Arbor UpdateAnn Arbor Area Community News | ||
Latest Greden LetterApril 2005 Dear 3rd Ward Resident- As the City Council prepares the City budget for fiscal year 2005-2006 (which begins July 1, 2006), I have published a series of messages regarding the budget process. In prior budget messages, I outlined the background regarding the City budget, the steps the Council has taken in recent years to cut costs, and the reasons why we continue to face a structural budget deficit. In this e-mail, I will outline some specific proposals for the 2005-2006 budget. Revenues Property taxes: As I outlined in a prior budget message, only about one-third of our property taxes are paid to the City. The majority of our property taxes are paid to other governments, including the State of Michigan, Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor Public Schools, Washtenaw Intermediate School District, and Ann Arbor District Library. Each year, the taxable value of property in Ann Arbor increases due to inflation and new development. The increase in taxable value, however, must be partially offset by a reduction in the City’s property tax millage rate. This process is required by the Headlee amendment to the State Constitution, and is known as a “Headlee rollback.” Because of the Headlee rollback, the City’s total property tax millage rate for 2005-2006 will likely be less than the current millage rate. In other words, Ann Arbor property taxpayers will receive a cut in their property tax rate. Special millage to pay for removal of ash trees: Unfortunately, just as the City’s property tax rate falls, the City faces a variety of major capital expenses, including the emerald ash borer problem. As you may know, the emerald ash borer is an insect that has infested ash trees throughout southern Michigan. Infested ash trees become a major safety hazard as their branches decay and fall on people and property. The City must pay to remove thousands of dead ash trees on City-owned land. It will likely cost the City several million dollars to remove these trees. To pay for this removal, City administrators propose asking voters to approve a short-term (3-7 years) special property tax millage. The amount of the millage has not been determined, but will likely be between 0.2 and 0.4 mills. For example, a 0.25 special millage, if approved by voters, would cost $37.50/year for the owner of a home worth $300,000. This special property tax millage – like all property taxes – would be deductible on your federal income tax return. DDA parking agreement: The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) currently pays the City $109,000 in annual rent for City-owned parking spaces in parking garages, surface parking lots, and street meters. The DDA recently reviewed its parking system finances and determined that the $109,000 rent was too low. In February, I worked with Councilman Chris Easthope (D-5th Ward) to negotiate a new rental agreement with the DDA. Under the new agreement, the rent paid by the DDA to the City will increase from $109,000/year to $1,000,000/year. Furthermore, the DDA recognized that the City faces a structural budget deficit, and thus they voted unanimously to allow the City to take advances on these rent payments over the next five years. This infusion of cash will allow the City to weather the current financial storm while we continue the re-organization of City government and work with the labor unions that represent 85% of the City’s employees to achieve long-term cost savings. Administrative reductions City managers continued implementing the reorganization of City government. This process will result in significant financial savings that will not affect programs enjoyed by City residents. For example:
For example:
Cuts that were avoided Many of the budget cuts that were proposed earlier in the year will not be implemented, including:
Summary The City Council is scheduled to vote on the 2005-2006 budget on May 16, 2005. I am pleased that we avoided more draconian cuts to the Budget. Nonetheless, the City faces a structural budget deficit that will require further cuts in future years. Please e-mail me at Lgreden AT ci.ann-arbor.mi.us if you have comments or questions about the proposed budget. – Leigh Greden, Ann Arbor City Council (3rd Ward) « Previous Article Police conduct massive drug sweep of Chelsea schools Next Article Slate: "Welcome to Miller Time, Loser" » |
||
New Comments(twitter feed)
Arbor Update Topics
Site Library
|
Local Information
U-M Links
Local Blogs
Movie Showtimes
License |
But what is “an excessive number of streetlights”?
—Murph May. 3 '05 - 04:04PM #
That would be an example of poorly chosen words. ;-)
Either that, or poorly evaluated facts. If there are truly an excessive number of lights in any area, some should be removed. Charging residents for waste would be about as bad a policy as I can imagine. Leaving the extra lights on and maintaining them would be the next worst.
