 2.07% 2012-13 2,032.2 23,491.8 25,524.0 256.1 3,968.8 4,224.8 12.6% 1.3% 0.6% 0.07% 16.9% 8.4% 8.6% 1.02% 2013-14 1,927.3 24,634.1 26,561.3 277.5 4,397.8 4,675.3 14.4% 1.4% 0.6% 0.07% 17.9% 9.2% 9.1% 1.10%

Notes: a) Excludes General Obligation notes issued pursuant to Article IX, Section 14 of the State Constitution. b) State Building Authority bonds are not General Obligation debt, but debt service is often paid from General Fund revenue. c) Payments of principal can be boosted above scheduled amounts by refunding and refinancing. d) Based on debt outstanding at end of fiscal year.

Sources: Annual Report of the State Treasurer, Michigan Department of Treasury, various years; Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept. of Commerce; and Department of Technology, Management and Budget, "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report", various issues.

Table 3 State Rankings in State Debt Per Person State Rankings by Fiscal Year % Change FY FY FY FY FY FY 1994-95 to State 1994-95 1999-2000 2004-05 2009-10 2012-13 FY 2012-13 Rank Alabama 40 37 46 44 43 112.6% 27 Alaska 2 1 2 2 4 56.9 43 Arizona 46 49 45 41 40 193.5 8 Arkansas 42 43 42 47 46 66.9 40 California 22 31 18 18 19 158.9 15 Colorado 39 42 22 27 28 243.4 3 Connecticut 5 4 3 4 3 90.0 32 Delaware 4 7 7 8 8 26.7 47 Florida 35 40 41 39 42 78.5 36 Georgia 43 46 47 48 47 70.1 39 Hawaii 7 5 9 9 9 34.2 45 Idaho 32 25 39 35 38 102.3 29 Illinois 16 16 12 11 11 167.4 13 Indiana 38 36 28 22 24 264.5 2 Iowa 44 47 40 36 39 189.3 9 Kansas 50 48 35 38 37 432.5 1 Kentucky 17 23 33 28 25 85.0 34 Louisiana 14 29 26 21 17 104.1 28 Maine 12 11 13 12 15 64.6 41 Maryland 15 17 23 15 12 133.7 23 Massachusetts 6 2 1 1 1 148.1 20 Michigan 28 22 27 30 30 136.4 21 Minnesota 37 39 44 42 33 156.6 17 Mississippi 45 41 43 40 36 232.6 4 Missouri 29 27 21 25 27 153.3 18 Montana 11 13 11 16 21 37.9 44 Nebraska 41 44 48 49 49 18.1 48 Nevada 27 35 38 46 48 (1.1) 50 New Hampshire 3 6 6 7 7 31.3 46 New Jersey 9 10 8 5 5 135.9 22 New Mexico 34 20 17 14 22 219.7 5 New York 8 8 5 6 6 83.1 35 North Carolina 47 38 36 43 41 205.8 7 North Dakota 25 15 25 29 32 90.1 31 Ohio 33 33 34 34 31 159.8 14 Oklahoma 31 32 32 33 34 115.8 26 Oregon 18 24 19 23 23 98.4 30 Pennsylvania 30 34 30 24 20 209.9 6 Rhode Island 1 3 4 3 2 63.0 42 South Carolina 24 26 16 26 29 127.6 25 South Dakota 13 12 15 13 14 77.4 37 Tennessee 48 50 50 50 50 77.0 38 Texas 49 45 49 45 45 181.5 10 Utah 36 28 31 37 35 132.8 24 Vermont 10 9 10 10 10 85.6 33 Virginia 26 30 29 31 26 156.7 16 Washington 20 21 24 17 13 169.1 12 West Virginia 23 19 20 20 18 179.5 11 Wisconsin 21 18 14 19 16 151.8 19 Wyoming 19 14 37 32 44 6.2 49 Note: Nationally, debt per person increased 121.1% over the FY 1994-95 to FY 2012-13 period. Source: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce

State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board Project Recommendations for Application Year 2015 By Josh Sefton, Fiscal Analyst

The Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) is used to provide grants to local units of government and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for land acquisition and development. The purpose of these projects, as specified in Article IX, Section 35 of the Michigan Constitution, is to increase recreational opportunities and to protect land based on its environmental importance or scenic beauty. Since its inception in 1976, the MNRTF has been used to fund about 2,100 projects totaling just over $1.0 billion.

