Local Government · September 7, 2026

Which Michigan Villages Should Consider Disincorporation? 251 Treasury-Reported Villages Ranked

Michigan has 252 incorporated villages; Michigan Treasury reports 251 village levy rows for 2025. We rank the reported rows by village property-tax levy and explain what residents should study before disincorporation.

ByRyan Richmond

Michigan Progress analysis · data vintages and primary sources identified in the article

Michigan has 252 incorporated villages, and a growing number are asking a question that was once almost unthinkable: does a separate village government still deliver enough value to justify its cost?

The answer cannot be produced by sorting one spreadsheet. A village can have a small tax base and still be well run. Another can collect far more revenue and still face pension, infrastructure, water, sewer or staffing problems. For that reason, Michigan Progress does not publish a list declaring that particular villages “should dissolve.” Instead, this analysis creates a transparent fiscal-capacity screen: the 251 village rows reported by Michigan Treasury are ranked from the lowest reported village property-tax levy to the highest using the 2025 Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy Report, then we explain what residents should investigate before considering disincorporation.

Direct answer: Which Michigan villages should study disincorporation?

The strongest candidates for a serious disincorporation study are not simply the smallest villages. They are villages where several conditions overlap: a limited tax base, a small own-source property-tax levy, a relatively high millage burden, difficulty staffing core administrative functions, major infrastructure obligations, duplicated village/township services, persistent population loss, or a credible township plan showing the same services can be provided at lower total cost.

The table below is therefore a screening tool, not a recommendation. Rank #1 means the village reported the smallest village property-tax amount in the source dataset. It does not measure state revenue sharing, Act 51 road money, utility revenue, grants, debt, cash reserves or every other source of municipal finance.

2025 TREASURY FISCAL SCREEN

251 Treasury-reported Michigan villages ranked by village property-tax levy.

Lowest levy first. This uses Michigan Department of Treasury's 2025 Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy Report. Michigan Municipal League counts 252 incorporated villages, while Treasury's 2025 village levy table contains 251 reported village rows. Michigan Progress ranks only the reported rows and does not invent a value for the unmatched village.

