Archive for the ‘politics’ category

Taxes and the Local Government Quandary

August 15, 2017

Got vision? Our City Councilmembers do.  But that takes money.  Can we talk taxes?

Why do people run for office in local government? Various reasons, including personal (political) ambition, an enjoyment of politics as a practice (it has its obsessive qualities and you meet people), sometimes useful connections that might help you in your day job.  But I believe that a common characteristic in budding politicians is that they want to DO SOMETHING.  The aspirational impulse may go many directions.  With me it was land use. (So, immediately, all the BOC of my day was able to deal with was homelessness.)  We have local politicians who have emphasized economic development, transit, and development for population density.  Lately, the attention has turned to economic equity and affordable (i.e., subsidized) housing, and now there is a strong interest rising in solar power as a method of attacking climate change.

The Michigan Difference

It is frustrating, from the viewpoint of a Michigan municipal official, to read about advances in other states.  Here a transit program, there a measure to provide affordable housing, often paid for by a special sales tax, hotel tax, or even ticket surcharge (think UM football games) levied by a city or a county.  Not here. There are only two ways a local government in Michigan can tax its residents and businesses.  One is a tax on real property (real estate) and “personal property” which despite the confusing name is really business property.  However, that tax is slowly being eliminated.

The other option (available only to cities) is a city income tax. According to the Ann Arbor News,  the City Council is considering that again.  If the Council decides to go ahead with this oft-considered option, they will have to put a charter amendment on the ballot.  If the tax is enacted, it will mean that City residents will pay a 1% tax on income (this is rents and retail proceeds as well as wages) and non-residents will pay 0.5%.  In return, property owners will not be obliged to pay the general operating millage (for FY2018, that is 6.0343 mills).  Whether one comes off ahead on this personally depends on personal circumstances. (My best understanding is that retirement income is now taxable, so seniors are not as advantaged as in the past.)  The advantage to the City, and perhaps to many taxpayers, is that we are able to tap the incomes of UM employees and others who live elsewhere and work or do business in Ann Arbor.

Because of limitations in the Michigan constitution, it is very difficult for local government to raise property taxes.  We reviewed that in this post from 2011, which also walks you through details of when and how assessments for property tax are done.  Because of the Headlee Amendment and some other constitutional restrictions, governments are limited as to the total millage they can impose and must go to a vote of the people (a ballot question) to raise a new millage. Tax expenditures become (by design) a zero-sum game.  So local governments are always starved for revenue, especially if they are ambitious.

Invitation to a fundraiser that was posted to Facebook in July 2017

In the face of this frustration, some of our County Commissioners and City Councilmembers have gotten creative.  As we described in Hair on Fire in Ann Arbor, the BOC has established a millage ballot proposal that offers to give certain local governments a “rebate”, to be spent as wished.  This has entered into Ann Arbor City Council politics, with the incumbents who sponsored the resolution that assigned these tax goodies to favored uses (pedestrian safety, affordable housing, and climate change) running for office as the “Sustainable Ann Arbor”, “Progressive” slate on the strength of that resolution.  This device is obviously a response to frustration over the inability to use local tax dollars as they would like.  But in my opinion, both the BOC and these Councilmembers are not just misusing the ballot initiative system, but are being insensitive to the way ordinary taxpayers view local taxes and how they are used.  To be successful, they will have to persuade a majority of Washtenaw County voters that paying an additional 1.0 mill tax is to their benefit.

Taxes are Taxing

Ann Arbor homeowners are very conscious of our local tax system in July. This is the month the big property tax bill is due. To many of us, this is the make-or-break moment. Writing that check by the end of the month (and Ann Arbor has a very big stick to make sure that you do) is a big stress point.  Of course, no one loves taxes, but this is your HOUSE.  And every year, the total goes up.

Most of the property taxes we pay are for local government.  Across the County, the actual rate and amount paid varies widely, especially because of overlapping school districts, library districts, transit authority district, and other authorities. The greatest difference is in the millage that each municipality imposes on its own behalf.  That is the operating millage together with any special millages that voters have approved.  These can be seen by referring to the Apportionment Report from the County Equalization Department. (All figures cited in this post are from County Equalization.) Washtenaw County is really the essential level of government in Michigan, because many programs based on Michigan and even Federal law are delegated to the County to enact (these are called mandated services).  Taxpayers in all of our local units pay the same County millage (currently 6.2432).

Property taxes collected in Washtenaw County as shown in the Apportionment Report (2016). The smaller pie chart is County taxes and is detail of the pink wedge. Note that schools are the largest tax target. AAATA and DDAs are in the “local government” wedge.

Questions About Equity

There are several questions that occur to the taxpayer. One is, “what am I getting for this tax payment“?  That depends. The general expectation for local taxes is that the tax is collected by government so that it can carry out the services we need. Washtenaw County has 27 cities, villages, and townships.  Taxpayers in each of these may live in different school districts, library districts, etc.  In some, voters have chosen a high-service, high-tax government. Many townships are run on a bare-bones model.   So service levels differ, and so do local tax rates.  City residents usually go with the high-cost option. When we want special services (parks, local buses, better roads, etc.) we vote in special millages. In some townships, it is very difficult to pass a library millage or an increase in the township general operating millage.  Cities have a solid waste millage and provide trash pickup; most townships leave it up to the occupant to contract for trash removal.  Cities typically have water utilities (sewer, drinking water). Townships mostly leave it up to occupants to have a well and a septic tank. There are exceptions; the more urban townships like Ypsilanti and Pittsfield contract with the Detroit water authority, and portions of Scio Township and Ann Arbor Township have contracts with the City of Ann Arbor.  In general “you get what you pay for” is the rule. But to feel that you are taxed fairly, you want to see that you get the services you have opted for.

Is It Fair?

The wish to be treated fairly is baked into our bones.  (Experiments with monkeys show they resent being treated less well than the next monkey; they’ll refuse to do the trick if the other monkey gets a grape and they only get a cucumber.)  But part of that is your expectation of the “service” that you are buying.  I want my trash picked up and my drinking water to be clean and readily available.  I’m not fond of potholes either. But I also want to know that my community is being administered rationally and compassionately by officials who have the correct expertise.  In the example of the County, I want to know that public health, environmental health, and mental health are all being tended to by people who know what they are doing, and public safety (policing and judicial system) is important to me even if I never get robbed or a ticket.  So those are “services” I will happily purchase.   I’ll vote for school taxes even though I never had children.  But what really irritates me is if I do my part and others don’t. That is where we come down to the question of an even treatment of taxation.

Local Differences in Taxation

Because voters in local municipalities (that includes cities, villages, and townships) all choose different “packages” and also because the economic picture in each locality differs, there are major differences across the county in how much tax revenue is collected and what individual taxpayers have to pay. The fortunes of each government (and the burden on taxpayers) are determined by two different factors: the millage rate and the taxable value (properly called the ad-valorem) available.  In order to keep local assessors from under-assessing the value of property, the County Equalization Department conducts a detailed study each year and publishes a complete snapshot of local government assessment and taxation.  (All figures we cite here are from the Equalization Report or the Apportionment Report.)  The fortunes of each government depend heavily on the ad-valorem (hence the constant attention to “tax base”).

Let’s stop right here and acknowledge that there are different kinds of taxpayers, including owners of agricultural, industrial, and commercial property.  These are very important to a locality’s tax base but our discussion here focuses mostly on residential taxpayers.  For the taxpayer, the assessed value (SEV) of their house is determined each year by the assessor (assumed to be half the market value), and the taxable value (TV) is determined by a complex formula (see Proposal A) that works to hold down TV for long-term property owners.  For most, it is much lower than the SEV.  The tax due is calculated in this way:

Some localities have such high-value property that they can afford to keep millage rates relatively low and still provide quality services.  Others, with low real estate values, strain to cover all the bases with high millage rates.  This creates a good deal of inequity on a social level across the county.

Tax profiles for three different municipalities. Local millages (including operating and special millages) are shown. Tax calculated on total homestead millage is for house of market value $200,000, assuming TV is exactly half that.

