Ann Arbor's city income tax proposal topic of discussion at meetings this week
The Ann Arbor City Council has scheduled a work session for 7 p.m. Thursday to discuss whether to put a city income tax proposal on the November ballot.
The meeting will be in the board room on the fourth floor of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. The City Council is expected to make a final decision Aug. 17.
If the proposal is approved by voters, commuters would pay 0.5 percent of their taxable incomes and Ann Arbor residents would pay 1 percent of their taxable incomes. City officials say it could raise $7.6 million in new revenues, even after factoring in the loss of the city's operating millage, which would be eliminated if an income tax is enacted.
As city officials ponder the proposal, the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce is gathering information from its members this week. The chamber has posted a nine-question survey online to help gauge interest in the matter.
The Chamber also announced on its Web site it will be hosting two roundtable discussions for members to discuss the issue this week before the City Council makes a decision.
Tuesday from noon to 1 p.m. Sue Biondi of Wright Griffin Davis and Co. will answer questions. Wednesday from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. Alan Lapczynsky and Cynthia Coleman of Yeo & Yeo CPAs & Business Consultants will answer questions.
Both meetings will be at the Chamber of Commerce, 115 W. Huron St.
Comments
Worker Bee
Tue, Sep 15, 2009 : 9:41 a.m.
Taxing employees who work in Ann Arbor but live outside AA is a terrible idea. It's bad for AA because it creates a burdensome regime for businesses, which will have to collect and remit city taxes for their non-resident employees. Detroit's non-resident income tax is a powerful statement on that score, as it has discouraged many companies from even considering Detroit as a place to locate their facilities. It's also immensely unfair to tax non-residents, as city services are overwelmingly provided to residents only (police, fire, libraries, waste removal, animal control, etc.) Non-resident employees are customers of AA businesses, including restaurants, parking garages, stores, and other AA businesses -- why would you want to chase them away?
clan
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 12:33 p.m.
Not long after Detroit imposed an income tax, the big law offices in downtown buildings began opening satellite offices in surrounding communities. A number of them opened offices in Ann Arbor. Many of the lawyers, secretaries and other help lived outside of the city anyway. The downtown operations took up much less room than before and office building occupancy declined, thus cutting the taxable value of the properties. A similar result is possible here if city council adopts the income tax proposal. Although the tax isn't enough to cause a lot of sudden moves, over time the downtown office buildings may find it harder to find tenants. We may see new office buildings in Pittsfield and Scio Townships. Further, the more expensive homes in Ann Arbor could become less desirable and decrease in taxable value. It seems questionable that the instant tax surge will last more than a few years. I suspect that the city may no longer be popular for retirement communities such as Glacier Hills. It seems that the income tax would promote more sprawl. Aren't we supposed to be against sprawl?
Ming Bucibei
Tue, Aug 11, 2009 : 8:55 p.m.
no new taxes nor tax increases!! pitchforks and torches cut cut cut cut everything and yet these fools are wasting money on new cityhall green belt etc etc... spend spend spend with no sense and no control!! ming bucibei
Diagenes
Tue, Aug 11, 2009 : 5:05 p.m.
No on a city income tax. Ypsi was smart enough to reject it, so should we. A city income tax will drive out business and residents. The only people working and living in A2 will be government employees on all levels. Just like Detroit where 40% of residents work for some level of government.
DagnyJ
Tue, Aug 11, 2009 : 1:13 p.m.
I agree with so much of what has been said here. Sell Huron Hills golf course immediately. Sell it to get it back on the tax rolls. So what if the rich Ann Arbor Hills folks don't like it. How about the rest of the city? Contract out for trash collection. We probably more for trash collection than anywhere else. Get rid of the Greenbelt millage, or have a referendum to get it repurposed to pay for recreation facilities. Let developers develop properties. Get out of the way of change. Forget about the Greenway. Think really hard about the low cost to use municipal facilities for out of town folks. Raise fees for those not in the city. Review the property assessments in different neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods (the most expensive) are quite undervalued. But the first thing: Sell the golf course. It is a waste.
STeve Andre'
Tue, Aug 11, 2009 : 12:54 p.m.
To Northmaple: I'd like to see every single function of city government gone over, to determine its benefits vs. costs. The first, if trivial example is that of dog licensing, and then bicycle licenses. What help are they to the community? None, really. Before you decry a lost pet without any identification on it, I'd like to point out that it should be the owners responsibility to 1) keep the animal under control, 2) there are lots of options to identify animals that we didn't have 10 years ago, 3) The net provides an excellent way of being able to search for the owner of a lost dog. I have not looked, but if there isn't already a database for lost pets, one could be created. It is time to rethink every function of government. It gets exponentially harder the farther up the governmental hierarchy but at the local level I think it can be done. --STeve Andre' andres@msu.edu
Mark Hergott
Tue, Aug 11, 2009 : 10:56 a.m.
The fact is, Michigan has been in a 0ne-state recession for a decade. Ann Arbor was able to weather the storm due to the University. Now that the University is no longer completely beneficial, the council wants to tax it. The University has a Dearborn campus. It has unions that don't want their incomes taxed. Trying to tax U-M instead of cutting spending will only result in U-M doing its best to leave Ann Arbor. Income taxes don't get repealed. U-M can spend decades getting itself out of Ann Arbor. Don't tell me it can't do it. You cut spending during a recession, and you don't spend every dime during the good times. Ann Arbor has failed to follow that simple mantra. Blaming city unions for that or the University for developing what was sure to be a vacant blighted campus is demagoguery. Cut. Spending.