Find a village

Rank	Village	Taxable value	Village levy	Average rate	Screen
1	DAGGETT	$5,035,633	$12,589.08	2.50 mills	Very low village levy
2	FREESOIL	$3,641,315	$13,353.07	3.67 mills	Very low village levy
3	ALLEN	$4,327,529	$14,050.19	3.25 mills	Very low village levy
4	FOUNTAIN	$4,341,268	$16,842.38	3.88 mills	Very low village levy
5	CUSTER	$7,039,876	$17,992.52	2.56 mills	Very low village levy
6	EAGLE	$3,558,598	$18,881.92	5.31 mills	Very low village levy
7	MELVIN	$2,706,864	$18,948.05	7.00 mills	Very low village levy
8	POWERS	$7,851,288	$22,533.20	2.87 mills	Very low village levy
9	COPPER CITY	$2,726,330	$23,407.18	8.59 mills	Very low village levy
10	CHATHAM	$6,322,933	$24,035.37	3.80 mills	Very low village levy
11	AHMEEK	$2,442,545	$24,306.98	9.95 mills	Very low village levy
12	BREEDSVILLE	$4,305,223	$24,969.86	5.80 mills	Very low village levy
13	POSEN	$6,005,279	$25,011.99	4.17 mills	Low village levy
14	MCBRIDE	$3,416,957	$25,627.18	7.50 mills	Low village levy
15	LAKE ANN	$21,293,169	$28,909.74	1.36 mills	Low village levy
16	TURNER	$2,398,072	$30,577.58	12.75 mills	Low village levy
17	MILLERSBURG	$4,707,246	$30,947.79	6.57 mills	Low village levy
18	PIERSON	$3,413,118	$32,656.37	9.57 mills	Low village levy
19	OAKLEY	$7,379,061	$33,271.45	4.51 mills	Low village levy
20	SHERWOOD	$4,198,874	$35,690.43	8.50 mills	Low village levy
21	GARDEN	$5,675,178	$37,778.52	6.66 mills	Low village levy
22	MONTGOMERY	$5,280,349	$38,808.98	7.35 mills	Low village levy
23	PRESCOTT	$4,737,164	$39,235.56	8.28 mills	Low village levy
24	HARRIETTA	$5,765,844	$40,360.91	7.00 mills	Low village levy
25	STANWOOD	$4,686,280	$41,016.20	8.75 mills	Low village levy
26	TUSTIN	$4,289,234	$43,434.07	10.13 mills	Low village levy
27	ROSEBUSH	$14,621,411	$43,864.23	3.00 mills	Low village levy
28	MINDEN CITY	$3,561,242	$45,612.39	12.81 mills	Low village levy
29	MECOSTA	$7,234,573	$47,024.72	6.50 mills	Low village levy
30	APPLEGATE	$4,155,976	$48,828.15	11.75 mills	Low village levy
31	BURLINGTON	$5,150,530	$59,617.90	11.58 mills	Low village levy
32	THOMPSONVILLE	$10,541,706	$61,277.88	5.81 mills	Low village levy
33	SHOREHAM	$77,971,426	$62,377.14	0.80 mills	Low village levy
34	ALPHA	$3,331,742	$62,818.00	18.85 mills	Low village levy
35	PERRINTON	$6,830,418	$64,794.03	9.49 mills	Low village levy
36	CLAYTON	$6,589,693	$65,896.93	10.00 mills	Low village levy
37	EMMETT	$9,600,080	$67,200.56	7.00 mills	Low village levy
38	HUBBARDSTON	$6,815,628	$68,634.02	10.07 mills	Low village levy
39	SANFORD	$34,663,863	$69,327.73	2.00 mills	Low village levy
40	COPEMISH	$5,516,063	$70,814.67	12.84 mills	Low village levy
41	LEROY	$8,092,889	$72,836.00	9.00 mills	Low village levy
42	LUTHER	$7,335,850	$74,054.67	10.09 mills	Low village levy
43	WALKERVILLE	$6,026,506	$74,735.91	12.40 mills	Low village levy
44	HERSEY	$8,022,813	$75,176.97	9.37 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
45	WALDRON	$7,439,192	$75,417.78	10.14 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
46	BOYNE FALLS	$9,639,937	$76,519.89	7.94 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
47	CAMDEN	$9,888,502	$80,811.81	8.17 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
48	HANOVER	$10,377,042	$82,501.63	7.95 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
49	MULLIKEN	$16,308,941	$84,142.72	5.16 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
50	BANCROFT	$9,679,850	$86,248.43	8.91 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
51	FORESTVILLE	$10,285,700	$87,154.85	8.47 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
52	NEW ERA	$15,934,303	$89,232.10	5.60 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
53	WOLVERINE	$7,969,653	$90,167.85	11.31 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