In this example, the owner of a new house of $200,000 market value (TV of $100,000) would pay a drastically different tax bill.  Because it has such a low tax base, the City of Ypsilanti is taxing its residents at the very maximum that its charter allows.  Because most real estate in Ypsilanti is often at a lower valuation, many may not pay that.  However, this tax rate will obviously depress real estate value.

Back to the fairness question: presumably since each of us has chosen to live in a particular community (a free will theory of taxation), the tax assessed there is “fair”. But what about when the tax is being collected for services used by a different locality?  As we explained in our post Regionalism Reconsidered, Michigan has a strong home-rule tradition and culture.  When we pay County taxes, we are paying for a regional benefit.  We must accept that services delivered to our entire region (county) are on our own behalf.  But what few of us expect is that the County will collect taxes specifically to donate to a different municipality.

In the case of the proposed “mental health and public safety” millage, that was a decision made on the floor during debate on the ballot language. In the final language, a change was made so that the “rebate” to municipalities with their own police forces would be made proportionately on the basis of population, not on taxable value.

shall the limitations on the total amount of taxes which may be levied against taxable property within Washtenaw County, Michigan, as provided for by Section 6 of Article IX of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, be increased up to the amount of $1.00 per thousand dollars of taxable valuation (1.0 mills) for a period of eight years, beginning with the December 1, 2018 levy and extending through the 2025 levy, which shall raise in the first year an estimated $15,433,608.00 to be used as follows: 38% shall be allocated to Washtenaw County’s Community Mental Health Department for mental health crisis, stabilization and prevention, and to meet mental health needs in an appropriate setting, thus reducing the burden on the jail and improving care; 38% shall be allocated to the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office to ensure continued operations and increased collaboration with the mental health community; and 24% shall be allocated to jurisdictions in the County which maintain their own police force (currently Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Milan, Saline, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Northfield Township) in proportion to their respective 2016 population values?

(The change was made in order to benefit the City of Ypsilanti.) This has the effect of redistributing County taxes from one municipality to another.  As is seen in the table, most other cities and townships are essentially donating their own tax base (accepting the logic that this is a repayment for local taxes already collected) to others.  For the complete calculations, refer to this spreadsheet.

“Rebate” in first year based on taxable value vs. population.

But the tax is also a redistribution from all the other municipalities in the County to these units receiving a rebate.  Recall that the more rural townships have chosen to tax themselves at very low rates and then offer very minimal services.  For example, Bridgewater Township has a local millage rate of 0.8233. Freedom Township is 0.9501.  The proposed new County millage of 1.0 mills is higher than they choose to tax themselves for all services.  And part of that tax is going to be redistributed to the urban communities.  This may be why (as reported by the Ann Arbor News) the vote to approve the millage was 5-4, with the “out-county” commissioners voting against it.

There was some discussion that this redistribution in favor of the City of Ypsilanti was for “equity” and that small city does indeed have its problems, as shown with the tax situation. Perhaps we need to consider what “equity” means in distributing taxes among County communities, especially if the purpose is not truly regional in nature.  Should the farmers of Bridgewater Township be paying for pedestrian safety in Ann Arbor?  Should Saline and Chelsea be donating tax receipts to Ypsilanti and Northfield Township?  The rebates are not going to individual taxpayers in those different jurisdictions, but rather to their elected bodies, to spend on whatever priorities they determine. Is that fair?

The Muddle

County voters have shown that they are willing to pay taxes for a truly regional service.  For example, in November 2016, the County roads millage passed by 70.94% and the millage to support indigent veterans passed by 73.18%.  But because of this muddle, it will be hard to make the case that this is truly a regional service for parts of the County. Perhaps the votes in the urbanized parts of the County will be enough to pull it off.  But I wish that the BOC had offered us a clean choice with two pared-down millages, one for mental health services and one for the Sheriff.  It should have been possible to make a good regional case for each of those.  This was a bad time to introduce political aims into the process.

Just to confuse things further, should the Ann Arbor City Council decide to place a ballot issue for a city income tax on the November ballot, Ann Arbor voters will be making two different decisions about their tax futures at the same time.  Wonder how that will work out?

ADDENDUM:  The City Administrator has prepared a memo recommending use of the county millage rebate as to how that extra tax revenue from the County millage might be used.  Here is the report by the Ann Arbor News.

UPDATE: The Ann Arbor News has an article about the city income tax that compares the UM position (not our business) with that of MSU re an East Lansing income tax (oppose it, offering a buyout).  According to the article, there will be a special work session of the City Council on September 11 to discuss the tax.

General note: I believe that it is probably too late to place a ballot item onto the November ballot.  (I am having difficulty in finding the due dates for a charter amendment to be placed on the ballot by the Council.)  That would indicate that the next opportunity for an election would be May 2018.  After that, August or November 2018.  There are potential political consequences for all these choices.

 

Vote As Though the Future of Your City Depends On It

August 6, 2017

All elections are consequential.  The Ann Arbor City Council (Democratic) Primary on this Tuesday, August 8, 2017 will likely, all hyperbole aside, set the course for the next several years, perhaps decades.  Please vote.  (And I hope you choose the candidates I want you to, but for goodness sakes, vote.)

Obligatory public service announcement: see CivCity’s Ann Arbor Votes page for information.  Here is the City of Ann Arbor’s page on voting absentee.  If you are qualified, you may apply until 4:00 p.m. on Monday and vote in person at City Hall.

If you’ve been living in Ann Arbor for a while and have been awake, you know that the control of the Council agenda has been the subject of a mighty tug of war. (See, for example, our post The Placemaking Agenda and Ann Arbor Politics.)  Now, with the passage of a charter amendment that means all Council members will serve for four years, this is the last odd-year election and perhaps the last chance for a group of scrappy Ann Arbor residents to elect representatives who will actually represent their interests. (Note: this is a “catch-up” election. Those elected will serve for three years and then all terms will be for four years.) It is also a make-or-break election for Ann Arbor’s Mayor Christopher Taylor.  Taylor has lately enjoyed a supermajority of CM who represent his vision (and that of his mentor John Hieftje).  With this 8-vote majority, he is able to pass through almost any measure, leaving the minority (CM Jack Eaton, CM Sumi Kailasapathy, CM Jane Lumm) to present measured opposition in the face of overwhelming odds.

Lately the vibrations (and who knows? we don’t have polls) seem less favorable to Mayor Taylor.  There are some good, substantial candidates opposing his favored incumbents.  He was moved to send out an email to certain voters (not all, and we didn’t get one) with his endorsements.  Here is a rundown:

Council candidates for August 8, 2017. (I) is incumbent. Red = endorsed by C. Taylor. Blue = endorsed by Local in Ann Arbor

Yes, the Mayor did not formally endorse Jaime Magiera, who has been running as a quasi-independent, and we did not make an endorsement in the 3rd Ward race.  (There is no Democratic primary in the Second Ward.)

The Mayor also included an anodyne list of promises, should his slate succeed.  He is for fiscal integrity. He likes quality services, and a quality way of life.  He likes parks.   But these points are perhaps more descriptive.

We also know that Ann Arbor has not yet done enough to prepare for our future — we do not have anywhere near enough affordable housing; particularly in light of the failure in national leadership, our climate change responses need to accelerate, not stagnate; and the City’s costs rise faster than its natural revenue increases, threatening the sustainability of services upon which residents depend.

We share the belief that all successful cities evolve. No one can stop change, but we can and must do everything we can to ensure that Ann Arbor maintains its essential character, the character that drew us all here in the first place. Finding that mix, finding that balance, is what it’s all about.

The Outcomes

So what can we look forward to if Mayor Taylor’s picks are all re-elected?  (If he loses only one vote, he will have to work more collaboratively, and much of this is less certain.)

1. More approval of high-rises everywhere. Are all high-rises bad?  Of course not. They make sense in certain locations and for certain purposes.  We’ve all gotten used to the student housing towers.  But a major issue this year was the Core Spaces sale of the Library Lot. See our post Core Spaces and the Soul of Ann Arbor.  This has been criticized on the basis of aesthetics and use of public land, but also on fiscal integrity and the loss of publicly funded parking spaces.  The behavior of the Council majority in the push to approve this questionable project (there are still legal questions to be resolved and it is taller than any new building in Ann Arbor) has activated many citizens.