The Constitution requires that not less than 25.0% of amounts made available for expenditure be used for acquisition, and not more than 25.0% be made available for development. Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund revenue also is permitted to be used for administration of the Fund, as well as payments in lieu of taxes.

MNRTF Background

Each year, typically in December, the MNRTF Board votes on applications received for MNRTF projects that year. Before approval is granted, each project is scored by DNR staff, and the Board meets several times to review projects, hear testimony from interested parties, and discuss the merits of each project. Following the Board's approval, the project recommendations are included in a draft bill that is presented to the Legislature by the Governor.

The total dollar amount of these project recommendations is left to the discretion of the Board. Before 2011, that dollar amount was typically based on the interest and earnings of the corpus balance of the MNRTF plus 33.3% of the lease and royalty revenue received from mineral (primarily gas and oil) leases on State land, as specified in the Michigan Constitution. In 2011, however, the MNRTF reached a $500.0 million cap established in the Constitution, so future mineral lease and royalty revenue is now credited to the Michigan State Parks Endowment Fund, which had formerly received only $10.0 million of this revenue each year. This effectively means that all future MNRTF projects will be funded solely from interest and earnings on the balance of the MNRTF. Because of this, the MNRTF Board established two subfunds within the MNRTF to accomplish two goals: The Stabilization Reserve receives unallocated interest and earnings to be used in years when investment returns do not produce sufficient revenue, and the Growth Reserve receives revenue to sustain the buying power of the corpus balance of the MNRTF over time.

Investment income for fiscal year (FY) 2014-15 totaled $13.1 million on a beginning investment balance of $595.2 million, or about 2.2%, falling short of the assumed long-term return of 5.5%. The shortfall in investment income for FY 2014-15 mirrors poor overall stock market returns for the time period. Fiscal Year 2014-15 returns were further made worse by the close of the fiscal year on September 30, 2015, when many stock market indices were at or near their lowest for the year. Since investment returns fell below the long-term expectations, the MNRTF Board recommended spending part of the Stabilization Reserve to bring the entire MNRTF expenditure for FY 2015-16 to 5.0% of the available balance. Table 1 provides a balance statement for FY 2014-15.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Table 1 Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Balance Stabilization Growth Corpus Reserve Reserve Total FY 2014-15 Beginning Investment Balance $500,000,000 $56,793,903 $38,445,313 $595,239,216 Investment Income 13,135,419 13,135,419 Other Income 147,218 147,218 Spending Allocations1) (29,909,178) (29,909,178) FY 2014-15 Ending Investment Balance $500,000,000 $40,271,587 $38,445,313 $578,716,900 1) Includes FY 2015-16 project recommendations as well as $3.3 million in FY 2014-15 administrative costs. Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources

FY 2015-16 MNRTF Project Recommendations

On December 2, 2015, the MNRTF Board approved a package of projects totaling approximately $28.0 million for 70 projects. Of these projects, there are 26 acquisitions for a total of $20.0 million, and 44 development projects for a total of $8.0 million. While a simple calculation would seem to indicate that the amount allocated for development projects runs afoul of the "not more than 25.0%" requirement in the Michigan Constitution, the total of $28.0 million for FY 2015-16 consists of new revenue as well as lapsed funds from previous years that already were subject to those requirements. Table 2 provides an overview of that revenue.