54	BARRYTON	$9,817,528	$91,689.82	9.34 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
55	GALIEN	$12,806,342	$92,274.82	7.21 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
56	BEAR LAKE	$9,784,933	$93,304.23	9.54 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
57	NORTH ADAMS	$9,766,000	$94,869.85	9.71 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
58	PORT HOPE	$9,684,447	$97,380.02	10.06 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
59	GAGETOWN	$4,526,669	$97,879.26	21.62 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
60	CLIFFORD	$6,997,978	$98,714.18	14.11 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
61	ROTHBURY	$20,389,809	$100,540.11	4.93 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
62	CEMENT CITY	$10,588,782	$101,780.44	9.61 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
63	KINGSTON	$8,197,906	$102,385.30	12.49 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
64	BLOOMINGDALE	$8,820,516	$102,545.55	11.63 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
65	FREEPORT	$14,393,571	$105,650.25	7.34 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
66	EAST LAKE	$14,137,269	$106,029.52	7.50 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
67	KALEVA	$10,763,379	$107,633.79	10.00 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
68	VANDERBILT	$11,851,807	$108,402.55	9.15 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
69	CLARKSVILLE	$13,314,823	$109,228.15	8.20 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
70	AKRON	$8,147,266	$111,714.50	13.71 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
71	HONOR	$16,206,004	$112,221.72	6.92 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
72	STERLING	$9,303,383	$112,234.15	12.06 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
73	MORLEY	$10,511,335	$112,741.42	10.73 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
74	MESICK	$10,227,003	$112,952.14	11.04 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
75	TWINING	$8,453,253	$114,779.96	13.58 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
76	ADDISON	$15,554,472	$116,703.65	7.50 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
77	MARTIN	$14,024,352	$119,295.35	8.51 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
78	CASNOVIA	$9,942,122	$119,305.46	12.00 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
79	CARSONVILLE	$8,838,570	$120,389.27	13.62 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
80	GAINES	$8,483,956	$121,775.31	14.35 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
81	OWENDALE	$6,366,119	$123,850.29	19.45 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
82	DANSVILLE	$15,905,451	$129,937.99	8.17 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
83	WOODLAND	$10,224,002	$132,057.29	12.92 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
84	FAIRGROVE	$9,367,572	$132,193.31	14.11 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
85	BYRON	$14,434,092	$134,408.82	9.31 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
86	LEONARD	$19,318,640	$135,230.48	7.00 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
87	OTTER LAKE	$11,977,248	$137,311.96	11.46 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
88	SPRINGPORT	$12,629,839	$140,971.74	11.16 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
89	ASHLEY	$14,044,346	$142,048.72	10.11 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
90	ELLSWORTH	$13,087,710	$147,273.38	11.25 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
91	UNIONVILLE	$11,741,359	$149,007.24	12.69 mills	Below-statewide levy scale
92	LENNON	$14,506,733	$151,193.52	10.42 mills	Larger village levy