Jesse Bernstein
Tue, Aug 11, 2009 : 8:49 a.m.
I agree with several of the points made by racerx. How do you propose we manage parking, if not by the DDA, a semi-autonomous branch of government? It funds itself through parking fees and provides many benefits to the city such as the goPass, bicycle racks, making curbs accessible. The city has made cuts over the last 9 years - Jerome should note that there are over 25% fewer employees since the study he cited was published. We need a process to discuss what we want government to do (at all levels) and then look at how we should pay for it. Many of our operating structures are hundreds of years old and need to be updated, but we are afraid of real change. The Chamber is doing its job of educating its members and the public regarding policy options. The Chamber may develop a policy statement after they have more information, including a survey of its members.
racerx
Tue, Aug 11, 2009 : 5:23 a.m.
Outsource garbage pickup. This should result in some savings in both salaries and benefits. Sell Huron Hills Golf course and return the land for tax generating purposes, this course has been a money loser for decades. Stop purchasing land for the Greenbelt. How does this benefits the city as a whole when times are tough financially? Reduce staff salaries by a certain percentage as businesses does. Get out of the development business, i.e. parking lots, YMCA building. Find a better way to develop properties, i.e. Lower Town, YMCA, both of these ill-fated projects has cost the city money. Sell land, 721 N. Main St., 415 W. Washington and other vacant lots to tax generating entities. It seems the income tax is an easy out without city leaders having the guts to make the tough decisions. Sadly, this is where council, mayor and administrators are failing. But, we have $40M for a new city hall, while our roads and bridges crumble! And it's surprising to think that the Chamber of Commerce is even remotely thinking about this.
YpsiLivin
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 9:47 p.m.
It's time for the City Council to make tough decisions, including cutting the City budget to match current tax revenues instead of increasing tax revenues to match the current City budget. Leigh Greden's loss should serve as a warning to the rest of the City Council: support a city income tax at your own peril. Publicly supporting a city income tax is effectively submitting your letter of resignation. Now spine up and cut the budget. That's what you were elected to do.
Ryan Munson
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 9:30 p.m.
I live in the city and work near downtown. I'm not for it. Cya on Thursday!
WorriedGal
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 6:31 p.m.
Yes - if and ONLY IF there is a very large personal exemption, on the order of $10,000 per person in the household. Anything less is a gross insult to the lower paid workers who work in Ann Arbor and who would like to live here but cannot afford to. Ann Arbor has a reputation as a progressive city; let's not create another regressive tax.
Cosmonican
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 6:25 p.m.
How much would the bottom line change if we kept the property tax, but annexed Barton Hills?
The Grinch
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 5:50 p.m.
For those who say "no" or who "want to shrink government by a few percent" (which is what has been happening in A2 and around the state for the last decade), what, exactly, do you want to do away with?
NorthMaple
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 5:47 p.m.
The biggest question I would ask is, "What are the other viable alternatives?" I hear a lot of talk about income taxes, but I have not heard what the other options are, including potential service cuts that could occur if the income tax isn't passed.
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 5:18 p.m.
Here's a link to the city's report on the income tax from its consultant. Toward the end, it has some useful charts to help figure out whether you would pay more or less after an income tax is enacted depending on the worth of your home in Ann Arbor (if you have one) and your income. http://www.annarbor.com/Ann%20Arbor%20Income%20Tax%20Study%20Final%202009.pdf We're just scratching at the surface of this issue and we will be going more in-depth if this proposal does end up going on the ballot.
Hiram
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 4:56 p.m.
I will support city tax increase but only for non-resident.
David Wallner
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 4:34 p.m.
In order to get out of the economic mess we are currently in taxes need to stay as low as possible and government expenses need to be cut as much as possible. Last week a speed hump was constructed at Independence and Gladstone which is already an ways stop. This kind of waste can be eliminated.
STeve Andre'
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 4:29 p.m.
No. Let us shrink government by a few percent instead.
John Galt
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 4:18 p.m.
NO WAY! Discriminates against renters and discourages business from locating in Ann Arbor.
Mark Hergott
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 3:39 p.m.
This would be regressive. The individuals that can ill afford to pay one per cent of their income will be the most hurt, and the individuals that can most afford to pay one per cent of their income will get a break on their property taxes. Until, of course, that drop in income from their property taxes needs to be recouped due to no commensurate drop in spending. Blaming the university for the problems of city spending is demagoguery. The university has not paid taxes since 1817, why is it suddenly now a problem? Cut. Spending.
Jerome
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 3:28 p.m.
Mr. Vielmetti, it was very good that you pointed out that the article that I referenced in my above post was written in 2000. However, I might still like to discuss that things really have not changed all that much since then. In fact, some out there might agree, that in some areas, things actually have gotten worse.
David Bardallis
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 3:28 p.m.
In a word: No.
Cosmonican
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 3:26 p.m.
Sorry City Gov't -- no tax until you fix the whopping handout this provides corporations, and either force commensurate rent reductions, or a rebate for renters based on a percentage of their rent. Don't forget that a lot of renters have no income, they're students, and based on this proposal should be exempt from both the income tax and the property tax -- and should not be expected to provide a windfall profit to the city's landlords.
Top Cat
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 3:16 p.m.
This is a waste of time. If they put it on the ballot, it will be voted down overwhelmingly. People have had it will tax increases. The Council would be more productive if they went back to emailing jokes back and forth to one another.