Veterans Services Millage

On March 11, 2026, WHMI published a fundamentally inaccurate narrative regarding the upcoming renewal of the Veterans Services millage. Below is my response to their narrative. I will be requesting that WHMI publish my response. Just in case they do not publish it, I have posted my report here.

To the Editor,

As the Chairman of the Finance and Asset Management (FAM) Committee of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners, I am compelled to address the fundamentally inaccurate narrative presented in the WHMI article regarding the Veteran Services millage. The article contains significant factual errors and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of county government procedures and my actions as a County Commissioner.

I am also compelled to respond because I fully support our veterans and active‑duty military personnel and take seriously the responsibility to ensure that veteran services are sustainable, transparent, and aligned with voter intent. That same approach guides my work on the millage and veteran‑related policy more broadly.

The allegation that I did not follow the established process or rules is without merit. The committee process strictly followed the 2026 Rules of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners and Robert’s Rules of Order. Contrary to the claim that I worked “quietly” to bypass transparency, the agenda for the FAM Committee meeting was released to the public, with the millage proposal clearly listed as item 9.3. Under Board rules, a Committee Chairman is vested with the authority and responsibility to establish the agenda for each meeting. I challenge anyone to point out the specific Board Rule that I violated; they cannot, because I did not violate any.

I did not act unilaterally. On March 5, I met with the Veteran Services Director and the Veterans Services Committee leadership to give them the opportunity to present any new evidence in support of their position. After hearing no persuasive arguments, I determined it was appropriate to draft a resolution myself and advised them that an edited version would be submitted as part of the proposed agenda. I was explicit that this resolution—like any other—would be subject to full public debate and could be amended by a majority of the FAM, as any motion or resolution is subject to amendment.

With respect to the election date, the issue required timely consideration; delaying discussion any further could have jeopardized the county’s ability to complete the required statutory steps for an August election. Although I do not support holding an August election, it would have been inappropriate to “run out the clock” and effectively force a November election without FAM deliberation. I also ensured the department was afforded ample time to present its case to the FAM, which is comprised of all members of the County Board of Commissioners. The fact that motions were later made during the FAM meeting to remove my resolution—and were defeated by a 7–2 vote—demonstrates that a clear majority of the FAM supported debating the resolution I put forward.

The decision to move the millage election from the requested date of August to November is rooted in my commitment to maximizing voter representation. Historical data from 2022 demonstrates that voter turnout in Livingston County is significantly higher in November (66.9%) compared to August (31.8%). To schedule a tax increase during a low-turnout election when a high-turnout option is available would effectively disenfranchise tens of thousands of residents. My colleagues passed my resolution by a vote of 6 to 3, thus endorsing a November election over August.

Regarding the financial details, the article misreports both the history and the impact of the proposed rate. The dedicated millage was established in 2016, not 2014. My adjustment from 0.1127 to 0.1117 mils was a policy choice to follow the intent of the voter-approved Headlee Amendment. Despite claims that this constitutes a “cut,” the proposed millage is projected to generate $1,758,519 annually. This amount not only covers inflation since 2022 but provides an additional surplus of nearly $400,000 per year, representing revenue growth 28% above the rate of inflation.

In the article, it is stated that “Balancing budgets on the backs of our nation’s heroes is a travesty.” This is a gross mischaracterization of the facts. Describing this substantial revenue increase—which grows on average at 6.5% per year while the average household income grows at only 2.6%—as “balancing budgets on the backs of our nation’s heroes” is the true travesty.

Finally, my FAM oversight responds to the department’s long-running excessive reserve fund balances, which have been a matter of bipartisan public concern. The Board has not levied the full authorized millage since 2022. In 2022, the Board reduced the levy to 0.0564 mils specifically to reduce an excess fund balance. Although the levy has since been set at 0.0770 and then 0.0918 mils, it remains below the maximum authorized 0.1117 mils. Even with the reduced levy, the current reserve fund balance is above 60% of budgeted expenses. My proposal ensured that veterans’ needs are met while delivering an 18% savings to taxpayers compared with levying the full amount requested, sustaining a department recognized as one of the best in Michigan, and providing a cushion against possible funding reductions from Lansing. The vote demonstrates my colleagues concur.

Sincerely, Wes Nakagiri
Chairman, Finance and Asset Management Committee
Livingston County Board of Commissioners