93	LYONS	$14,282,891	$157,296.05	11.01 mills	Larger village levy
94	MUIR	$11,275,024	$157,318.15	13.95 mills	Larger village levy
95	LINCOLN	$21,432,656	$160,101.93	7.47 mills	Larger village levy
96	HOPKINS	$18,318,535	$164,866.82	9.00 mills	Larger village levy
97	SUNFIELD	$15,893,029	$166,876.80	10.50 mills	Larger village levy
98	FIFE LAKE	$19,966,273	$167,315.37	8.38 mills	Larger village levy
99	PECK	$12,278,150	$167,408.89	13.63 mills	Larger village levy
100	MAPLE RAPIDS	$13,202,045	$167,953.78	12.72 mills	Larger village levy
101	VERMONTVILLE	$17,925,073	$170,546.31	9.51 mills	Larger village levy
102	BARAGA	$17,004,570	$172,698.41	10.16 mills	Larger village levy
103	KINDE	$12,102,275	$179,648.59	14.84 mills	Larger village levy
104	VANDALIA	$10,528,350	$180,621.21	17.16 mills	Larger village levy
105	PEWAMO	$15,929,468	$182,309.58	11.44 mills	Larger village levy
106	BURR OAK	$12,580,944	$183,722.04	14.60 mills	Larger village levy
107	BRITTON	$19,537,318	$184,035.67	9.42 mills	Larger village levy
108	CLIMAX	$20,094,144	$190,894.37	9.50 mills	Larger village levy
109	MENDON	$22,684,499	$193,074.58	8.51 mills	Larger village levy
110	ONEKAMA	$27,903,271	$195,322.90	7.00 mills	Larger village levy
111	PELLSTON	$22,390,655	$198,005.04	8.84 mills	Larger village levy
112	MAYBEE	$28,463,979	$199,247.85	7.00 mills	Larger village levy
113	SHERIDAN	$21,010,098	$199,520.29	9.50 mills	Larger village levy
114	VERNON	$20,746,546	$203,652.24	9.82 mills	Larger village levy
115	NEW LOTHROP	$18,792,352	$206,715.87	11.00 mills	Larger village levy
116	CALUMET	$12,022,589	$209,735.27	17.45 mills	Larger village levy
117	BUCKLEY	$25,668,557	$210,666.98	8.21 mills	Larger village levy
118	DE TOUR	$24,977,581	$213,813.09	8.56 mills	Larger village levy
119	ELBERTA	$16,356,634	$217,896.53	13.32 mills	Larger village levy
120	HILLMAN	$21,712,216	$227,978.27	10.50 mills	Larger village levy
121	EDWARDSBURG	$30,708,328	$230,082.15	7.49 mills	Larger village levy
122	COLUMBIAVILLE	$18,482,365	$230,700.58	12.48 mills	Larger village levy
123	LAKEWOOD CLUB	$33,672,891	$237,939.38	7.07 mills	Larger village levy
124	BALDWIN	$17,624,594	$241,920.46	13.73 mills	Larger village levy
125	SOUTH RANGE	$16,636,090	$247,342.06	14.87 mills	Larger village levy
126	MAYVILLE	$21,108,375	$247,989.63	11.75 mills	Larger village levy
127	EAU CLAIRE	$15,672,978	$248,506.04	15.86 mills	Larger village levy
128	MERRILL	$18,218,829	$249,135.20	13.67 mills	Larger village levy
129	ESTRAL BEACH	$21,231,559	$251,581.24	11.85 mills	Larger village levy
130	ATHENS	$24,968,059	$257,011.21	10.29 mills	Larger village levy
131	BARODA	$28,014,711	$266,523.56	9.51 mills	Larger village levy
132	MARCELLUS	$23,045,876	$273,056.76	11.85 mills	Larger village levy
133	PARMA	$27,040,486	$279,209.24	10.33 mills	Larger village levy
134	SAND LAKE	$16,407,025	$283,828.41	17.30 mills	Larger village levy
135	MORRICE	$22,146,938	$284,453.06	12.84 mills	Larger village levy
136	METAMORA	$29,796,086	$286,388.06	9.61 mills	Larger village levy
137	MARION	$17,952,885	$289,440.00	16.12 mills	Larger village levy
138	TEKONSHA	$20,048,667	$295,717.84	14.75 mills	Larger village levy
139	ONSTED	$29,266,532	$297,974.27	10.18 mills	Larger village levy
140	FARWELL	$22,233,209	$298,125.10	13.41 mills	Larger village levy
141	ELSIE	$22,366,301	$299,263.34	13.38 mills	Larger village levy
142	OTISVILLE	$19,875,221	$311,591.79	15.68 mills	Larger village levy
143	DRYDEN	$26,568,180	$315,101.27	11.86 mills	Larger village levy
144	DEERFIELD	$25,993,290	$323,148.59	12.43 mills	Larger village levy
145	BELLEVUE	$27,736,243	$326,830.02	11.78 mills	Larger village levy
146	HESPERIA	$25,173,832	$330,723.74	13.14 mills	Larger village levy