2. A serious push to build an Ann Arbor Train Station, on the Fuller Park site if at all possible. This project is in a terminal state right now (it is proceeding without the possibility of further Federal funding, and still no word from the FRA), but don’t give up on it. One way it could be funded would be by selling bonds or seeking private investment. This has been a top priority of Mayor Taylor from the beginning.  See our post Ann Arbor and the Rail Station Gamble.

3. An increase in water and sewer rates. This is underway and goes beyond the yearly increases in water, sewer, and stormwater rates already experienced. There appear to be moves to restructure the rates. (Note that our system probably needs major upgrades if a heavy development surge is to be supported.)  A survey was sent out this summer that sent some strong signals.  Here is just one page from the survey.

From the survey sent out by the City of Ann Arbor in June 2017. Click for better visibility.


4. An effort to find additional tax revenue.  Mayor Taylor has some ambitious goals and we are constantly finding that Council is limited by the Michigan tax structure and our structural deficit (the UM occupies a great deal of what should be our tax base).  The only current possible mechanism is the County millage vote (which has been arranged for a “rebate” to Ann Arbor without strings attached; see our post, Hair on Fire in Ann Arbor).   Another possibility, which has been considered by Council this year, is a city income tax. (Our post, Same Song, Different Verse, laid out some of this.) Taylor’s endorsement message had this curious statement “the City’s costs rise faster than its natural revenue increases, threatening the sustainability of services upon which residents depend”. “Natural” revenue increases?


5. A move to down-zone residential areas so that more dense development is allowed in traditionally single-family neighborhoods. “Down-zoning” would be, for example, changing R1 properties to R3 or R4, making multifamily building more available. (Karen Hart, former Planning Director for the City of Ann Arbor, has pointed out that I have this definition backwards.  What I have described is “up-zoning”.  I regret publishing in haste because of the pressure of the calendar without checking this terminology more carefully.) Neighborhoods near the central core are at most hazard for this. Many of those are R2A or R4C, which has permitted modest infill with 4-unit condominiums in place of a single-family house, for example. See this zoning map for Water Hill.  But denser development will depend on a down-zoning.

Such a move would be consistent with Mayor Taylor’s emphasis on affordable housing.  (It is a matter of faith with many urban planners that denser development would bring affordability, though to date the result has simply been more expensive condominiums.) This change has especially been telegraphed by Chip Smith, who is running on his “expertise” as an urban planner, and there has been commentary on the social media. With an 8-vote majority and with a Taylor-appointed Planning Commission, it would be possible to push through a massive rework of Ann Arbor’s zoning map.  At present those residential zones are a tremendous frustration to those who would like to see dense development.  We are about to run out of downtown.

There is actually a move afoot at the County level to examine the role of single-family zoning in economic segregation, which in turn is based on a Federal program, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.   Here is the County flyer about it.  The premise, on a national level, is that residential zoning has been devised to keep out the economically disadvantaged and racial minorities.  So for “fair housing” we have to get rid of single-family housing.  I don’t see that here.  I live near two public housing facilities, some rental housing, and some historically black (single-family) streets that are holding on.  In my view, single-family housing is simply how many of us would like to live.  But it is a great impediment to development, which in Ann Arbor’s overheated real estate market, is where the money is.

The Future Ahead

In principle, I don’t like to see any faction have the overwhelming power to do as they will.  Some of Mayor Taylor’s agenda may have merit, but it should be argued out at Council and with reasonable citizen participation.  I hope that Tuesday will see some rebalancing of City Council so that we can all deliberate on that future.

UPDATE: In the August primary, one of Mayor Taylor’s majority (Jason Frenzel) was defeated.  Chip Smith and Zach Ackerman were both renominated.  Ackerman will be unopposed on the November ballot, so he will be on Council for the next three years.  Jack Eaton defeated his primary challenger.  The November ballot will have contests in the 2nd, 4th and possibly 5th wards.  Here is the Ann Arbor News report and analysis of the results of the primary: Mayor’s Camp Could Lose “Supermajority” on Ann Arbor City Council.

Hair on Fire in Ann Arbor

July 5, 2017

How a resolution passed by the City Council could endanger needed funding for the mentally ill of Washtenaw County.

Those of us of the wonkish persuasion are always serious, often dogged, and probably viewed by others as rather dull in our insistence on correctness and data.  We are not usually the ones to be seen at the front of the crowd, waving a sign around.  But occasionally there comes a moment so potent in its wrongness that we can progress to that state known as “hair on fire”.  This has been characterized as ”in a state of extreme agitation,” one stage above ”wild-eyed” and just below ”freaked out, totally out of control.”  My hair on fire moment came on Friday night (June 30), when I learned (via a tweet from Council member and candidate Chip Smith) that the Council would consider a resolution to reallocate funds from a County millage that has not yet been approved by the Board of Commissioners, has not appeared on the ballot, has not been endorsed by the voters, and in which funds would be used for a different purpose than the millage proposal states.

The resolution (item DC-3) was sponsored by Mayor Christopher Taylor and three of his “faction”, CM Zach Ackerman, CM Chip Smith, and CM Jason Frenzel.  All except for Taylor are up for re-election this fall.  All have primary opponents.  This is an especially consequential election because the winners will serve for a full three years (the City Charter was recently changed to designate four-year terms, but this is staggered to eliminate the odd-year elections). Monday (July 3) came and the Council approved the resolution by what is coming to be the expected balance of votes, 8-3. (In other words, the Taylor faction vs. the Eaton faction; or, if you prefer, the Council Party vs. the Neighborhoods.)  In simplest terms, the resolution states that the City of Ann Arbor will take money collected by the County for mental health purposes and “repurpose” it to pet projects of Taylor and his followers, namely pedestrian safety, affordable housing, and climate change.

ADDENDUM: Here is an excerpt from the resolution.  The resolution refers throughout to a “General Fund Rebate”, which is not indicated by the County ballot language and for which there is no provision.

Resolved, THAT if the Board of Commissioners puts the Millage on the November 2017 ballot, City Council intends to consider a General Fund Rebate Use Policy Resolution, which resolution would in further detail state Council’s intent to use the General Fund Rebate for the duration of the Millage in the following amounts, for the following purposes:

•                     20% to improve Pedestrian Safety (e.g., Enforcement Augmentation, Crosswalk Improvements, RRFBs, Streetlights) (operating & capital)

•                     40% to effect the goals of the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (a/k/a Washtenaw County Housing Affordability and Economic Equity Analysis) and to increase Workforce Housing (operating & capital) with guidance by the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board

•                     40% to effect the goals of Ann Arbor’s Climate Action Plan (operating & capital)

It is so obviously political posturing that it hardly seems worth mentioning.  Or, it is a sincere difference of opinion on priorities, which is even more concerning.

ADDENDUM: In terms of priorities, the following excerpt from the resolution is puzzling.  Are they encouraging the County to look elsewhere if more money is needed for mental health?

Resolved, THAT mental health services and public safety are fundamental community needs and if the Board of Commissioners determines that there are insufficient resources to sustainably address these needs in a manner that meets community aspiration, City Council encourages them to seek additional funds.

The County Burden

The background to this event and the reasons I find it so outrageous lie in the role that County government plays in Michigan.  As a former County Commissioner, I’m very aware that County government takes care of many housekeeping tasks that affect us all, often without much fanfare.  Most of these are what are known as “mandates”, namely responsibilities decreed by state law.  Ann Arbor residents who don’t get out much are often unaware of County activities, since they are just the machinery that runs in the background.  One good example is community mental health services.  Counties have historically been responsible for all aspects of public health, including environmental health, medical issues (for example, communicable diseases and other general public health hazards), and mental health.  These are truly “global”, or in this case, county-wide services and are utilized at different levels by different localities, but they are all critical to a healthy county community.