Table 2 Availability and Allocation of MNRTF Revenue for FY 2015-16 Projects Acquisition Development Funds Available for FY 2015-16 Projects Total Grants Grants Allocation of FY 2014-15 Revenue $26,594,166 $19,116,872 $7,477,295 Reauthorization of Lapsed/Withdrawn Projects 1,467,260 900,324 566,936 Total Funds Available for FY 2015-16 Projects $28,061,426 $20,017,195 $8,044,230 Amount Awarded for FY 2015-16 Projects 27,957,200 19,926,000 8,031,200 Unawarded Amount to Stabilization Reserve 104,226 91,195 13,030 Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Each year, the MNRTF Board receives project applications from local units of government and the DNR. These projects are scored by DNR staff using a rubric and then presented to the Board so priority can be assigned and grants can be awarded. The priority assigned to a project by the Board does not necessarily reflect the score given to the project by staff; other factors such as geographic distribution of projects, statewide initiatives, and testimony during Board meetings, can contribute to the assignment of project priority that does not reflect staff scoring. Additionally, because MNRTF revenue is now limited to the interest and earnings on the Fund balance, larger projects are occasionally passed over so that smaller projects can be funded.

In total for 2015, the MNRTF Board received 32 applications for acquisition projects, totaling $27.9 million, and 117 applications for development projects, totaling $22.1 million. Because revenue available for grants totaled just $28.0 million, a number of projects could not be funded. Applicants that were not awarded a grant are free to reapply in the future. Tables 3 and 4 provide information

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 2 of 6 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

on grant awards for FY 2015-16 acquisition and development projects, listed in the Board's order of priority.