147	ROSCOMMON	$26,928,686	$331,222.83	12.30 mills	Larger village levy
148	ALANSON	$26,550,358	$335,915.13	12.65 mills	Larger village levy
149	LAKE LINDEN	$18,606,669	$344,372.23	18.51 mills	Larger village levy
150	MILLINGTON	$25,153,211	$344,626.66	13.70 mills	Larger village levy
151	ELKTON	$19,841,820	$345,071.08	17.39 mills	Larger village levy
152	DECKERVILLE	$14,207,517	$345,685.93	24.33 mills	Larger village levy
153	KENT CITY	$44,025,345	$352,202.76	8.00 mills	Larger village levy
154	BENZONIA	$28,240,520	$369,120.55	13.07 mills	Larger village levy
155	MANCELONA	$27,214,513	$370,427.62	13.61 mills	Larger village levy
156	UBLY	$22,721,317	$372,172.90	16.38 mills	Larger village levy
157	AUGUSTA	$24,863,036	$372,945.53	15.00 mills	Larger village levy
158	NORTH BRANCH	$28,759,342	$380,710.42	13.24 mills	Larger village levy
159	NASHVILLE	$32,624,828	$382,464.12	11.72 mills	Larger village levy
160	BEULAH	$51,453,242	$387,427.48	7.53 mills	Larger village levy
161	COLON	$36,761,106	$388,575.92	10.57 mills	Larger village levy
162	UNION CITY	$32,434,352	$390,013.35	12.02 mills	Larger village levy
163	FRUITPORT	$58,044,482	$406,311.37	7.00 mills	Larger village levy
164	BIRCH RUN	$90,073,563	$411,636.18	4.57 mills	Larger village levy
165	REESE	$39,319,231	$412,851.93	10.50 mills	Larger village levy
166	SARANAC	$30,763,535	$415,741.49	13.51 mills	Larger village levy
167	FOWLER	$52,135,095	$417,080.76	8.00 mills	Larger village levy
168	LAWRENCE	$27,367,224	$422,703.20	15.45 mills	Larger village levy
169	WESTPHALIA	$42,012,787	$425,551.72	10.13 mills	Larger village levy
170	RAVENNA	$48,821,083	$439,389.75	9.00 mills	Larger village levy
171	LAKE ISABELLA	$118,236,546	$440,324.72	3.72 mills	Larger village levy
172	NEWBERRY	$22,653,476	$444,089.68	19.60 mills	Larger village levy
173	WHITE PIGEON	$47,336,397	$450,907.58	9.53 mills	Larger village levy
174	DIMONDALE	$45,540,386	$455,403.86	10.00 mills	Larger village levy
175	KINGSLEY	$51,308,175	$457,884.42	8.92 mills	Larger village levy
176	LAKEVIEW	$33,210,036	$459,371.18	13.83 mills	Larger village levy
177	EDMORE	$34,851,641	$459,717.54	13.19 mills	Larger village levy
178	SHEPHERD	$40,811,685	$469,334.38	11.50 mills	Larger village levy
179	CONCORD	$33,571,463	$469,389.48	13.98 mills	Larger village levy
180	GRASS LAKE	$44,127,139	$485,398.53	11.00 mills	Larger village levy
181	CENTREVILLE	$34,999,601	$485,510.96	13.87 mills	Larger village levy
182	HOMER	$31,223,670	$487,620.06	15.62 mills	Larger village levy
183	PORT SANILAC	$45,480,250	$491,623.31	10.81 mills	Larger village levy
184	STEVENSVILLE	$52,072,520	$502,515.44	9.65 mills	Larger village levy
185	QUINCY	$36,801,244	$538,369.08	14.63 mills	Larger village levy
186	ONTONAGON	$35,922,599	$538,838.98	15.00 mills	Larger village levy
187	CENTRAL LAKE	$37,000,633	$542,199.88	14.65 mills	Larger village levy
188	RICHLAND	$54,840,754	$548,029.14	9.99 mills	Larger village levy
189	EMPIRE	$84,817,876	$565,421.41	6.67 mills	Larger village levy
190	BRECKENRIDGE	$33,654,329	$571,204.83	16.97 mills	Larger village levy
191	ORTONVILLE	$53,534,100	$576,358.83	10.77 mills	Larger village levy
192	CONSTANTINE	$50,563,826	$594,124.96	11.75 mills	Larger village levy
193	SHELBY	$41,698,791	$594,866.61	14.27 mills	Larger village levy
194	CARLETON	$66,607,936	$598,812.01	8.99 mills	Larger village levy
195	GOODRICH	$95,538,314	$610,079.01	6.39 mills	Larger village levy
196	NORTHPORT	$80,721,383	$629,546.07	7.80 mills	Larger village levy
197	PORT AUSTIN	$58,318,817	$649,310.04	11.13 mills	Larger village levy
198	SOUTH ROCKWOOD	$52,913,024	$667,280.85	12.61 mills	Larger village levy
199	MATTAWAN	$156,577,686	$667,741.20	4.26 mills	Larger village levy