Mental health services in Washtenaw County have gone through quite a number of different arrangements.  At one time it was simply a County department.  Then it got picked up by the UM health system as part of Medicaid-funded services.   There was something called the WCHO (Washtenaw County Health Organization) that more or less foundered under some administrative challenges.  (The actual patient contact was through County employees, in CSTS [Community Support and Treatment Services], under contract with the WCHO).  Meanwhile, the State of Michigan has been cutting funding for community mental health services.  In 2016, the Board of Commissioners reached an agreement with the unionized employees of the newly formed Community Mental Health (CMH) by providing some bridge funding from the general fund reserves. But the money problems continue.  As a recent report in the Ann Arbor News notes, the opioid crisis has magnified the problem.  But what doesn’t help is that the State of Michigan is proposing to turn mental health services over to private enterprise, and limit it to Medicaid recipients.

So here is where we are.  We have a number of desperately mentally ill people in our county (many of them in urban areas and some of the same people who populate our homeless shelters).  It is the County’s responsibility to take care of their needs, if anyone will. Who else is there?

‘Home is the place where, when you have to go there,
They have to take you in.’ 
(Robert Frost, “Death of a Hired Man”)

But as the need grows, the money available shrinks.  Thus, the desperate move to try to persuade countywide voters to vote for a millage in these tax-averse times.

Enter the Sheriff

An additional item on the proposed millage would provide money to the Sheriff’s Department for deputy service.  This might seem odd.  We’re talking about mental health, and suddenly you want to pay for more police?  But as the well-respected Sheriff Jerry Clayton made clear to the Commissioners, county deputies are an essential part of the mental health response system.  Who do you call if someone is “acting out” or seems to have suffered some sort of catastrophic collapse?  You call 911.  The dispatchers are likely to send a deputy (or Ann Arbor or other police) if any kind of violence is indicated.  But, as Clayton persuasively made the case, the current system of paying for those deputies is not working very well now.  It relies partly on County general funds (also limited) and on local government funds (for deputies under contract).  Everyone is short. Thus, the County Administrator, Gregory Dill, said in a recent memo (as quoted by the Ann Arbor News)

Moving forward, it is apparent to all stakeholders (Sheriff’s Office, county administration, and contracting partners) that the current financial architecture is not sustainable beyond the proposed contractual agreement through 2021.

The matter of paying for the Sheriff’s deputies has a troubled recent history.  I reviewed it in this post from 2013, which is now out of date. There has been some softening around the edges since Clayton took charge.  But basically, the outsize need for deputies in Ypsilanti Township (who use these deputies as their police force) has unbalanced that budget.  Deputies in general are supposed to respond to calls where needed, but we can’t expect Ypsilanti Township to pay for mental health issues throughout the urban area of the county.  Yet, cities such as Ann Arbor (who have their own police forces) pay for the Sheriff’s services through the County general tax millage, and thus are subsidizing Ypsilanti Township.  This has caused a conflict in the past.  Doubtless, this was what Commissioner Conan Smith was thinking with his comment at an April 21 BOC meeting, as reported by the Ann Arbor News.

Commissioner Conan Smith, D-Ann Arbor, suggested Thursday night there could be fairness issues raised with a countywide tax for public safety, as some urban communities with their own police departments might feel it would disproportionately benefit other communities in the county.

Smith did, however, follow this with another reflection.

Though, Smith said, if it is a countywide tax to support both public safety and mental health, then maybe it would balance out, as the mental health services might be largely going to people in urban communities.

A Calculated Millage Proposal

It seems likely that it was those regional equity calculations that led the BOC (at their Ways & Means meeting of June 7, 2017) to approve (tentatively) a draft ballot language that granted Ann Arbor a piece of the revenue from a mental health funding issue.

Sign displayed on roads in Ann Arbor reconstructed or repaired using the Washtenaw County road millage

They had a model to follow.  The voters of Washtenaw County enthusiastically endorsed a millage intended to fix county roads on November 8, 2016.  This in spite of the fact that roads also have a rural/urban split in taxation.  Rural areas (including villages) of Washtenaw County are serviced by the Washtenaw County Road Commission (WCRC).  That funding comes directly from the State of Michigan.  Cities like Ann Arbor also receive state funding, but on a different line item, and are responsible for their own road work.  So how to pass a millage to fix roads across the county without running into the problem of Ann Arbor paying for roads in Lima Township?  Here is the ballot language adopted:

Shall the limitation on the amount of taxes which may be imposed each year for all purposes on real and tangible personal property in Washtenaw County, Michigan be increased as provided in Section 6, Article IX of the Michigan Constitution and the Board of Commissioners of the County be authorized to levy a tax not to exceed one half of one mill ($0.50 per $1,000 of state taxable valuation) for a period of four (4) years, beginning with the December 1, 2016 tax levy (which will generate estimated revenues of $7,302,408 in the first year), to provide funding to the Washtenaw County Road Commission, Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission, and the various cities, villages, and townships of Washtenaw County to maintain, construct, resurface, reconstruct, or preserve roads, bike lanes, streets, and paths in Washtenaw County?

So, as explained on the WCRC web page, those taxes collected from cities were passed along to the city in question for repair of roads in their own jurisdiction.  But the County kept a leash on those funds.  Notice the wording in the ballot language?  “provide funding…various cities…to maintain, construct, resurface (etc.).  In other words, the taxes collected were clearly going to go to roads.  Further, every road in Ann Arbor that is reconstructed using these County taxes has a sign letting us know that our “taxes are at work”.

Here is the actual text of the language in the tentative mental health item.

Shall the limitations on the total amount of taxes which may be levied against taxable property within Washtenaw County, Michigan, as provided for by Section 6 of Article IX of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, be increased up to the amount of $1.00 per thousand dollars of taxable valuation (1.0 mills) for a period of ten years, 2018 through 2027 inclusive, which shall raise in the first year an estimated $15,433,608.00 which shall be used as follows: 37% of the total millage shall be allocated to the Washtenaw County Community Mental Health Department (whether constituted as an agency or an authority) to be used for mental health crisis, stabilization and prevention efforts and to prevent unnecessary incarceration of individuals with mental health needs; 38% of the total millage shall be allocated to the Washtenaw County Sheriff to ensure continued operations and greater cooperation with the mental health community; and 25% of the total millage shall be allocated to those jurisdictions within the County which maintain their own police force (Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Milan, Saline, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Northfield Township) at a rate proportionate to their respective taxable values?

There is a major error here.  Notice: the first two items say specifically that mental health is the point of the levy.  But the last item simply allocates a portion of the millage to several local jurisdictions, including Ann Arbor, without a specified use.  It appears on the face of it that this allocation is being made with no strings attached.  It must have been this wording that caused City Councilmembers who have an election looming to race to pick up the goodies like kids at a parade.  The effect is to ask County voters to approve a tax on their property that will partly be translated into a free gift – or, as the Taylor group are wont to call it, a “rebate”- to Ann Arbor and other cities.  But this does not advance a solution to the need, which is mental health funding.  Clearly, the BOC needs to repair this language before final approval.

So some will say (and have said): Why is this bad?  Why can’t Ann Arbor use the money as they see fit?  Several reasons.

  • By rushing this declaration, there has been no time or opportunity to review priorities for the City.  We all like pedestrian safety and affordable housing and decry global warming.  But most budgetary decisions are made with some definite plans specified for how the money will be used.  That is the job of the City Administrator.  Then the Council gets to debate those uses of the money vs. others.  In this case, there is, for example, no actual plan to advance affordable housing, unless it is simply thrown into the huge deficit created by the Housing Commission’s ambitious plans. (This will not help everyone’s wish for affordable workforce housing, a.k.a. lower rents for young professionals.)  Would it simply go into an account to be drawn on later for unknown projects?
  • There is a question whether the County can legally ask voters to approve taxes for unspecified purposes.  There are laws and rules regulating ballot language, and they are pretty strict.  You can’t say “give me money for roads” and then spend the cash on fixing up your IT system.  Just specifying that money will go to various jurisdictions is not likely enough.
  • There are state law limitations on general fund appropriations, with caps on what local governments can assess in a “general ad valorem property tax”   (yes, it’s complicated).  This has been raised as a possible obstacle by a couple of local lawyers, including CM Jack Eaton, who asked this question of the City Administrator during the Council meeting of July 3. “Does the transfer of this county tax from tax levies on Ann Arbor residents with the subsequent pass through to the City have the effect of exceeding the City Charter limit on millage assessed for general government purposes?” ( The answer was that not enough was known about the County measure yet.)