These projects will be included in a draft bill and presented to the Legislature when Governor Snyder makes his budget recommendation for FY 2016-17 for the rest of State government. Unlike the other budgets, though, the MNRTF bill will be an FY 2015-16 supplemental appropriation bill so local units of government and the DNR can begin to receive grant reimbursements for construction beginning as early as spring or summer 2016, depending on when the bill is enacted. While the Legislature considers the projects and the bill as a whole each year, it should be noted that in the history of the MNRTF, a project has never been added through legislative initiative, although projects have been removed from the bill in past years.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 3 of 6 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Table 3 FY 2015-16 MNRTF Board Recommendations - Acquisitions Rec. Grant Local Total % Local Score Applicant Project Title/Information Award Match1) Project Cost Share 400 City of Grand Ledge- Oak Park Expansion - 3.4 acres $42,000 $18,000 $60,000 30.0% Eaton County 400 City of New Baltimore- City of New Baltimore Land Acquisition of 2,850,000 950,000 3,800,000 25.0 Macomb County Schmid Marina - 12.0 acres 395 Saginaw County GLBRT Land Acquisition - 32.43 acres 104,400 36,700 141,100 26.0 385 Plainfield Charter Grand Rogue Campground - 70.0 acres 863,300 370,100 1,233,400 30.0 Township-Kent County 380 Algoma Township-Kent River's Edge Park Acquisition - 1.7 acres 138,000 46,100 184,100 25.0 County 380 DNR - Parks and EV & MR, LLC Property Acquisition - 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 0.0 Recreation Division Macomb County - 6.2 acres 375 Williams Charter Williams Township Park Acquisition - 4.0 140,600 49,400 190,000 26.0 Township-Bay County acres 375 DNR - Wildlife Division Petobego SGA Land Acquisition - Grand 2,475,000 0 2,475,000 0.0 Traverse County - 43.0 acres 375 Littlefield Township- Hay Lake Water Access Site Acquisition - 167,800 59,000 226,800 26.0 Emmet County 24.0 acres 370 Caledonia Charter Caledonia Lakeside Park - North Shore 945,000 405,000 1,350,000 30.0 Township-Kent County Land Addition - 25.0 acres 365 Milton Township - Bigelow Property (Waters Edge Resort) 464,300 199,100 663,400 30.0 Antrim-Antrim County Waterfront Park - 1.7 acres 360 City of Grand Rapids- Acquisition/Expansion of Monroe North - 7,584,100 2,528,100 10,112,200 25.0 Kent County 3.68 acres 360 Oscoda Charter Oscoda Beach Park Property Acquisition - 416,200 146,300 562,500 26.0 Township-Iosco County 2.0 acres 360 DNR - Parks and Kuusisto Property Acquisition - Houghton 600,000 0 600,000 0.0 Recreation Division County - 80.0 acres 350 DNR - Parks and Koffman Property Acquisition - Emmet 200,000 200,000 400,000 50.0 Recreation Division County - 6.3 acres 350 DNR - Parks and Saugatuck Dunes SP Property Acquisition - 400,000 0 400,000 0.0 Recreation Division Allegan County - 18.85 acres 345 City of North North Muskegon Property Acquisition - 35.0 167,500 55,900 223,400 25.0 Muskegon-Muskegon acres County 330 White River Township- Barrier Dunes Sanctuary Addition - 2.0 300,000 541,200 841,200 64.3 Muskegon County acres 325 Kent County Millennium Park Land Addition - 27.0 acres 276,000 184,000 460,000 40.0 320 Washtenaw County West Lake Preserve Expansion - 59.0 acres 267,300 115,000 382,300 30.1 345 Tuscola Township- Tuscola Township Park Acquisition - 3.0 100,000 35,900 135,900 26.4 Tuscola County acres 330 St. Clair County Pine River Property Acquisition - 38.79 97,500 97,500 195,000 50.0 acres 330 St. Clair County Belle River Property Acquisition - 26.0 acres 65,800 28,200 94,000 30.0 330 Superior Township- Superior Township Riverview Park 96,200 33,800 130,000 26.0 Chippewa County Acquisition - 0.91 acre 305 Bear Lake Township - Acquisition of Lake Property for 82,500 27,500 110,000 25.0 Manistee County- Kayak/Canoe Launch - 0.33 acre Manistee County 270 City of Portland-Ionia Land acquisition for expansion of Two 82,500 27,500 110,000 25.0 County Rivers Park - 1.68 acres Totals $19,926,000 $6,154,300 $26,080,300 1) Some grants awarded to the DNR were made with a match requirement. In these cases, other DNR fund sources would be used to fulfill these match requirements. Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 4 of 6 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Table 4 FY 2015-16 MNRTF Board Recommendations - Development Rec. Grant Local Total % Local Score Applicant Project Title/Information Award Match1) Project Cost Share Hampton Charter 420 Finn Road Park Improvements $182,300 $78,200 $260,500 30.0% Township-Bay County City of Grand Rapids-Kent Huff Park Boardwalk Renovation & 405 300,000 900,000 1,200,000 75.0 County Restroom Improvements City of South Haven-Van 400 North Beach Park Improvements 300,000 536,700 836,700 64.1 Buren County DNR - Parks and Lakelands Trail Development: M-52 to 400 300,000 3,516,900 3,816,900 92.1 Recreation Division Parnall Road Garfield Charter Township- Boardman Valley Nature Preserve 395 100,000 100,000 200,000 50.0 Grand Traverse County Improvements 390 Iosco County-Iosco County Iosco Exploration Trail, Phase 1 296,000 1,077,300 1,373,300 78.4 Holland Charter Township- Dunton Park Shoreline Renovation & 390 300,000 645,000 945,000 68.3 Ottawa County Barrier Free Kayak Launch DNR - Parks and Belle Isle Lake Okonoka Picnic Area 390 300,000 0 300,000 0.0 Recreation Division Development - Wayne County Watersmeet Township- 390 Whitefish Trail Restoration Project 108,000 110,000 218,000 50.5 Gogebic County City of Ferndale-Oakland 390 Martin Road Park Improvements 75,000 75,000 150,000 50.0 County City of Ferndale-Oakland 390 Harding Park Improvements 75,000 75,000 150,000 50.0 County City of Frankenmuth- Frankenmuth Memorial Park Boat 385 225,700 79,300 305,000 26.0 Saginaw County Launch Improvements City of Ann Arbor- Gallup Park Universal Access 385 300,000 500,000 800,000 62.5 Washtenaw County Playground and Site Amenities Spalding Township- Veterans Memorial Park Improvement 385 81,900 28,800 110,700 26.0 Menominee County Project Dodd Park Water Trail Development 385 Cass County-Cass County 277,500 97,500 375,000 26.0 Project Village of Shepherd- Mid-Michigan Community Pathway 380 296,000 1,613,600 1,909,600 84.5 Isabella County Phase I Summit Township-Jackson 380 Horton Road Trail Development 94,000 94,000 188,000 50.0 County Sparks Park Inter-City Trail Connector 380 Jackson County 173,500 93,500 267,000 35.0 Development Project Bridgeport Charter 380 Bridgeport Cass River Trailhead 275,800 118,300 394,100 30.0 Township-Saginaw County Marenisco Township- Donald McKenzie Memorial Park 375 295,000 105,000 400,000 26.3 Gogebic County Enhancements DNR - Parks and Laughing Whitefish Falls Scenic Site 375 300,000 0 300,000 0.0 Recreation Division Access Improvements - Alger County City of Harbor Beach- 375 Waterfront Enhancement Project 295,000 200,000 495,000 40.4 Huron County Bridgeport Charter 370 Cass River Water Trail - Hoffmann Site 50,000 71,200 121,200 58.7 Township-Saginaw County City of Jackson-Jackson Fourth Street Connector Development 370 300,000 290,900 590,900 49.2 County Project City of St. Ignace-Mackinac Little Bear East Recreation Park 370 280,000 120,000 400,000 30.0 County Development City of Gladstone-Delta 360 Bay de Noc Trail System 300,000 1,113,200 1,413,200 78.8 County