I’m not concerned that historic preservation will cease (or historic structures cease to exist), so a “restored sometime soon” attitude about the coordinator position seems reasonable.
I’m more concerned that Project Grow may suffer a worse fate if the program doesn’t have supporters speaking on its behalf. City-dwellers need to know about soil and food production issues. It’s unfortunate that PG hasn’t made itself a more prominent player in the community beyond its current community gardens program. The success that Food Gatherers has seen (earned, really) could also be PG’s if it worked for it (possibly in cooperation with FG.)
—Steve Bean May. 3 '05 - 04:56PM #
In an unexpected and surprisingly contentious agenda item, Council approved using the 4th Ward Mary Street Polling Place as an injured bird sanctuary on a trial basis (provided it is cleaned up before the next election). Higgins and Carlberg were glaring at each other across the room while the Mayor pleaded for the poor defenseless birdies. It was slightly surreal.
Hmmm, the DDA suddenly realized they were paying $891,000 too little in rent/year? Sounds a bit fishy to me …
—Juliew May. 3 '05 - 05:03PM #
—Steve Bean May. 3 '05 - 05:10PM #
—Juliew May. 3 '05 - 05:11PM #
As far as the rent shortage goes, I think that’s politicalese for “What mechanisms are legally available through which the DDA can bail out the city?” Since it’s a renegotiation of the contract, rather than a mistake made with regards to the previous terms, I don’t think there’s any “back rent” to worry about. I’ll state the obvious criticism now, just to pre-empt anybody else’s stating it: “The DDA is trying to buy the City’s favor so that they can get the 3-site plan passed.” Yeah, sure, fine.
Now would be a good time to note for the AU record that, starting yesterday, I am officially employed by the City of Ann Arbor as the DDA’s intern. You can go nuts creating conspiracy theories out of that, if you like.
—Murph May. 3 '05 - 08:02PM #
Yes, the DDA money is a “bailout” for the City. As one of the public speakers pointed out last night, in 2002 the city “gave” the DDA the $1.9 million in parking meter revenue to stabilize the DDA funds and the DDA is now “giving $2 million back to the city.” Why they don’t just make the DDA an official department of the city is beyond me. The wink, wink, nod, nod stuff gets old and suspicious after a while (I’m sure there are advantages to this arrangement, but I don’t know what they are). Murph, maybe you can give us a good explanation once you have been there for a while.
—Juliew May. 3 '05 - 08:23PM #
—John Q May. 3 '05 - 09:37PM #
I know when my income goes down, I have to cut back on spending. We turn the lights out when not in use, don’t drive as much, but take the bikes to run around on etc. All of us have to do this from time to time. The city is no different then any of us. If they don’t have the money they can’t operate in a deficit. It is against the law.
It’s really a good thing that this blog is going strong, as it’s been good food for thought. So, my question to you all is, What can we all do to help our community while the city has these cuts in services, etc? I know what the DDA has done, how about all of you?
Ps. Thanks Scott for posting this letter.
—Bob Dascola May. 4 '05 - 02:28AM #
I see a lot of street lights downtown, especially the ones with the globe tops, and have to imagine that they could be more efficiently used by reflecting that upwards light back down. That, combined with outdated lamp technology, could be why the city would think about taking some out (which would cost money in the short term, but save money in the long term).
—js May. 4 '05 - 01:20PM #
Any informed thoughts on this are welcome.
—Dale May. 4 '05 - 01:51PM #
—Murph May. 4 '05 - 03:20PM #
—John Q. May. 4 '05 - 03:38PM #
—tom May. 4 '05 - 03:42PM #
To smooth the transition, it seems like the city could offer a 3-year franchise to 1 or 2 companies to make sure that everyone was serviced in the transition, then after that open it up to competition or have a process for introducing new companies.