200	THREE OAKS	$59,142,806	$668,136.28	11.30 mills	Larger village levy
201	BROOKLYN	$57,955,198	$692,883.37	11.96 mills	Larger village levy
202	STOCKBRIDGE	$43,360,229	$694,297.00	16.01 mills	Larger village levy
203	DECATUR	$42,885,544	$698,971.40	16.30 mills	Larger village levy
204	SEBEWAING	$45,498,648	$705,624.88	15.51 mills	Larger village levy
205	CAPAC	$48,383,839	$730,421.79	15.10 mills	Larger village levy
206	BELLAIRE	$49,792,017	$731,554.26	14.69 mills	Larger village levy
207	LAURIUM	$33,360,123	$740,261.13	22.19 mills	Larger village levy
208	ARMADA	$63,234,045	$750,613.41	11.87 mills	Larger village levy
209	ST CHARLES	$50,084,170	$751,262.55	15.00 mills	Larger village levy
210	LEXINGTON	$73,263,326	$759,564.86	10.37 mills	Larger village levy
211	CALEDONIA	$95,820,474	$761,197.85	7.94 mills	Larger village levy
212	LAWTON	$45,464,661	$769,816.74	16.93 mills	Larger village levy
213	L'ANSE	$54,890,984	$788,661.53	14.37 mills	Larger village levy
214	HOWARD CITY	$55,920,320	$790,461.68	14.14 mills	Larger village levy
215	SCHOOLCRAFT	$55,058,631	$857,345.47	15.57 mills	Larger village levy
216	MICHIANA	$105,541,400	$885,312.93	8.39 mills	Larger village levy
217	LAKE ODESSA	$62,756,607	$896,176.90	14.28 mills	Larger village levy
218	PIGEON	$40,628,021	$906,004.87	22.30 mills	Larger village levy
219	CLINTON	$86,242,994	$942,635.93	10.93 mills	Larger village levy
220	BERRIEN SPRINGS	$70,990,419	$964,298.35	13.58 mills	Larger village levy
221	BARTON HILLS	$84,441,012	$971,071.64	11.50 mills	Larger village levy
222	SUTTONS BAY	$114,419,284	$984,589.38	8.61 mills	Larger village levy
223	WEBBERVILLE	$74,766,501	$986,917.81	13.20 mills	Larger village levy
224	GRAND BEACH	$185,825,914	$1,069,186.56	5.75 mills	Larger village levy
225	CASSOPOLIS	$64,888,569	$1,072,608.05	16.53 mills	Larger village levy
226	CASS CITY	$71,044,805	$1,130,154.03	15.91 mills	Larger village levy
227	KALKASKA	$79,356,525	$1,144,828.14	14.43 mills	Larger village levy
228	PINCKNEY	$108,808,964	$1,302,236.56	11.97 mills	Larger village levy
229	ALMONT	$104,154,703	$1,518,992.19	14.58 mills	Larger village levy
230	PENTWATER	$136,392,761	$1,650,090.01	12.10 mills	Larger village levy
231	CHESANING	$84,478,667	$1,703,030.79	20.16 mills	Larger village levy
232	BLISSFIELD	$110,078,220	$1,732,961.42	15.74 mills	Larger village levy
233	PAW PAW	$105,983,034	$1,741,513.21	16.43 mills	Larger village levy
234	FOWLERVILLE	$122,748,845	$1,745,169.43	14.22 mills	Larger village levy
235	NEW HAVEN	$169,691,929	$1,824,188.24	10.75 mills	Larger village levy
236	MACKINAW CITY	$116,319,782	$1,969,785.25	16.93 mills	Larger village levy
237	OXFORD	$179,759,820	$1,998,929.20	11.12 mills	Larger village levy
238	HOLLY	$176,713,170	$2,001,347.34	11.33 mills	Larger village levy
239	SPRING LAKE	$198,573,237	$2,057,218.73	10.36 mills	Larger village levy
240	SPARTA	$178,603,573	$2,143,242.88	12.00 mills	Larger village levy
241	MIDDLEVILLE	$175,556,475	$2,146,757.24	12.23 mills	Larger village levy
242	VICKSBURG	$147,879,241	$2,171,606.65	14.68 mills	Larger village levy
243	BINGHAM FARMS	$227,622,040	$2,276,220.40	10.00 mills	Larger village levy
244	ELK RAPIDS	$189,551,938	$2,321,101.39	12.25 mills	Larger village levy
245	WOLVERINE LAKE	$252,178,240	$2,391,229.73	9.48 mills	Larger village levy
246	LAKE ORION	$199,003,290	$2,513,690.16	12.63 mills	Larger village levy
247	MILFORD	$405,064,820	$3,121,925.73	7.71 mills	Larger village levy
248	ROMEO	$227,521,104	$3,273,710.90	14.39 mills	Larger village levy
249	DUNDEE	$299,698,739	$3,800,180.01	12.68 mills	Larger village levy
250	FRANKLIN	$467,562,540	$4,441,096.03	9.50 mills	Larger village levy
251	BEVERLY HILLS	$835,456,120	$11,367,550.15	13.61 mills	Larger village levy