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

FY 2015-16 MNRTF Board Recommendations - Development Rec. Grant Local Total % Local Score Applicant Project Title/Information Award Match1) Project Cost Share City of Albion-Calhoun 345 Albion River Trail Expansion Project 294,000 104,200 398,200 26.2 County 310 Genesee County Atlas Township Section - Iron Belle Trail 300,000 413,600 713,600 58.0 DNR - Parks and Higgins Lake Regional Trail Connector - 310 300,000 0 300,000 0.0 Recreation Division Roscommon County Orion Charter Township- Clarkston Road Regional Pathway 300 300,000 394,200 694,200 56.8 Oakland County Connection Project Delta Charter Township- 355 Hawk Meadow Restrooms 49,500 49,500 99,000 50.0 Eaton County Marquette Charter Schwemwood Iron Ore Heritage 355 Township-Marquette 50,000 21,700 71,700 30.3 Trailhead Parking/Path/Wetland County City of Traverse City-Grand 355 Clancy Park Improvements 45,000 79,400 124,400 63.8 Traverse County City of Zeeland-Ottawa 350 Zeeland Splash Park Expansion 50,000 50,000 100,000 50.0 County City of South Haven-Van 345 Black River Park Skid Pier Replacement 37,500 12,500 50,000 25.0 Buren County City of Algonac-St. Clair 330 Riverfront Park Lighting Replacement 50,000 170,000 220,000 77.3 County Crockery Township-Ottawa 325 Phase 2a. Extension of North Bank Trail 45,000 619,000 664,000 93.2 County Meridian Charter Accessible Pavilion - North Meridian 315 50,000 50,000 100,000 50.0 Township-Ingham County Road Park Village of Farwell-Clare Farwell Park Placemaking 310 25,000 25,000 50,000 50.0 County Improvements (Phase 1) Redford Charter Township- Kraft Park Multi-Sports Complex 310 50,000 25,000 75,000 33.3 Wayne County Renovation City of Southgate-Wayne Market Center Park - Pavilion 310 49,500 17,000 66,500 25.6 County Improvements DNR - Parks and Alpena to Hillman Trail Development 360 300,000 1,789,600 2,089,600 85.6 Recreation Division Phase 1 - Alpena County City of Marquette- Father Marquette Park 355 140,000 60,000 200,000 30.0 Marquette County Accessibility/Improvement Plan City of Roosevelt Park- 200 Fordham Street Playfield Improvements 15,000 5,200 20,200 25.7 Muskegon County Totals $8,031,200 $15,525,300 $23,556,500 1) Some grants awarded to the DNR were made with a match requirement. In these cases, other DNR fund sources would be used to fulfill these match requirements. Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 6 of 6 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Tax Increment Financing in Michigan By Drew Krogulecki, Legislative Analyst