Most of all, this action by the City Council and the unanswered questions it leaves is likely to be destructive to the success of the millage proposal itself.  Will the voters of Ann Arbor approve it?  It is so fuzzy that it would be difficult to explain.  Measures that are too complicated and too poorly explained have a bad history at the ballot box.

But why should the voters in the rest of the County, especially outside the urban area (where neither the mental health services nor the expanded Sheriff’s deputy coverage are locally urgent) – when they are also told that Ann Arbor is going to cream off a substantial fraction of the proceeds for its own purposes, none of which are likely to sound very relevant to those “out-county” voters? After all, the residents of those small western townships and villages are already subsidizing Ypsilanti Township’s deputies and the County mental health services, though they likely use very little of them.  The urban area (especially Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti City and Township) probably is home to most patients with the CMH.  We’d hope that the voters outside the urban area would support needed mental health services county-wide.  But why would they vote to send Ann Arbor a check?

A Possible Resolution

What I’d like to see the BOC do is to separate the public safety piece and the mental health piece into two separate millages.  Each of them could be a smaller amount since the 25% designated as a giveaway could be left out.  This will perhaps make the Sheriff’s needs somewhat more vulnerable, but with a persuasive, well-defined use spelled out for the extra money, I would hope that we would all vote for it.

It seems likely that this will be addressed on July 12.  I hope that our County Commissioners will fix this.  It is important.

UPDATE: Commissioner Conan Smith kindly sent along a memo (Smith memo 06072017) that he had written to the BOC for the discussion on June 7 about the millage ballot item.   It has many recommendations for process, including this:

General Distribution
I believe the distribution should be articulated by policy so that agencies and partners have a reasonable expectation about funding and the Board of Commissioners maintains control of the funds. My preference is that this be described in broad strokes as follows:

  •  37% to the Washtenaw County Community Health
  •  40% to the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office
  •  23% to Community Safety Net Grants

And the “Community Safety Net Grants” are defined in this way:

Community Safety Net Grants

  •  Annually available by formula to communities that currently provide their own police subject to the objectives and criteria established by the Board of Commissioners (similar to JAG program funding)
  •  Restricted to public safety and mental health activities
  •  Requiring a “maintenance of effort” from local units to ensure our funds are enhancing, not replacing, locally generated revenue.

Now that makes sense.  I’d like to know who persuaded a majority of the BOC to make the last portion of the millage into a free gift to the City of Ann Arbor.  (Felicia Brabec was not present.)  It is hard not to suspect some political dealing.  I hope Cm Smith will give it another try.

SECOND UPDATE:   Some of the mystery as to the urgent need for cash that evidently precipitated this move can be gleaned from Environmental Commission minutes.  A request was forwarded from the Energy Commission to support their solar program.

Resolved, The Environmental Commission recommends that the City Administrator direct appropriate City staff to work with the Environmental Commission and Energy Commission on identifying potential alternative revenue sources that would generate $1-3 million dollars per year to support community energy and climate programs by August 1st, 2017 for presentation to City Council, and that the Solid Waste Fund support one half of one of these positions for work to improve waste diversion in multi-family rental housing and to expand organics collection;

This is from April minutes but the action date for Council is shown as 7/3/2017, which is when the resolution to take money from a county millage apparently looked like a good Hail Mary pass.

THIRD UPDATE: It appears that Conan Smith was simply playing me with all that additional conversation.  He was apparently the person who suggested the dodge in the first place.  Unfortunately, the BOC approved the language as stated, including the “rebates” to local units.  According to Mary Morgan of CivCity , the vote was 5/4 in favor, with “out-county” commissioners voting against it.

FOURTH UPDATE: Here is the Ann Arbor News report on the BOC vote and the revised millage issue.

FIFTH UPDATE: Here is the Final language – County mental health and public safety millage.

SIXTH UPDATE: The Ann Arbor News has an article on how the tax rebate would be spent

SEVENTH UPDATE:  Several citizens spoke at the August 2, 2017 Ways & Means meeting regarding the millage.  The minutes do not indicate the substance of their remarks.  Minutes indicate that Cmr. Alicia Ping stated she would consult the Attorney General about the language of the ballot proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ann Arbor and the Rail Station Gamble

May 28, 2017

The leaders (movers, shakers, and Council majority) of Ann Arbor celebrate the notion of Ann Arbor exceptionalism.  This evidently extends to invulnerability in times of uncertainty.  While the nation and even the world wait to see what will unfold with the Trump presidency, we are ready to bet on future Federal dollars to achieve our dream of a new train station.  On June 5, 2017, City Council will be asked to pay an additional $137,026 toward the new station.  (The last vote was in January, to put money into a contingency fund for this purpose.)  This money is intended to allow the City to collect the last part of a planning grant for a new station. Yet, it appears unlikely that Federal funds will be available for actual construction of a station.  And even more significantly, the contracted work may not be finished in time to be reimbursed under the current grant.

A good summary of the situation was provided by Ryan Stanton, writing for MLive.com (Ann Arbor News).   Stanton has been following this issue closely and earlier submitted a FOIA to see the document that the City sent to the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) for review.  All in all, the City of Ann Arbor has qualified for an award in non-transparency with regard to this project. You may remember the famous picture of the email with all lines redacted.  It has released no public documents about the project since September 2016. (All public documents are available on the City’s Ann Arbor Station page.)

Timeline on Ann Arbor City website for grant acceptance

But the project is running up against a brick wall.  The grant funds expire (gone back to the Treasury) as of September 30, 2017 (end of FY 2017). The schedule published on the City web page indicates that the required public hearing and 30 day review of public comments was to take place in December 2016, with final approval of the EA in January.  But the proposal has languished in some void between the FRA and the consultants.  Now it appears increasingly difficult to fit in all the tasks needed before expiration of the grant funds.  That would leave the City liable for all the costs that have been incurred since this phase of the work began.

As the City Administrator, Howard Lazarus, noted in a letter to Council members,

FRA has expressed some concern over the City’s ability to complete the work within the grant funding period. To that end, FRA has authorized a “tapered match” approach, in which the City can access the federal funds first. Staff believes under this structure, we can advance the majority of the PE effort before the end of July. Council should note that the FRA cannot guarantee that invoices sent to them after June 30th will be processed prior to their mid‐September cut‐off for FY17 funds disbursements.

Lazarus is asking Council to approve an amendment to the consultants’ contract that appears to extend their tasks beyond the original contract. One could speculate that some of this is to answer questions from the FRA in their response to the previous submission.  There is a slight pleading quality to Lazarus’ letter to the FRA. (Note: full-size text may be viewed by clicking on these illustrations.)

From Howard Lazarus to FRA Midwest Regional Manager May 26, 2017

An odd note is that the project is not shown in the attached schedule to be completed until October 2017.  How does that reconcile with a September 30 deadline, much less a June 30 deadline?  Yet presumably the City would not pay the consultants in advance of their work.  (The usual approach is that consultants issue invoices as work is done, and the City sends them to the FRA for reimbursement of the grant amount.)  It appears that the City is proposing to make itself responsible for completion of the work past the grant deadline.  All of this seems to be very creative accounting practice.

What’s  the Problem?

We recently alluded to the history of former Mayor John Hieftje’s vision with reference to the grant that was awarded for the first phase of planning a new train station.  Like most Federal grants from those golden days, this ARRA grant of $2.8 million (from the Obama stimulus of 2009) is for 80% of the cost – in this case, for the Environmental Assessment under NEPA, and some preliminary planning and engineering.  It has been the expectation that a future grant for actual construction would follow that same 80% Federal – 20% local rule.  But even 20% of a multimillion dollar building is a big bite for a small city.  So originally, the promise from Mayor Hieftje was that the City would put in NO GENERAL FUNDS.  Instead, the local match was to be picked up by the University of Michigan in a joint project, the Fuller Road Station. (Here is a post in which that promise was made explicitly). That deal fell apart and UM built a parking structure elsewhere.  Ann Arbor had already expended a fair amount of money on early planning, but that work was not accepted as a local match toward the grant, so the money was essentially wasted and new cash from the General Fund had to be invested in order to stay in the running for the grant.  The City has now spent over $1 million just in matching funds for the grant (most of this went to consultants and planners), though much more has been spent that doesn’t apply directly to that grant now.  And now it could be liable for all the sum left (about $750,000), including the 80% Federal match.