—Dale May. 4 '05 - 03:50PM #
Based on what’s posted on those cities web sites, that’s enforced by the City, probably through a franchise agreement. So that’s not real competition as you see it in most SE Michigan communities. And yes, the trucks do go down the same street multiple times a week. I can’t imagine that would go over well in eco-minded A2.
—John Q May. 4 '05 - 04:18PM #
http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=3155
—John Q May. 4 '05 - 04:22PM #
I also agree we wouldn’t want 2 trucks on a street in a week in eco-friendly Ann Arbor; the 800 cars that run by my house on Madison each day would have have a hell of a time dodging them for those 10 minutes a week.
—Dale May. 4 '05 - 04:22PM #
The result? Trash was strewn everywhere, especially in poor neighborhoods, and ubiquitous backyard burning barrels created a stench and worsened air quality.
I’m not opposed to having private trucks pick up trash on behalf of the city, but crowded urban communities ought not make garbage collection optional.
—Larry Kestenbaum May. 4 '05 - 05:51PM #
—Dale May. 4 '05 - 06:05PM #
And I don’t think you can say (or, at least, I don’t want you to say), “Every household must provide proof of a trash hauling contract with some private company.” Pragmatically, what if I just want to haul my (very slowly accumulating) trash to the dump myself every 4-6 weeks, rather than paying somebody to pick it up every week?
—Murph May. 6 '05 - 02:05PM #
How about (not quite what you were hoping) you get the reduction at tax time if you show the private contract.
How does the city compel persons to put their trash out now? If someone wants to hang on to all their too-big-for-the-bin trash for a while that’s fine; if it becomes a nuisance, there are mechanisms to deal with that, no?
—Dale May. 6 '05 - 02:42PM #
The program did not work very well. A lot of people “outsourced” their garbage, taking it to relatives in other cities, dumping it in business’s dumpsters, or just dumping it in some field. The city abandoned the program after a year.
—tom May. 6 '05 - 02:53PM #
When garbage can be left on the curb once a week to be hauled away for free, it isn’t likely to accumulate in bushes and gutters and alleyways and back yards. To the extent that it does, it’s an isolated, manageable problem, rather than a citywide crisis of odors and rats and disease vectors.
Good sanitation has done more for human health and longevity than medicine ever could. Collecting garbage may be seen as a consumer service, but at base it’s a public health measure.
—Larry Kestenbaum May. 6 '05 - 03:38PM #
However, since it has been successfully taken over by private enterprise in several similarly-sized cities in the state and since the city of Ann Arbor is dealing with ways to cut their budget, I think it is a legitimate initiative to discuss.
I like Kalamazoo, but I wouldn’t argue for Kalamazoo exceptionalism in this regard.
Also (and I will defer to the civil servant on this question), why couldn’t the city require a standard contract for their one, two, or three trash franchisees so that it wouldn’t have a substantial cost to examine the contract?
—Dale May. 6 '05 - 03:59PM #
We’ve considered the “pay-as-you-throw” approach here, but the results that Tom describes were one of the reasons to abandon the idea. I’ve argued in favor of it, and think it might be successful if we implemented a policy that doesn’t involve residents having to actively buy special bags or tags (which serve as a constant, irritating reminder even to those who reduce their waste.)
Oddly, the effort many people are willing to expend to avoid spending an extra dollar (for something mandatory, at least) is greater than that which they seem willing to expend to save an extra dollar. (They won’t recycle or compost but they’ll haul their stinky trash to their brother’s house outside of town?!)
—Steve Bean May. 6 '05 - 06:35PM #
http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/PublicServices/FieldOperations/SolidWaste/Plan%20Final%202-1-02.doc.pdf
It says they opened up the wide range of services for bid in 96, but doesn’t really follow up (though of course AA won). It does look like they’re cognizant of staying competitive with private enterprise. And they do have a fairly broad strategy for reducing solid waste and increasing recycling. So trash pickup is off the chopping block in my mind. Back to the drawing board.
The plan also recounts that “pay as you throw” wasn’t looked upon favorably, but the new size-optional bins seem like a good way to address it.
—Dale May. 6 '05 - 08:00PM #