Source: Michigan Department of Treasury, 2025 Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy Report, Village Property Taxes Levied. Embedded totals are validated against Treasury's statewide village totals: $11,585,612,091 taxable valuation and $131,249,184.30 of village taxes, average rate 11.33 mills. Ranking #1 means the lowest reported village levy in this table; it does not mean insolvency or recommend disincorporation.

Why villages face a different question than Michigan cities

A Michigan village is still part of the township or townships in which it sits. Village residents therefore live under an overlapping structure: they pay applicable township taxes and receive township responsibilities while also supporting a village government that can levy taxes, maintain streets, adopt ordinances, operate parks and, in some communities, run water or sewer systems. A city, by contrast, is generally removed from township government and performs the basic municipal functions itself.

The Michigan Municipal League reported 252 incorporated villages in its 2024 municipal-government review. MML publications differ slightly on the home-rule/general-law split, so Michigan Progress uses the stable 252-village total here rather than forcing a subtype count. That overlapping village/township structure is why disincorporation can produce real savings in some places but little or no savings in others.

Michigan’s 2026 disincorporation votes show why the issue is growing

Current through September 9, 2026. Village disincorporation moved from an obscure local-government topic to an active 2026 issue. In Sand Lake, 499 voters supported disincorporation and 406 opposed it in the May election—about 55% yes—but the proposal failed because the direct statutory route requires a two-thirds yes vote. In Fife Lake, the August vote was 85 yes to 93 no, so the village also remained incorporated. Baroda has been conducting a formal fact-finding/disincorporation process, and Lake Orion has publicly worked through disincorporation ballot questions and resident FAQs.

The trend matters even though no vote has yet succeeded. Financial pressure, staffing shortages, infrastructure costs and frustration over overlapping taxes are forcing communities to calculate what a separate village government actually buys.

Has a Michigan village ever successfully dissolved?

Not through a successful village disincorporation vote. As of 2026, Michigan reporting on the recent ballot efforts notes that no village has successfully used the disincorporation vote to erase the village government and revert to township governance.

There is, however, an important example of a village ceasing to exist through municipal consolidation. The former Village of Mineral Hills joined the cities of Iron River and Stambaugh after voters approved consolidation in 1999. The new consolidated City of Iron River took effect in 2000. That history is different from village-to-township disincorporation, but it shows that Michigan communities can eliminate a municipal layer when voters conclude a new structure works better.

Michigan has also seen unsuccessful village disincorporation efforts in communities including Sand Lake in 2010, Onekama in 2012, Richland in 2016 and Spring Lake in 2017. Those failures are a reminder that local identity and control can be worth more to voters than projected tax savings.

What could residents gain if a village disincorporates?

1. Elimination of the village operating levy

The most obvious potential benefit is that a village millage can disappear when the village government disappears. But residents should never assume the full village tax bill becomes permanent savings. The receiving township, county road commission or another authority may need new revenue to provide roads, fire protection, administration, parks or other services formerly funded by the village.

2. Fewer overlapping governments

Disincorporation can remove a council, clerk, treasurer, election cycle, audit, budget process and other administrative requirements. For a very small community, the cost and volunteer burden of maintaining a separate municipal organization can be significant even when elected officials are unpaid or modestly compensated.

3. More administrative capacity

A larger township may already employ assessing, election, zoning, accounting and administrative staff. Combining functions can reduce duplicate overhead and may improve the ability to apply for grants, manage complex infrastructure projects or meet state reporting requirements.

4. Unified land-use and service planning

A village and surrounding township can have different zoning, capital plans, road priorities and service contracts despite functioning as one local market. One government can simplify planning—but only if the receiving township is prepared to maintain the service level residents expect.

5. Potential long-term savings

The Citizens Research Council’s Onekama work demonstrated why a detailed plan matters. The proposed structure contemplated eliminating the village’s five-mill operating levy, transferring street responsibilities, continuing sewer obligations for connected properties and using remaining village resources for the former village area. The proposal ultimately failed at the ballot box, but the study remains a useful model for how to calculate benefits rather than merely promise them.

What can residents lose?

Disincorporation also has costs. Residents can lose direct control over village streets, parks, zoning and local priorities. Village employees may be displaced or transferred. A historic village identity does not necessarily disappear socially, but the incorporated government does. Existing debts and utility obligations do not simply vanish. Roads may shift to a county road commission, and the township may not provide the same level of service without additional funding.

That is why Michigan law requires a disincorporation plan process to address assets, liabilities, employees, streets, utilities, special districts and fiscal effects when communities use the commission route. The real question is not “Can we eliminate the village tax?” It is “What will every service cost after the village government is gone, and who will pay it?”

How Michigan village disincorporation works

Under the General Law Village Act’s direct route, a petition signed by at least 15% of the village’s registered electors initiates the process. The petition identifies the township or townships into which the village would be disincorporated. Unless the village council elects to proceed through the statutory disincorporation-commission process, the question goes to the ballot. Under the direct route, two-thirds of electors voting on the question must vote yes.

The alternative commission process is more analytical. A village/township commission can develop a detailed plan addressing the transfer of assets, debt, employees, streets, utilities, special districts and the fiscal impact on both village and township residents. If that plan reaches the ballot, the approval rules differ from the direct two-thirds route and require majority approval in the affected voting groups specified by state law.