Tax increment financing (TIF) has been described as "the first tool that local governments pull out of their economic development toolbox".1 It is a method that many communities use to finance different projects for commercial development, neighborhood revitalization, or other economic development purposes. Although TIF can be complicated and could be examined from a number of different perspectives (such as economic, policy, or organizational), this article explains briefly what tax increment financing is and how it works; the history of TIF and its evolution; the different types of TIF plans in Michigan and how they are used; and the number of TIF authorities in Michigan. The article also discusses topics addressed by recently proposed legislation.

How TIF Works

Tax increment financing allows an established TIF authority to "capture" property tax revenue from incremental increases in value in a determined area and spend the "tax increment revenue", or a percentage of the total increased collections, to develop the area or finance a specific project. In other words, the value of any improvements to property located in a designated TIF district does not go into the overall tax base of the community, but instead is reserved for, or "captured" by, the TIF district.

In Michigan statutes that authorize TIF, the decision to develop a TIF plan rests with a municipality. A municipality is given the authority both to create a TIF authority and designate the district where the TIF plan will be applied. The district does not necessarily have a limit in regard to its size, so districts range from relatively small to rather large. The assessed valuation of the property in the TIF district that is determined when a TIF plan is being implemented is called the "base value". The base value is used to measure increases in property taxable value over time. The taxable value of property can increase due to such events as a sale or transfer of ownership, major renovations or changes to the property itself, or inflation.

Residents in a newly created TIF district will continue to pay their taxes as they normally do and will not see any change in the amount they pay compared to the amount they would pay absent the TIF district. Local governments and authorities also continue to receive a share of local property taxes from taxpayers as they normally would. However, any increase in revenue attributable to an increase in assessed property values from the base value going forward is captured by the TIF authority. The increase in valuation is multiplied by the applicable tax rate, and the result is considered the tax increment revenue available for use by the authority.2 The revenue may be used to pay for development projects in the district or used to secure bond issues for large public expenditures. A development project could be, for example, new infrastructure, including roads or bridges; new street lamps; the improvement, creation, or demolition of buildings; a new shopping center or stadium; parks; or water treatment facilities. The municipality and TIF authority ultimately determine how the tax increment revenue will be spent.

1 James Krohe, Jr, At the Tipping Point: Has Tax Increment Financing Become Too Much of a Good Thing?, Planning 20, 21 (Mar 2007). 2 The taxes that a TIF authority may capture depend on the statute under which the TIF authority is created. For example, when a downtown development authority is created, the State Education Tax is subject to capture under certain circumstances.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Theoretically, the captured revenue should be sufficient to pay the TIF authority's share of project costs. Once the authority receives tax increment revenue, it will spend that revenue to retire debt issued to finance projects or improve the district. The improvements and TIF spending should attract private investment to further develop the district. The district should then see an increase in assessed property values because of the improvements, generating more tax increment revenue to pay for public expenditures. The TIF plan, therefore, ideally will pay for itself while spurring development and private investment until it expires. The reality may be different, however, when property values decline due to economic downturns or other circumstances, or if the development does not generate the anticipated economic activity.

History and Evolution of TIF Use

The practice of tax increment financing started in California in 1952 for the purpose of financing the local share required by a Federal urban renewal program.3 The program required municipalities with populations greater than 50,000 to finance a portion of the cost of Federal redevelopment activities, which TIF assisted California in providing. Many TIF plans were originally created to address blight in certain geographic areas; the financing method was considered a tool for redevelopment.4 Around 1970, there were only 76 TIF authorities in California, while only six other states had implemented TIF plans. Those states were Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. Michigan's first TIF statute was created with the enactment of Public Act 197 of 1975, which provides for downtown development authorities.