Predicting the Future of a New Station

Much of the uncertainty has been in the Federal budget process itself.  As we explained in some detail earlier, transportation funding is complex.  Part of it is based on the Highway Trust Fund – a dedicated source of revenue.  The rest is dependent on the dispensation of Congress, in money from the General Fund or from new sources of revenue.  Much of that was hanging by a thread until recently because all Federal funds were dependent on passage of a continuing resolution – which happily was passed on April 28 and signed by the President.  Here is a summary of transportation funding under that resolution. Note that some important items, namely TIGER grants and New Starts, that were to be eliminated according to the President, were saved in this extension.

Meanwhile, the President, or more accurately, the White House, presented Congress with an Executive Budget. As has always been true of Presidential budgets, this is more a policy document than an actual description of how money will finally be allocated.  Only Congress gets to appropriate money.  But it is important because it shows President Trump’s priorities and thinking.  And those priorities do not include handing money out to little cities.  Here is a revealing summary of the “Infrastructure Initiative”.  From the summary:

The flexibility to use Federal dollars to pay for essentially local infrastructure projects has created an unhealthy dynamic in which State and local governments delay projects in the hope of receiving Federal funds. Overreliance on Federal grants and other Federal funding can create a strong disincentive for non-Federal revenue generation.

Instead, the White House would move to a model in which private investors would enter into partnership with states and local governments to build or improve projects that have a revenue generation capability.  So – toll roads, transit prices high enough to pay a profit, fees for using anything. The Feds would simply facilitate all this.  The idea is so potent that investment funds along these lines have already attracted Saudi investors.

Under the very best of scenarios, Congress will pass a budget for FY 2018, to begin October 1.  All current funding will expire as of September 30.  In the past few years, Congress has failed to pass a budget at all and instead has relied on a series of continuing resolutions, which generally hold most budgets where they began, with a few small changes.  But let’s assume that they make it this time. (After all, one party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency.)  What are the chances that discretionary spending on transit will be included in the new budget, given the strong leanings by the White House and the tax-cutting mood of Congress?

A Double Gamble

So it appears that the City of Ann Arbor is placing bets on its cards for two outcomes:

  1. That it can recoup all the grant monies for the current project, against a very tough timeline
  2. That this will somehow result in the future in a new train station.

But it also appears that there is a mood of desperation at the possibility of having the effort collapse.  From Lazarus’ letter to Council:

From Howard Lazarus to Ann Arbor City Council

Rather high-stakes cards, and to my risk-averse eyes not a good bet.  Will Council raise, or fold?

 

 

 

 

Core Spaces and The Soul of Ann Arbor

April 16, 2017

It seems to have gone on forever.  But really, only for about a decade.  Now here we are, once again deciding on the fate of the Library Lot – that small precious piece of real estate next to the Ann Arbor District Library.

Rendering of proposed Core Spaces building as proposed to Council.

The Ann Arbor City Council will vote on this resolution on April 17, 2017.   It either will or will not award development rights for the Library Lot (retaining ownership of the actual land) to Core Spaces, which describes itself as “a full‐service real estate development, acquisition and management company”, and further identifies its target markets as “educational”, in other words, student-oriented.  The result will be a 17-story building, bigger than anything we could have imagined 10 years ago.

Feelings are running high and the volume of email to Council must be stupendous.  Just to make the drama more intense, because the resolution disposes of city property, it requires 8 of 11 Council votes (counting the Mayor).  Three CM have made their dislike fairly public (Eaton, Kailasapathy, Lumm).  So each one of the remaining 8 can be the one to make or break the deal.  It is generally understood that Mayor Taylor favors it.  Are all the rest committed to support it, in the face of a great deal of public opposition?  Some, especially those who are new to Council or up for re-election, are likely feeling the heat.

Why is this so important to so many?  Its importance (as measured by heat and light generated) is far more than most tall building development projects downtown.  There are many facets to the issue.  But most of all, this decision is symbolic about the direction that Ann Arbor is headed.  In many ways, it is a battle for the soul of Ann Arbor.

What Do We Want To Be?

This article from the Ann Arbor Observer (2005) outlined many issues and described the Calthorpe public process. (Click for link.)

The battle for the future of Ann Arbor has been the underpinning of our politics for over 10 years. One could argue that it began with the election of John Hieftje as Mayor in 2000, or the renewal of the DDA Charter in 2003.  That launched an emphasis on downtown development that has changed not only the appearance of Ann Arbor’s downtown, but its perceived purpose and use. There was also a shift in the objectives for the city as a whole.  We have often thought our city to be rather special, in a community-supportive, casually fun but also fairly intellectual, colorful but not in an overly contrived sort of way. See our post, What Does it Mean to be an Ann Arbor Townie. In other words, a city to serve its citizens and welcome visitors on our own terms.  But in recent years, a new agenda has been espoused by the majority on our City Council.  This is spelled out at length in The Placemaking Agenda and Ann Arbor Politics. Briefly, it is to transform the city into a cradle of entrepreneurship and enterprise, especially by attracting “talent” (young people who can start or sustain high-tech enterprises).  Much of this is based on the concept of the “Creative Class”, as described by the urbanist Richard Florida in his 2002 book.

One could argue that Ann Arbor is doing very well and is succeeding in this talent-seeking strategy.  We are listed over and over again on national lists as in the top 10 for various qualities.  Maps showing economic success usually show our Washtenaw County as standing out.  But interestingly, Richard Florida himself has had something of a change of heart. Florida’s recent book, The New Urban Crisis, recognizes that the type of “success” we have enjoyed has come with a cost to whole swaths of demographics.  As he says in a recent article,

 As techies, professionals, and the rich flowed back into urban cores, the less advantaged members of the working and service classes, as well as some artists and musicians, were being priced out….I found myself confronting the dark side of the urban revival I had once championed and celebrated…As the middle class and its neighborhoods fade, our geography is splintering into small areas of affluence and concentrated advantage, and much larger areas of poverty and concentrated disadvantage.

And a summary from another article :

America today is beset by a New Urban Crisis. If the old urban crisis was defined by the flight of business, jobs, and the middle class to the suburbs, the New Urban Crisis is defined by the back-to-the-city movement of the affluent and the educated—accompanied by rising inequality, deepening economic segregation, and increasingly unaffordable housing.

Sure enough, a graphic from the article shows that Ann Arbor is #11 on his “Urban Crisis Index”.  Do increasing economic inequality, loss of affordability in housing, and racial/class segregation sound familiar?  Washtenaw County paid good money a couple of years ago for a consultant to tell us this about ourselves.  So, Ann Arbor is succeeding as a business proposition.  Is it losing what makes it successful as a place to live?  As a community in the whole?

(Florida will be keynoting this year’s SPARK meeting on April 24.  It’ll be interesting to hear what he says about our local situation.)

The Importance of the Library Lot

So what does the Library Lot have to do with all this? Because the Library Lot belongs to the entire City of Ann Arbor, and thus presumably its public, and because the project is so wildly out of scale with the downtown historic districts that supposedly make our downtown successful, not to mention the residential neighborhood immediately to the south, and because while this is a public asset, the benefit to the Ann Arbor public has not evidently been a consideration. (No public process has been employed to arrive at this use.) For all these reasons, the debate has been more passionate than for other downtown projects.  The Ann Arbor public continue to assert ownership.  For that reason, it stands as a symbol of the decisions to be made about our downtown, and thus our city.

But many other interests have eyed this choice little bit of real estate for particular ends.  The DDA has had a single-minded intent to increase the magnitude of development in the downtown, generally.  A group of influential insiders put forth a plan as early as 2008 to build a hotel and conference center on the lot, with the DDA’s assistance.  The Library Lot Conference Center controversy and battle is recorded in this series of posts.  The effort was finally killed by Council resolution in April, 2011 after a public campaign by concerned citizens.  Meanwhile, the DDA had constructed an underground parking structure in which part of the structure was specifically reinforced to support the intended hotel.