What should a village calculate before asking voters?

Current village operating tax per household and per $100,000 of taxable value.
All village revenue, not only property tax: state revenue sharing, Act 51, grants, utilities, fees and special assessments.
Unrestricted fund balance and cash.
Debt and long-term liabilities.
Water and sewer assets, rates and outstanding bonds.
Road mileage, condition and future road responsibility.
Police, fire, EMS, parks, zoning, elections and administrative costs.
The receiving township’s incremental cost.
The millage or fees the township would need after transfer.
Five- and ten-year household tax comparisons under both structures.

That final calculation is the most important. Residents deserve a side-by-side bill showing the village structure versus the post-disincorporation structure—not a slogan about “eliminating government.”

How to read the Michigan Progress village ranking

The ranking is deliberately narrow because narrow data are easier to audit. Michigan Treasury’s 2025 Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy Report reports taxable valuation, village property-tax levy and average rate for 251 village rows. Michigan Progress sorts the reported village levy from lowest to highest. MML separately counts 252 incorporated villages, so this screen does not manufacture a value for the one-village source discrepancy.

A low levy can signal limited own-source fiscal capacity, especially when paired with a small taxable base. It can also mean the village deliberately levies very little because it provides fewer services or relies on other revenue. Conversely, a large property-tax levy does not prove fiscal health. Readers should use the ranking to identify communities worth studying, then open the village’s current audited financial statements and Michigan Treasury F-65 filings before drawing a conclusion.

Michigan’s broader local-government problem is capacity

Research from the University of Michigan’s Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy has repeatedly found that Michigan local governments are not all experiencing fiscal stress equally. Small jurisdictions have less administrative scale and can be more vulnerable to long-term liabilities or dependence on outside revenue. Michigan Treasury’s F-65 system exists precisely because annual local-government finances need to be evaluated across revenue, spending, assets, debt and fund balance—not one tax line.

That suggests a better statewide policy question than “Which villages should disappear?” Michigan should ask which local governments lack enough fiscal and administrative capacity to provide reliable services at a reasonable resident cost, and then make consolidation, shared services, city reincorporation and disincorporation easier to evaluate with standardized public data.

Sources and further reading

FAQ / AEO

Questions about this analysis

Direct answers based on the evidence and methodology used on this page.

How many incorporated villages are in Michigan?

The Michigan Municipal League reported 252 incorporated villages in its 2024 review of city and village government.

Which Michigan villages should disincorporate?

No village should be recommended for disincorporation from one statewide ranking. A serious study is most justified where low fiscal capacity, high resident tax burden, duplicated services, staffing problems and a credible lower-cost township service plan overlap.

Has a Michigan village ever successfully disincorporated?

As of 2026, no Michigan village had successfully completed the direct voter disincorporation process. Mineral Hills ceased to exist as a separate village through a different process: consolidation with Iron River and Stambaugh into the current City of Iron River in 2000.

What vote is required to disincorporate a Michigan village?

Under the direct route in MCL 74.18a, a petition begins with signatures from at least 15% of registered village electors and disincorporation requires two-thirds of electors voting on the question to vote yes. A separate commission-plan route has different approval rules.

Would village residents automatically save the entire village tax levy?

No. Village millage can disappear, but the receiving township, county road commission or other service provider may need added millage, fees or assessments. Debt and utility obligations may also continue. A service-by-service fiscal plan is necessary.

What does the Michigan Progress village ranking measure?

It ranks the 251 village property-tax levy rows reported in Michigan Treasuryu2019s 2025 Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy Report from lowest to highest. It is a fiscal-capacity screen, not a total-revenue or solvency ranking.

Why are 251 villages ranked if Michigan has 252 incorporated villages?

Michigan Municipal League counts 252 incorporated villages, while Michigan Treasuryu2019s 2025 village property-tax levy table contains 251 reported rows. Michigan Progress ranks only Treasury-reported rows and does not invent a value for the unmatched village.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ryan Richmond

Ryan Richmond has a background in commercial and residential real estate in Michigan. He writes about property values, development, local economies and the measurable forces shaping Michigan communities. Get in touch with Ryan for your commercial and residential real estate needs in Metro Detroit: ryan@realtyplus.com