Following the withdrawal of Federal funding from the urban renewal program, among other factors, TIF use rapidly evolved from a redevelopment tool to a development tool.5 In the 1980s, many states redefined "blight" or added provisions to statutes allowing municipalities to create TIF districts for general economic development.6 The use of TIF increased exponentially, and municipalities were now using TIF plans to finance local development. One study confirmed this using Michigan data from the 1980s.7 The author of the study concluded that TIF was used more often by rapidly growing cities to fund economic development projects, a departure from the former and more reserved use of TIF for combatting blight. Every state has allowed some form of TIF since the method was first introduced.

TIFs in Michigan

Michigan statutes specifically outline how, and for what purposes, tax increment financing may be implemented. As shown in Table 1, there are 10 different acts that provide for the use of tax increment financing.

3 Johnathan M. Davidson, Tax Increment Financing as a Tool for Community Redevelopment, 56 U. Det. J. Urb. L. 405, 1978-1979. 4 Richard Briffault, The Most Popular Tool: Tax Increment Financing and the Political Economy of Local Government, U. of Chi. Law Review, 77:62, 2010. 5 Briffault, n. 4. James Krohe Jr. reiterates a similar point in his writing. 6 Krohe, Jr. n. 1. 7 John E. Anderson, Tax Increment Financing: Municipal Adoption and Growth, National Tax Journal, Vol. 42, no. 2, (June, 1990).

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 2 of 5 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

Table 1 TIF Statutes in Michigan Public Act Statute or Amendment Purpose of TIF 197 of 1975 Downtown Development Authority Central business district improvement Act 450 of 1980a) Tax Increment Finance Authority Economic growth and increase in property Act values in a municipality 281 of 1986 Local Development Financing Act Job creation & unemployment reduction 381 of 1996 Brownfield Redevelopment Redevelopment of unused buildings or Financing Act blighted areas 280 of 2005 Corridor Improvement Authority Act Redevelopment of commercial corridors 94 of 2008 Water Resource Improvement Tax Water resource improvement Increment Finance Authority Act 486 of 2008 Nonprofit Street Railway Act Promotion & financing of operations in a amendment transit operations finance zone for a street railway system 250 of 2010 Private Investment Infrastructure Economic development & public infrastructure Funding Act improvement 530 of 2004 Historical Neighborhood Tax Preservation of residential property values in Increment Finance Authority Act a historic district 61 of 2007 Neighborhood Improvement Promotion of residential growth in a Authority Act residential neighborhood a) Public Act 280 of 1986 amended the Tax Increment Finance Authority Act to prevent a municipality from creating a new authority under that Act beginning January 1, 1987.

In addition to prescribing the general structure of capturing tax increment revenue, most of the acts listed in the table have two common provisions of note. The first is a requirement for a public hearing when a TIF plan and authority are created. Many of the acts have very specific requirements for conducting the hearing, such as providing notice between 20 and 40 days before the hearing will occur in a newspaper that is generally circulated within the municipality, in addition to mailing notice to each affected taxpayer in the proposed district.

The other provision found in almost every act listed in Table 1 allows a municipality to establish a TIF plan for the broad purpose of promoting economic growth, in addition to any specific purpose listed in the individual act. This provision is significant because it gives a municipality freedom and flexibility to determine a use for tax increment revenue as long as it falls under that purpose of "economic growth".

Tax increment financing plans are attractive to municipalities in part because they generate funds for economic development without the need to levy new taxes, provide funding for development projects, and offer the possibility of increased revenue in the future from an expanded tax base. However, apart from the public hearing and resulting developments, TIF plans may be somewhat obscure to taxpayers.

Table 2 displays the total number of TIF plans in Michigan by calendar year, and the number of plans reported to the State in each calendar year. (Because reporting and documentation issues exist, all TIF data in Table 2 should be considered approximate.) The data include only downtown development authorities, TIF authorities, local development finance authorities, and corridor improvement authorities. While the total number of plans may have increased over time, reporting

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 3 of 5 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

remains sporadic. Statutes authorizing TIF plans require reporting to the State, but there is often no enforcement or penalty for noncompliance.