Projection of desired building density (700 F.A.R) for Library Lot in DDA study, 2013. Purple area is unreinforced “plaza”.

Things slowed down for a bit while the Ann Arbor District Library planned to build a new library.  The new building would not have been on the Lot (the current building would first have been demolished) but doubtless the Lot would have been used for staging.  However, that bond proposal was defeated in November, 2012.   The DDA sprang to the task of planning the immediate area in a project called “Connecting William Street”.  They used a pseudo-public approach (online surveys, public meetings) which unsurprisingly arrived at the conclusion that a tall building was needed on the lot.  The plan met with derision in some quarters and the City Council declined to adopt it.  It was added to the “resource documents” for the Planning Commission in March, 2013.

In a memorably feckless act (thank you, CM Kunselman), Council passed a resolution in April 2014 to hire a real estate broker.  They put the Lot up for sale.   Although the resolution cites the Connecting William Street project, no further effort was made to establish what the Ann Arbor public saw as the best use for this site.   Further, it accepted the notion that the reinforced portion of the lot would be used for building.  So here we are.

From page 42, Downtown Development Strategies, Calthorpe Associates, 2005

The Calthorpe process, 2005, is often cited as demonstrating that there was a public process followed for the fate of this parcel.  There was a report on Downtown Development Strategies issued (many recommendations have been ignored).  It does not make a specific recommendation on the Library Lot.  However, it calls for building height to be stepped down toward the residential neighborhoods, especially that last block before William.  And it calls for a Town Square.

ADDENDUM: The Library Lot was briefly, but seriously, considered as a site for a new City Hall, a.k.a Municipal Center, in 2006.  Here is the task force report. Community Security and Public Space 2006 The report specifically notes the importance of “an outdoor gathering place” and put the Library Lot high on the alternatives for a new Municipal Center that would include a public space.

 

It’s Not Just About a Park

Admittedly, the idea of a downtown “Central Park” (or Town Square) has been a major theme of the disputes about the Library Lot.  The Library Green Conservancy has been advocating vigorously for a park on the portion of the lot without special reinforcement, and there was that whole problem with collection of signatures on petitions. The DDA has been trying to put a damper on that idea for years.  (The Connecting William Street exercise did not even acknowledge the possibility.)

It’s Not Just About the Parking

The deal has serious implications to downtown parking.  It would give away a substantial part of this expensive structure to a private enterprise. (Some historical details are here: note we will be paying interest for many years to come.)  There are also legal questions that have not been satisfactorily answered.    Read it here.  Finally, it will reduce access to downtown by its customers. Downtown business organizations have objected.

It’s About Our Downtown, Our City

Our social media and comment pages are flooded with anguished complaints and worries about this project.  It is clear that our citizens do not believe this will enhance our experience of our city and that it will likely damage the downtown.  The comments shown below are from my personal social media feeds (Facebook, Nextdoor) and are unedited but anonymous because I don’t wish to make the writers’ identity the issue.  (Click on the boxes to read at full magnification.)

 

 

 

 

 

Note that these comments are all about quality of life and the viability of our downtown businesses.  There is a concern about the resilience of this part of our community, and of course the Downtown is still the center of town, and a location that affects us all.

If Council does vote to approve this deal, they will be going against the express wishes of a substantial number of their constituents.  Based on comments in the media, it seems that they are dazzled by the cash offer.  A complication is that it will supposedly be an assist to “affordable housing”.  But the benefits in that regard are modest.  (One scenario even has the City paying over a million dollars back in order to obtain more units.)  We have not really had a city-based discussion about what we want in “affordable housing” or what our best means of achieving that are.  It seems imprudent to sell off one of our choicest assets for this purpose, especially since so many questions persist about the effects of the parking on both businesses and city finances.  If our city finances are so challenged (and they do not seem to be) we should be looking at savings or new taxes instead of selling off our real estate.

Or – is Council going to go ahead with this because of the dogma of dense development?  In that case, are they considering the health of our present community?  Or are they aiming for a different one?  If the latter, they’d better consider more carefully the consequences of their actions.  A city is a complex ecosystem.  The Council has a solemn duty here.  I hope that they vote to preserve our community.  It has so much good, still.

ADDENDUM: Here is the Ann Arbor News preview of tonight’s vote. “And the consequences of whichever way the council votes could last for generations.”  Yup.

UPDATE: The Council voted to sell the lot, 8-3.  All the usual suspects voted as anticipated.  Here is what Mayor Taylor had to say about it.  

“I love Ann Arbor the way it is. We are not Chicago or Detroit, and I don’t want to be. ”

 

 

 

 

Ann Arbor’s Fading Dream of Trains and Rail Systems

February 12, 2017

The Mayor of Ann Arbor, John Hieftje, held a convocation of area leaders on June 15, 2006, in which he outlined a broad vision of transportation for Ann Arbor and the region.   As he explained (press release), the vision would bring environmental benefits (lessen air pollution), enhance quality of life, and increase the region’s economic competitiveness.  The vision was named the Mayor’s Model for Mobility.  Its elements were an East-West Transit (commuter rail) to link communities in Southeast Michigan, as well as a North-South Rail.  There would also be a local connector system to link up the two railroads, and a streetcar system that would encompass the many sprawling campuses of the University of Michigan.  The plan was illustrated by a sketch that is positively jolly.

Mayor's_Model_for_Mobility_20060008The vision was bold and in those heady days before the economic meltdown that affected local property values (and thus local property tax revenues), it seemed not unlikely.  Hieftje at that time was at the height of his influence, with a City Council that was solidly behind him.   He had the power of appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the ear of our Congressman, John Dingell, and a strong relationship with the administration of the University of Michigan.

Since then, a lot has happened.  The economic collapse affected not only Ann Arbor, but Michigan and the nation.  There have been significant shifts in Congress and in attitudes toward transportation funding.  Prospects rose (with Obama’s election) and sank (Tea Party).  AATA (our local transit authority) put major effort into a countywide transit plan, which failed.  Then a smaller local urban transit millage succeeded.  A Regional Transit Authority centered on the Detroit Metro area was created.  Its millage failed and that effort is now in limbo.  (Some, but not all, of this history, is recorded in our posts on The Transportation Page.)

The remarkable thing is that, over a decade later and despite many discouragements, the current Mayor (Christopher Taylor) appears to be bent on fulfilling the original vision.  And its elements, especially those relating to rail travel, remain at the top of Ann Arbor’s priorities, as reflected by the Capital Improvements Plan.  But these are extremely expensive and rely on the assumption that there will be Federal grants to pay the major portions.

Looking At It With Clear Eyes

In light of recent changes, both in current transportation funding, and in the change of emphasis in the Presidency (as we indicated in the last post, the ground has shifted), how realistic is this vision now?  And how does this affect the rest of our local government initiatives, since we are presumably setting aside considerable funds in order to accomplish these decade-old objectives?

The timelines and priorities for some of the rail projects, such as the North-South rail (WALLY) and the East-West commuter rail, are more distant.  But the rail station (the Ann Arbor Station) is priorities # 1,2 and 3.  Also a very high priority is the Connector, a light rail system that will connect the UM campuses.  While the commuter rail projects and the Connector have other possible participants, the rail station is our very own.

First Comes the Train Station

The train station was part of a grant awarded to the State of Michigan from President Obama’s stimulus program.  That program, ARRA (American Resource and Recovery Act) was launched in 2009 and the availability of the funds is ending in May 2017.  Actually, the grant awarded is only to pay for the initial assessment of the site and preparation of a preliminary design and engineering review.

Mayor Christopher Taylor has consistently placed the Rail Station at the top of his list in importance for Ann Arbor.  In a recent article in the Ann Arbor News, he argued for its importance as he anticipates an increase in rail travel, including a new commuter rail service.  As described in a second article , Taylor was able to persuade a majority of his City Council to provide funds for work that cannot yet be done.

Council voted at the meeting of January 17, 2017 to allocate another $151,600 (matching funds for the ARRA grant).  As the background for the resolution states, availability of those funds is ending in May 2017.   This is awkward because the City is still awaiting a ruling from the Federal Railroad Administration as to the preferred site for a new station.  (The selection process has been arduous and there have been many delays.  More detail is available on the City website.  The two possibilities being considered are Fuller Park and the current site on Depot Street.) (Additional information and viewpoints are on the All Aboard on Depot Street website.)  Basically, the Council has now authorized funds for a contract which cannot be fulfilled at this moment but must be invoiced by May 2017.  (This is about 3 months from now, and critical information is not available.)

Money and Timelines

As always with government, much comes down to money.  How much will it cost? Where will it come from? When will it be spent?  The answers to some of these questions are in that Capital Improvement Plan mentioned earlier.  Staff takes all the information given to them and assembles timelines and cost estimates.  They also indicate some of the expected sources of the money.  But here are some important points to keep in mind.

The General Fund is the checkbook for the City’s cash flow.  It is the amount of money from property tax each year.  Most other funds in the budget are restricted to specific uses, such as roads from the road millage. If Council spends money on special projects, it is from the General Fund.  The General Fund revenues for 2016 were $83,617,342.  That’s $83.6 Million for the whole city.

Another important point is to recall that we are currently in Fiscal Year 2017.  It ends on June 30, at which point we will be in FY 2018.  Council is currently working on the budget for that FY, which will be passed in May 2017.  (Again, three months from now.)

Now look at this information from the CIP.  Note that some activities are already in process (2017).  But we have some big-ticket expectations, in a relatively short time.

Amounts from the FY 2016-2021 Capital Investment Plan. WALLY omitted.

Amounts from the FY 2016-2021 Capital Investment Plan.   WALLY omitted.

According to this, we’ll be building a train station in the next fiscal year (begins in July 2017)   And we’ll put more than 10% of the General Fund into this one project.

I don’t believe it either.  And there are other details.  The remainder of that $44.5 million is supposed to come from a Federal grant.  (Money has not been allocated.)  And I’m guessing that part of our General Fund amount is hoped to come from the State of Michigan.  AAATA is being tasked with a grant for some of the Connector expenses, but they have a hard time making all their current expenses.  The University of Michigan, on the other hand, has committed to major expenditures for the Connector, but this is not shown here.  Still, the mere scale of these commitments is breathtaking.

In the next post, more details about transportation funding as it might affect this project.  But meanwhile, all this is hard to take in.  Will we really rearrange our city priorities to accommodate this heavy a drain?  Are the uncertainties being considered?  How will it affect the budget (that has to take in all other City considerations) that is under preparation?  How much will this vision affect our reality?

UPDATE: At the February 13, 2017 Council Working Session, the City Administrator, Howard Lazarus, presented a slide showing new projections for the CIP.  It indicates $500,000 for the Ann Arbor Station for FY 2018 and $13 Million for FY 2019, with the cryptic notation, “New revenue or financing”.  For the Connector, it shows $600,000 for FY 2019, with nothing for FY 2018.  For FY 2020 and beyond, we now see $10 Million for the City alone, with the funding noted as “tbd”.

So Where are We Now with Ann Arbor’s Deer?

December 30, 2016

The last three years have been the Early Period for Ann Arbor’s deer debate.  Now there is a coherent plan for deer management and a page containing historical documents on the Ann Arbor City website – quite a long story.  We posted extensively about this issue through 2015.  Those posts and other articles and resources may be found on our page, What Do We Do About the Deer.  2017 will be busy. In a special session on November 14, 2016, Council approved several resolutions to make the management plan operable.   According to the Ann Arbor News, officials are still awaiting permit approvals by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR).  Maps showing where a sterilization program will be conducted have also been published.

For several decades, the white-tailed deer have been appearing around the edges of the city. But as of early 2014, they became numerous enough to be real pests.  As the numbers of the animals began to intrude on more and more human lives, there was an organized effort to limit their effects on gardens, natural area vegetation and automobile crash incidents.  Their impact on parks and natural areas in Washtenaw County was recognized by the WC Parks & Recreation Commission in early 2014. In May 2014, Ann Arbor’s City Council directed the City Administrator to prepare a report on deer management in partnership with other entities.

Numbers of DVDs in Ann Arbor City between 2005 and 2015. Source: Michigan Traffic Crash Facts.

Numbers of DVCs in Ann Arbor City between 2005 and 2015. Source: Michigan Traffic Crash Facts.

As the account in the Ann Arbor Chronicle about that Council meeting indicates, one impetus to raising the problem of the increasing deer population was the slow increase in the number of deer-vehicle crash incidents.  These are reported in Michigan via a website, “Michigan Traffic Crash Facts“, whose data is from safety (law enforcement) personnel.  (There is always a delay after the end of a calendar year in publishing the totals for the previous year, so as of today’s writing we must wait for a couple of months before we know the totals for 2016.)  By 2014, DVCs in Ann Arbor had increased by 30% from the previous decade.  Last year, there was a major jump in numbers of crashes.  We’ll be watching to see if 2016’s number indicates a trend or that this was an aberration.

A single doe and her offspring over 5 years. Males are not shown.

A single doe and her offspring over 5 years. Males are not shown.

So why do we need a deer management program?  Because of their explosive reproductive capability.  As we explained in detail in our post, Deer and the Numbers Explosion, deer will increase their numbers exponentially if left unchecked.  In the early years, one only notices that there are more deer around than in the past.  Suddenly 10 deer are camping out in your backyard.  This increase in numbers has many effects on the immediate territory.

The common white trillium is used as an indicator of deer herbivory. Photo by B. Ball, courtesy of the UM Herbarium.

The common white trillium is used as an indicator of deer herbivory. Photo by B. Ball, courtesy of the UM Herbarium.

  1. Plant herbivory: Most plants (or at least their edible parts) are consumed.  This causes damage to gardens and landscapes, and natural areas where native plant communities are being maintained are severely altered. As we explained in Deer and the Flowers of the Earth, wildflowers are beautiful and a source of delight for visitors, but they are also extremely important in the survival of the entire wild community.   Plants are “foundational” in a wild ecosystem and without them, nothing lives, even the deer.  Fifth Ward councilmember Chuck Warpehoski has expressed this beautifully in his recently updated post.
  2. Deer-vehicle crashes: As we have already noted, DVCs increase with increasing population.  To date, we have not had any crashes locally where a human has been killed, but there has been considerable dollar damage to automobiles and the potential for human injury is certainly there.
  3. Lyme Disease:  Deer have a complex relationship with this disease.  They provide a blood meal for black-legged ticks, the vector for this bacterial disease, and help carry the tick into new territory.  Also, their plant herbivory often favors an understory full of Japanese barberry.  Deer don’t eat this thorny shrub and it provides an ideal habitat for the white-footed mouse, the main host for the tick.  Mice multiply under the canopy of the low shrub and help carry the tick and its bacterial rider into new territory.

Lyme disease is known as an “emerging disease” in Michigan.  It has been moving into new areas of the state. When the deer problem was first highlighted in 2014, it was thought to be a couple of counties west of Washtenaw.  Now there are recognized cases in our county.  We are all at risk.   I hope that our governments provide adequate education so that people can recognize the disease and seek immediate treatment.   Here is a good place to start.

2016_lyme_risk_map_485658_7

UPDATE:   The City of Ann Arbor has now posted an explanation of the 2017 deer management programA somewhat more easily accessed account was published by MLive. 

Here is the deer management map.  Note that some residential areas are targeted for participation in the nonlethal program. Also note that without fanfare, some UM properties have been included in the lethal culling program.

SECOND UPDATE: The University of Michigan made some of its properties available for the cull for the first time this year, eliciting some cries of anguish from the opposition.  Here is an explanation from the University Record of the program from the UM perspective.

THIRD UPDATE: On March 8, 2017, there will be a lecture program addressing the problem of deer herbivory from an experimental and data-oriented viewpoint. The two presenters are both experienced with direct testing of deer-wild flora interactions.  Jacqueline Courteau is a wildlife biologist and consultant, and Paul Muelle has been the manager of natural resources at a major park (Huron-Clinton Metroparks) through a time that culling and vegetation assessment have been practiced to maintain the parks’ resources.  Here is the full announcement about the talk.  It will be at the Matthei Botanical Gardens, 6:45 p.m. on March 8.