09/24/2026
Statement from the Village Manager Regarding the Sparta Township Library Millage Litigation:
There has been a lot said about the lawsuit between the Village and Sparta Township. I think the issue can be explained very simply.
First, this lawsuit is not against the Library. The Library is not a party to the case, and the Village supports a properly funded library. In fact, the Library did what it was supposed to do. It obtained legal assistance and provided Sparta Township with 100 % correct proposed language for its millage renewal.
According to the Township Clerk's own explanation, she subsequently retyped and modified that language without additional legal review in an effort to save money. In doing so, significant errors ended up on the ballot.
Instead of asking voters to approve a millage โnot to exceed .2375 mill,โ the ballot asked voters to approve a millage โto exceed .2375 mill.โ It also stated that approximately 4.4% of the revenue would go to the Sparta DDA, which the Township now says it will not do.
Importantly, these problems were discovered before the election.
At that point, the Village suggested the simplest solution available: acknowledge that the ballot was flawed, encourage voters to defeat the proposal, and return with correct language at the next election. Had that happened, we would not be in court today.
Instead, the Township chose to move forward and advocate for passage of the proposal. The Township and its legal counsel developed the position that despite what the ballot actually said, the errors would not prevent the millage from being administered as originally intended.
The Village Council and many residents are not comfortable relying on that assurance. We believed then, as we do now, that the words printed on a ballot matter.
That brings us to the question we continue to struggle with:
If everyone now agrees the ballot language was wrong, why is the Township spending taxpayer dollars fighting so hard in court to preserve it?
The Township acknowledges that the โto exceedโ language was a mistake. It says it will not actually levy the millage as written. It also says it will not distribute money to the DDA as described on the ballot. Simply put they intend to do the opposite of what the ballot language said.
At the same time, Township officials have repeatedly emphasized that Sparta Township voters strongly support the Library.
If that is true, and I believe our community does support its Library, why not simply fix the problem and let the voters decide again?
The Village believes the appropriate remedy is straightforward: set aside the flawed election, use accurate and legally reviewed ballot language, and hold a new election.
We believe Sparta Township should join us in asking the court for that remedy.
This problem did not originate with the Library or the Village. The Township was responsible for placing the proposal on the ballot. The errors occurred during that process. And once the errors were discovered, the Township made the decision to proceed with supporting the flawed language rather than support the Village's recommendation to defeat the flawed proposal and start over.
Public officials make mistakes. What matters is what we do after discovering them.
Rather than asking the court, the Village, and concerned citizens to accept assurances about what the ballot was supposed to mean, there is a much easier way to determine what voters actually want:
Ask them.
Put the correct language on the ballot. Explain the proposal clearly. Let the Library make its case to the community. Then let the voters decide.
If the support for the Library is as strong as everyone believes it is, then there is every reason for Library supporters to be confident making their case to voters again. And this time, whatever the voters decide can be implemented legally, and exactly as written.
The Village and Township try to work together where possible for the benefit of the same community. This is an opportunity to do that.
Instead of spending more taxpayer money fighting over an acknowledged mistake, let's go to the court together, fix the problem, and give the decision back to the voters.
Acknowledge the mistake. Correct the language. Ask the voters again.