Table 2 TIF Authorities in Michigan Number of Calendar Year Number of Plans Plans Reporting 2002 618 94 2003 616 104 2004 626 152 2005 625 150 2006 626 175 2007 626 143 2008 629 101 2009 631 49 2010 630 78 2011 632 88 2012 632 83 2013 634 94 Source: Michigan Department of Treasury

Although the data are not necessarily complete, they should provide some perspective on the common use of TIF plans in Michigan. To present a comparison, the City of Chicago alone had 150 TIF districts in 2014, according to audit reports for each TIF district found on the city's website.

Recent Legislation, Competing Districts, and Legality

Senate Bills 579 and 619 through 624, introduced in 2015, demonstrate a conflict that TIF plans can create between governmental units and authorities receiving taxpayer dollars.8 Although property taxes are used to fund local units of governments, TIF plans require a certain amount of property tax revenue to be set aside for the TIF authority and its projects. Therefore, TIF plans effectively redirect money from other local governments and local tax collecting authorities.9 The bills listed above respond to concerns that Michigan public libraries are losing a sizable portion of their revenue to TIF districts that are capturing dollars that the libraries otherwise would receive.

Specifically, the bills would amend various TIF statutes to exempt libraries from TIF capture and give libraries the choice to opt-in to a capture. Many TIF acts already allow the governing body of a taxing jurisdiction levying property taxes that otherwise would be subject to capture to opt-out of

8 A Senate Fiscal Agency analysis of the bills can be found at the following site: http://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2015-SFA-0579-A.pdf 9 In 2011, California enacted legislation to prohibit TIF authorities, or "redevelopment agencies",from engaging in new business and to provide for their dissolution. The bill was introduced because the agencies had, over time, captured a large amount of money that certain public institutions otherwise would have received. The California Supreme Court upheld the bill (Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos, 53 Cal. 4th 231, 2011). Currently, a city in California has limited TIF authority under Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts legislation that was enacted in 2014.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 4 of 5 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST Winter 2016

new tax captures.10 Libraries, however, remain subject to captures under the few statutes that do not have opt-out provisions. Although the bills would remedy the situation for libraries, they would not affect any other governmental units or tax collecting authorities still subject to statutes that do not contain opt-out provisions.

The legality of tax increment financing has been questioned because it can take funding away from local governments and tax collecting authorities that receive a share of taxpayer dollars. The Michigan Supreme Court issued an Advisory Opinion in 1988 when TIF planning was challenged based on the diversion of school tax funds toward a nonschool purpose, allegedly in violation of Article IX, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution (430 Mich 93). The Court found that TIF plans only capture tax revenue attributable to increased value that is assumed to result from the TIF plan itself, therefore not diverting from school districts or other tax collecting units revenue they would receive absent the existence of a TIF plan. Even though the Advisory Opinion remarked on the constitutionality of a single local development finance authority, the analysis could be helpful in establishing the constitutionality, or potential constitutional limitations, of other TIF plans.11

Conclusion

Tax increment financing is an important economic development tool that has been used by many municipalities throughout the country for decades. Michigan municipalities are no exception, as data show the common use of TIF plans for local development and economic growth. The recently proposed legislation described above, however, signals that there is remaining controversy on the topic. In addition to the issue that prompted the legislation -- the diversion of tax revenue that local units otherwise would receive, the use of tax increment financing is criticized when property values decline and a TIF authority might not have the anticipated revenue to make bond payments. Furthermore, any future deliberation on property tax reform would likely affect established TIF authorities, requiring additional consideration in the determination of those new tax policies. It would not be surprising to see more discussion of tax increment financing well into the future.

10 Usually the governing body must opt-out of the capture within 60 days following the conclusion of the public hearing. Some acts specify tax collecting authorities that may not opt-out. For example, a "certified energy park" may not opt-out of tax capture from an authority created under the Local Development Financing Act. 11 Laura M. Bassett, Tax Increment Financing as a Tool for Redevelopment: Attracting Private Investment to Serve a Public Purpose, The Urban Lawyer, 41.4, Fall 2009.

Ellen Jeffries, Director – Lansing, Michigan – (517) 373-2768 Page 5 of 5 www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa