ybecuz

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 6:11 p.m.

@Dalouie Another victim of believing what you want to hear instead of the facts that exist. Act 312 provides for binding arbitration to resolve labor disputes for public safety. The criteria used are the ability to pay, parity between departments, and comparisons with comparable departments of like size and costs. After all efforts have been exhausted to negotiate, the two sides tender their final offers. The arbitrator must choose one or the other last best offer. They cannot come up with "something in the middle". Each item that is arbitrated is a separate case unto itself and each item is costed separately. The total cost of arbitration can be upwards of $100k depending on the number of items in dispute. Now here is the sad part for all of the misinformed. There is no favorite in the process. The historical outcomes show a 50/50 split in awards. Depending on the arbitrator, sometimes there is no rhyme or reason why decisions are made. I'll agree that the unions win when maybe they shouldn't, but this is also the case for the municipalities. The LAST thing anyone wants is to go to arbitration. It is expensive and the results are sure to disappoint. That is why 95% of all contracts are settled prior to this last resort. The new spin for the anti-labor camp is that 312 is evil and is the only reason for these outrageous pay scales of $25 an hour for public safety. The other great misconception is the cost of the defined benefit programs used for retirees. Over the last 22 years, our cost to the municipality has averaged 9.4% of payroll with an accompanying 5-7% by the employee. The fact that the very nature of a DB plan is far superior to that of a DC plan doesn't mean that people should vilify them because of their success in providing a great pension benefit. Please get your facts straight before posting mere opinions.

Dalouie

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 2:56 p.m.

Thank you Ed. A big parking lot is down. Townie: Very clever picking out one month and one quarter to compare. In the 3rd quarter of 09 the Library Lot was still in action, not so in 2010. Go down one more page and you see a bigger slice than just one month or 1/4. Compare the 1st three quarters of 2009 with 2010 and you see a different story. 2009 = 1,452,122 2010 = 1,600,808 an increase of 148,686 or 10.24% Or parking revenues: Up $653,000 over the same period. More people are using the parking lots, structures and meters. I think the waiting list for a permit is still up around a 1,000.

townie

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 2:19 p.m.

Ed: So what's your point? The totals I gave were for the system as a whole. If demand was increasing every month as asserted by another commenter, would not these 21,433 hourly patrons lost to construction have been picked up (and then some) elsewhere in the system?

townie

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 1:47 p.m.

"You should check the DDA reports that are on line. Parking is going up every month!" Thanks for the tip, Dalouie... http://www.a2dda.org/resources/agendas__minutes/#ddaminutes Per the packet for the May 5th DDA meeting: Hourly parking patrons, March 2009: 203,747 Hourly parking patrons, March 2010: 158,575 That's a 22% drop in hourly parkers for March 2010 compared to March 2009. The FY 2010 3rd Quarter shows a drop in hourly parkers of almost 4% compared to the 3rd Quarter last year. Rate increases will only sustain a decrease in the number of parkers for so long, and may in fact "drive" them away.

Lou Perry

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 12:31 p.m.

Last week, with the gloom, cold temperatures, and seemingly constant rain, I took time to cuddle up with a fascinating book The 348-page proposed City of Ann Arbor Budget. I do not have any municipality experience, but as a former Chief Operating Officer of a Fortune 500 company, I found it a budget were easy Machete slashes was used rather than a scalpel. Funds were added without strong reason in a city that is in the hole for $1.5 million. City government heretofore lived in what I call Fantasyland. No one in city government or council has any experience in dealing with less rather than more and I get the feeling those managing the city, say, thats a big number for police and fire, lets cut some out of that. The shortfall is more significant than a one-year blimp. There is no reason to assume the citys revenues will increase in the near future, however, the city must be protected, services must continue maintaining of the most livable cities in America. Fantasyland management in what is now Realityland needs a different discipline. Mr. Fraser and his team have made some excellent moves in reducing costs and increasing revenue, but the moves are not enough. A few years ago I asked the Mayor Hieftje how can it be that we pay people, who write parking tickets, having a starting salary, plus benefits of more than $30,000. As a reference, the same job in New York City, cost of living 3 times Ann Arbors, has a starting salary of $24,000. The Ann Arbor officers also patrol hedges, well kept yards, etc. The New York City Meter/Traffic team also directs traffic, and in New York, thats like being a rodeo clown. It just doesnt make sense to me; does it make sense to you? On my Sunday live radio program this week, Roger Fraser taught me a bit about how city government creates its budget. Different departments summit a proposed budget and submitted to Roger, he makes tweaks and then the mayor who is chair of the city council takes a cut. The council can then move the dollars around less here and more there. The common denominator is prior budgets without dissected the worth. Here is an example from the proposed budget, with a $1.5 million shortfall that has no rhyme or reason to me and with no detail to support the decision. Community Services Area Planning & Development Services has a line item labeled Other Services. The forecasted amount for 2010 is $343,700. For 2011, the budget is $498,663. An increase of 45%. The stated reason is The increase is a result of an increase in costs for Fleet Maintenance & Repair, Fleet Fuel, and Fleet Depreciation. Has every other municipality increased their budget by 45%? How can costs increase almost half of last years budget? Has the line items been evaluated for privatizing? Why hasnt all the city vehicles maintenance been combined into one motor pool? That makes sense to me after having managed a major trucking company. Logic and experience tells me you can save money. When I asked the mayor about combining, I got an existential explanation. Lets take that machete out and cut 30 officers from police a fire. Its easy with a machete big expense, slash it. On my radio program about a month ago, Ann Arbors Police Chief Barnett Jones, a distinguished police officer with broad experience throughout Michigan, said he is deeply concerned that these cuts would make the city less safe and it keeps him up at night. City management has, to my knowledge came to the decision without research. I called Berkley, CA and other cities our size and college towns with similar populations. The proposed cuts are not in line with any called. That isnt managing the city, thats cutting because cutting is needed without facts to back-up the decision. Mr. Fraser told me that 9-years ago, UofM increased its own Safety/Police staff so we should be able to reduce ours. For every significant incident reported, there is always an Ann Arbor Police involvement. UofM does not have a fire department and doesnt pay Ann Arbor, taxes to my knowledge. It will interesting, and possible costly, to see what happens with tonights Council meeting.

Dalouie

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 11:01 a.m.

FF: I understand that not everyone keeps up with the excellent reporting on this site but there was considerable information on this point last year. The largest category of money in the art fund comes from utilities, sewer and water main replacements, etc. That is restricted money but it can be used for something related to those areas. Thus you have recycling of storm water in the art piece along with art. There is no money in the art fund that could be used to pay for police and fire. This was gone over and over on this very site and covered by Ryan Stanton. From what I read the money for the courts building project that you note was never intended to be paid out the construction budget. It was always going to be added on, it's not a cost overrun at all. The point though is that one of the worst things a government can do is spend their capital money on operating expenses. The operating budget should be balanced by income, not money taken from the capital budget. So even if they were not spending $1.3 million on security and other high tech gear needed for the court house and police station, they should not spend it on the Fire or Police operating budget. What would they do next year? No shell game, just following sound accounting rules and staying away from conspiracy theories.

CityFF

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 10:23 a.m.

Dalouie you have had the wool pulled over your eyes. Here is one example. I get that the art money comes from the building fund and the building fund can't be used to pay for firefighters. So we get an almost $1 million water fountain. BUT in the new budget there is $1.3 million in "cost overuns" for the new building. That money could be used for firefighters but instead it's going to the building. If they weren't spending $1 million in art they wouldn't need the $1 milion from the general fund for cost overuns thus freeing it up for public safety. One of many examples of the shell games they play with money.

Dalouie

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.

Townie: How about just if I pull just one thread to unravel your conspiracy theories? You should check the DDA reports that are on line. Parking is going up every month! Just because you won't get out of your car don't deny the rest of us a new rail station and the new rail service that is coming. Why exactly do you think they held the big meeting in Ypsi with Congressmen and the Secretary of Transportation as covered on this site? Was it just for show? The city council made them come? Guess they have a lot of clout after all. It is just silly to say that somehow A2 is not subject to the same economic forces as other Michigan cities. The city just lost 5% of their property tax revenue and that hits this year, plus the biggest private employer, 40% of the land is non-taxable, and yet a police officer has never been laid off. What other city has to take care of 2500 acres of parkland the voters told them to acquire? Revenue sharing is way, way down and yet the A2 city gov. just keeps perking along. The fire union chief says the staffing cuts can be handled and you don't believe him? You don't believe the Fire Chief either? Are they both in on the plot to unravel public safety... another conspiracy? Why would they do that?

townie

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 9:30 a.m.

"The Fuller Station will be funded with federal transportation dollars or only the UM. They have said repeatedly they won't use general fund $$." Mayor and Council have already siphoned off hundreds of thousands of dollars from the general fund (first laundered through the economic development fund) to pay for environmental studies and other pre-construction work on the Fuller Parking Structure. The agreement with UM calls for the City to chip in up to $10 million in construction costs in return for 200 parking spaces ($50,000 per parking space). How much housing could you build near the UM hospital for that kind of money? Housing that could provide for employees of the hospital with no commute at all, other than a short walk or bike ride. No federal dollars are imminent for the pipe dream "Phase 2" of rail service, which no one has even bothered to study for feasibility (in terms of potential ridership). SEMCOG has been trying for years and has failed. If the City is determined to provide land to UM for a parking structure, then just sell it to UM and be done with it. Yes, you'll have to take it to the voters, but then there wouldn't need to be all this back-room dealing and manipulation of the meaning of parkland. Why can't Da Mayor just stand up and say, "Look, UM needs/wants a parking structure near the hospital. We don't want it on Wall Street. We also need money. Let's sell them this little piece of parkland next to the railroad tracks that has been used as a parking lot for some time, and sell it to generate some funding for the rest of our parks." If the voters say no, well then, that's then end of it, but at least we'll be able to trust what we're being told. The police/courts building was partially funded (on paper) with $3,000,000 of ghost money that was supposed to come from a speculative development on First Street, called the City Apartments. That $3,000,000 has not come through, despite numerous extensions of the agreement with the developer, and likely will not come through. Therefore the City (general fund) is now going to have to borrow this $3,000,000. How does that factor in to this alleged savings in rent money? Percent for Art could easily be disbanded by a vote of City Council and all money that has been siphoned off from other funds, including a small amount from the general fund, could be returned to those funds. Money that is in funds that are not restricted by millages, could then be transferred to other funds as needed. This would be the responsible thing in hard times. The underground parking structure was paid for with general obligation bonds. The plan is to have parking revenue (across the system) pay for these bonds, but if revenue does not meet expectations (the number of parkers was way down recently), and the City keeps raiding DDA coffers, then taxpayers (and the general fund) are on the hook for paying off these bonds. Parking rate and fine increases may temporarily increase revenue, but they may also drive people out of the parking system. Ann Arbor is doing better than other Michigan cities, as it has for generations thanks to UM and the two hospitals, and a very high property tax rate. We could be doing far better with more responsible fiscal management, dedication to basic services, and abandonment of politician's pet projects. Everything I've read indicates that we have barely enough fire-fighters to handle one major fire. God forbid we should have more than one at the same time.

Dalouie

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 7:40 a.m.

The interesting thing to me is that all the grippers here know the facts but ignore them on purpose for their own political reasons. The city needed a new courts building when the county ended the lease in the county court house. It is funded with $800 in saved rent and money from the DDA that can only be spent downtown. The city looked at 10 other sites but none could meet the security requirements. What else could they do when the lease was up? The Fuller Station will be funded with federal transportation dollars or only the UM. They have said repeatedly they won't use general fund $$. The bike path is funded by a grant. The percent for art program has been hashed over many times. None of the money came from the the general fund. It cannot be used to fund FF's unless you want them to break the law. The new parking structure is all parking money, no property tax dollars and the largest share of the parking money comes from the spaces in the structure itself, no structure, no funding stream. No one need be laid off, there are seven FF who could retire but if all the stations remain open and response times are not impacted one could ask: Do we have too many Fire Fighters? The question the grippers can't answer is why they keep picking at Ann Arbor when every city in the state is hurting? Most are in much worse shape. In fact, A2 is doing much better than other cities even with 40% of the land non-taxable and without raising the millage in at least 10 years and with the loss of Pfizer and 5% of property tax revenue.

Awakened

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 6:47 a.m.

@CityFF When you give the school bully your lunch money he will always be back for more. Making concessions under threat of layoffs is the same thing. Now it sounds like you are wondering why the bully is back. Other City Unions should take the opportunity to negotiate fair concessions AFTER the budget is set and layoffs for their people are off the table. This will help preserve the membership AND give them the moral high ground. Even more high ground when the City spends the money saved on silly projects...which they will. But I think the FF's have guaranteed layoffs with their concession.

CityFF

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 4:29 a.m.

Please take a second today and think about the 4 firefighters that are about to have their lives turned upside down. Our newest and youngest people are about to be shown the door. We all understand that times are tight and things have to be done but this does not. These 4 were hired within the last 2 years and now we say we don't need you? They all left good paying jobs to come here. This is a crappy way to do buisness. Fraser has an $80 million budget but cant find enough to keep 4 more positions that he approved to hire?

Cendra Lynn

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 10:46 p.m.

Don't know whether I qualify as one of jcj's pie in the sky liberal voters, but ousting these Republicans in Democrats' clothing certainly seems a good place to start. We've had almost a decade of yeah-sayers following the Heiftje-Fraser diversion of money from basic needs to unneeded development, some of which is already starting to go into foreclosure. People running against incumbents in the Democratic primaries are citizens who have been activly studying these problems for several years. They know where the money and skeletons are hidden. They intend to bring us back to honest and transparent government.

logo

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 10:14 p.m.

Jaxie: I bet you are talking about the sidewalk down Washtenaw. I have to differ with you. My family and neighbors think this a wonderful idea. Just try getting to the Whole Foods, Borders complex with kids on bikes or on foot. At present you have to cross Washtenaw and then use the path on the other side then cross back at Huron Parkway. It is ridiculous that there is no sidewalk on both sides of a five lane road filled with speeding cars. I really doubt the city hired anyone extra to plan or build this sidewalk and the cost is as you note, covered by a grant! If Ann Arbor does not take the grant it goes to some other city to improve their quality of life and provide jobs. Its like the people who oppose getting federal money for rail improvements. Just because you drive everywhere and have a steady job you don't want the investment that will build stations, put trains on the track and provide jobs. You're right about winning awards. Ann Arbor wins awards all the time as one of the best places to live... because it is! The people running the city are doing a fine job.

Dalouie

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 8:42 p.m.

Stephanie: Lowering the millage was one of the first actions taken by the mayor back in 2000. Looking back I wish he hadn't done it, the city could use that money ($2 million per year?) in this terrible economic downturn. Since then the portion of the property tax millage that the city controls (29%) has gone down further.

stephanie

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 6:26 p.m.

Not once, anywhere has the city council considered lowering our taxes. It is just incomprehensible to them to manage the budget responsibly.

jaxie

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 5:34 p.m.

Val Losse, you raise an important point. There are employees in city government who spend time executng the pet projects of our elected officials. When a pet project comes up the mayor and council move forward with a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." At a national level these are usually referred to as pork barrel projects. Let me suggest one small example. This summer the city will build a largely redundant bicycle path. It is redundant insomuch as there is a similar path already in place on the other side of the street - 40 to 100 feet away. It will cost over a million dollars. The million-plus costs comes from a state grant. However, once built it will need to be maintained for many year to come. It also requires planners and coordinators in city government bloating departmentts, thus requiring more managers, office space, desks, etc. In my book there is little comparison between the need for a redundent bicycle path and the safety protection provided by police and fire personnel. Who primarily benefits from a redundent path: the mayor and some council members who personally suppport it perhaps because it will bring praises from whoever ranks cities with respect to myriad conveniences - remember there already is a path in excellent condition. Is there really a pressing need for two parallel paths that will burden the city with maintenaince and other costs for years to come? This is just one example of the thinking of the powers that be to move ahead with pork barrel spending. What there is a need for is efforts to trim the budget - a.k.a. smaller government. Lamentingly, this is one example of Ann Arbor's Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere project. How many other such projects does our local government support?

Stephen Landes

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 4:20 p.m.

Re: reducing building permit and inspection fees In my opinion the permit and inspection fee structure does not inhibit construction in the city. The inhibitor, as had been described on AnnArbor.com over the last few months, is the lengthy and uncertain approval process for new projects. License and permit fees should be sufficient to cover the actual provision of those services: real inspectors making real inspections in a timely manner to protect the interests of all parties. Establishing a review process that assures a solid answer to the permit application within a fixed number of days would be a better incentive to builders and developers than saving a few dollars on a major project. That's my opinion, but I would like to hear where builders and developers come down on this issue.

nowayjose

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 3:52 p.m.

I think the only thing that would make this article better, would be to have a picture of a park with tire marks that has nothing to do with police or fire layoffs. Oh, wait. Guess I didn't scroll down far enough

irritated

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 3:06 p.m.

If I were in the firefighters union I would never again agree to take any concessions based on idle threats made by the city. This is not the first time the city has threatened to layoff FF and in the eleventh hour they suddenly come up with money to save jobs. The police were smart to hold out because now they get the benefits without having to give up anything. Perhaps the FF union should ask the city to reimburse them there 4% which obviously was not needed to save jobs back in December.

Ryan J. Stanton

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 2:09 p.m.

@ DagnyJ Here's a link to our story last month on the saving of Mack Pool and the senior center.

jcj

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 1:22 p.m.

For me the bottom line is we will not have the drastic reductions in police and fire fighters! I do not agree with very many decisions this council makes. But don't get so caught up in making your point that you are unwilling to acknowledge even the smallest of things done by council for the good! I certainly do not look at council as saviors or heroes. And I doubt even they have much hope that this will save their jobs next election. The problem is that this town is so full of pie in the sky liberal voters that while we may see some changes on council it will be business as usual filled with a different group of council persons unwilling to make the tough choices. But I am happy that the amount of officers and fire fighters will not be drastically cut. To make this all about the unions is the wrong approach. That does not mean we should not make demands of all the unions in this economic slump. But everyone needs to pay the price starting at the top.

DagnyJ

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 1:22 p.m.

@Tim Darton: So explain the senior center/Mack Pool save.....

Ryan J. Stanton

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.

@Val Losse The second link in this story links to an overview of the budget. And if you scroll down to the comments page there, you can see a link to the actual budget document, which is hundreds of pages long.

logo

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 1:16 p.m.

The city budget is online at the city site. The DDA $$ have been there for six years now. Don't see how the $$ could go away, in the end, the city controls the DDA. Looks like they won't lay off any police and fire. At least not more than they need. The Homeless Shelter is run by the non-profit Shelter Assoc. It is owned by the county.

Val Losse

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 12:23 p.m.

How can anyone of us make any comments on the budget? We have no real information on it. It is supposed to be public but do they put on the internet? Not that I know of. What about next year? Will the DDA give the City another 2 million dollars? Why is the City laying off fire and police when they are part of my safety living in the City? How about the clerks, maintenance, landscape architect, bicycle path coordinator, etc. I can do without them but the City cannot do without the safety people. Does anybody know how to get the budget so we can see what is in it? We should close the homeless shelter since there are no Ann Arbor residence in it.

Dalouie

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 12:07 p.m.

Ms Sydney: The Union Pres. said the cuts were manageable. If the Fire Chief agrees, what's the problem? You want to pay for more people than the city needs to be safe in the worst economy in 80 years? If I remember right the buyout in the PD last year pays for itself in 1 1/2 years because it moved out the higher paid Officers and kept the number of cops on patrol the same. Sounds like a good deal for all. The city didn't have to lay off police officers. And they prepaid the impact on the pension fund and retiree health care. It gets rid of desk jockeys, keeps the same number of police on patrol and saves money. Pension changes need union approval and again you run into Act 312. Good luck. ________________________ Townie: What is happening in other Michigan cities has everything to do with it. Ann Arbor is subject to all the same forces as other cities, maybe more so, A2's biggest business does not pay taxes. Timing: The city has been getting the $2 million in parking money for 5 years, the DDA extended the contract after a long discussion at a televised meeting. You don't think the city should use parking money to pay cops and firefighters? Lay them off instead? Just say it? The city is after Federal $$ for the Fuller Station. Who would they sell to anyway? Amtrak, UM, AATA? All will be using the station. There is a percent for art program in 20 states and countless cities. It doesn't take money that could be spent on police and fire. If you are against $$ for art that's your problem. If you are against $10's of millions in federal money coming in to fund rail transit and you want it to go to another state, instead, again that's your problem. The new courts building: The county said the city courts had to move, they won't extend the lease. What choice did the city have? They looked at 15 other sites with existing buildings but none of them worked. The city can save $800,000 on rents that can go to the bond payment and the DDA kicked in. Why shouldn't the DDA step up? Compostables? New material comes in all the time, it just takes a little while. What got us here is simple, the state economy, revenue sharing cuts and the loss of Pfizer.

Old Salt

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 11:59 a.m.

Hey Townie" How right you are,every year at budjet time certain city employees are told they will be terminated and then at the last minute low and Behold they find millions they did not know they had.It's just a miracle. Another Townie

Ryan J. Stanton

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 11:29 a.m.

Here's a link to the new parking fine schedule resolution, which will be voted on tomorrow. And here's a link to a previous story on the issue, laying out what the changes would do. It was noted that the new fine structure would make Ann Arbor's penalties the third most severe of 10 comparable cities. The new schedule would increase the fine for an expired meter from $15 to $20. The fine for parking over the legal limit elsewhere would jump from $25 to $35.

Karen Sidney

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 11:22 a.m.

Hieftje, Teall, Hohnke and Higgins claim the amendment would maintain current police and fire service levels. Just because there are no layoffs does not mean there is no reduction in service. Not filling a position when a worker retires is a service reduction. The Hieftje plan leaves us with 4 fewer fire fighters than we have now and 5 fewer positions than budgeted in FY10. I expect the union head's primary concern to be with avoiding layoffs but I expect council's primary concern to be funding enough positions to keep us safe. One year ago we had 148 police officers on the job. Now we are down to 124 because of a $5 million early retirement program. It's too bad the $5 million was not spent to keep police officers working instead of paying them to sit around and collect a retirement check plus lifetime family health coverage. The Hieftje plan will keep police staffing at only 124 but it will increase the number of Community Service Officers to write the tickets to collect the higher parking fines. Encouraging retirements to cut general fund expenses does not save money. It just shifts the costs to the retirement fund buckets. When the expenses for those buckets increase, they present a bigger bill to the general fund. Instead of loading more costs onto the retirement system, we need to reform it because the city cannot afford to pay the promised benefits, especially retiree health care. But instead of following up on the report of his Blue Ribbon Committee on changes to the city's retirement plans, Mayor Hieftje has let the report languish for 5 years.

townie

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 11:13 a.m.

How other cities in Michigan are faring has nothing to do with the discussion. Ann Arbor could be faring much better than it is if our elected officials weren't blowing money on folly projects like Percent for Art, UM's Fuller Road Parking Structure (why not just ask the voters to approve a land sale?), and a police/courts building financed with speculative development and even more DDA money. These are things you consider doing when the money is flowing in, not when it is drying up. Example of bad management: We pay fees/taxes to have our compostables collected and processed into compost, which is supposed to then be sold back to us. Theoretically, we get the benefit of compost at a reasonable price, and the City earns some revenue to offset costs. Only this year, there is no compost for citizens to buy because the City sold it all to private contractors/nurseries at a huge discount (subsidized by us). How's that for sound fiscal management? Bad fiscal management and extravagant capital projects are what got us here. Something really stinks when the DDA (mayoral appointees and supporters) and city council hold secret meetings where a plot to transfer $2 million back to the general fund is hatched--just in time to make the incumbent candidates, including the mayor, look like heroes.

Tim Darton

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 11:07 a.m.

Dagney: It is a very fine save indeed! The "headache" Stunshif is coming from Lansing and from Pfizer leaving town. Revenue sharing to the city is down many millions and the city lost 5% of their property tax $$ when the Pfizer property went to the UM. They also have to deal with rising health care costs. It seems pretty straight forward as to where the $$ come from. It is explained well in the Ryan Stanton's article. But maybe you don't know the background. The city was getting $2 million from the DDA in parking revenue for the last 5 years but the agreement expired. Until a couple of weeks ago they didn't know they would have it again but now they do. If you read the article, the prospects for revenue sharing not being cut again are looking up. Why lay off cops if you don't have to? The parking ticket fee is a bummer but then if you don't get a ticket you don't have to pay and townies can usually just pay them within 24 hours anyway and not have the increase. They had task forces over the winter working on cutting expenses and new revenue for the Senior Center and Mack pool and they came up with good solutions. Several cities are raising taxes or laying off safety services staff but not Ann Arbor.

Ryan J. Stanton

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 10:56 a.m.

@brad The document that sets up a framework for discussion for a mutually beneficial agreement between the city and the DDA (which is the basis for the $2 million) says if the DDA were to take over parking enforcement, the city would be held harmless on the revenue from parking enforcement. The net revenue from parking enforcement still would come to the city. The increased revenue from the higher fines would come to the city as well. Mayor Hieftje said the idea behind the possible switch is that some on the DDA would like the Community Standards officers who write parking tickets to also serve as "ambassadors" for the downtown, which is how it works in some cities. Hieftje points out that the police chief last Monday night said he is not fond of the plan and it has union complications. So another idea would be to train the current staff to function more like ambassadors and also to be better "eyes and ears" to quickly alert the police, who are usually within a few blocks, when they see something like aggressive panhandling. Hieftje told me today that sounds like something that could and should be done.

DagnyJ

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 10:23 a.m.

Ahh, another "save" by the council. Which half-hidden bucket of money did this one come from? This is such baloney. The council says cuts are inevitable (eg. Senior center, Mack pool) and then at the last minute "saves" them. Like, did the money tree just grow some more cash? Also, I think Ann Arbor spend $2 million to mow parks. Wow, sign me up for that job. Maybe a few cuts in the mowing budget are sensible.

stunhsif

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.

Rather than deal with what is causing the "headache", City Council simply takes a few more aspirin and sticks their head in the sand. This is leadership at its worst!

brad

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 10:15 a.m.

About the DDA: that's interesting. Where did you get that interpretation? I figured if DDA can set enforcement policy, can hire the staff, and is responsible for expenses, then they should keep the income.

Dalouie

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.

Brad: I think that what you are saying used to be true but when Pfizer left and the city lost its largest private employer and biggest tax payer it was the same as losing a big auto plant. A2's big employer does not pay taxes. No other Michigan city supports 2500 acres of parks either but that is what the voters have said they want over and over again. If you read it carefully even if the DDA did take over enforcement of the parking, the ticket revenue would still come to the city, it would just be a pass through.

brad

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 9:40 a.m.

Agree with townie; this doesn't add up. "The City Council also has approved changes in parking fine rates, which is estimated to generate an additional $625,000." But..."The DDA would take over parking enforcement that is now currently a city function." (from the link "the transfer of $2 million in revenue"). You can't take both the $2m and the parking fine increases...unless you're not negotiating in good faith. @Dalouie: AA is different because it has high property values/taxes, and it's economy is dependent on UM and not auto/manufacturing.

BornNRaised

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 9:40 a.m.

Hey Rossian... I'm sure it's the unions fault when the city illegally took money from the VEBA accounts and were busted by the IRS. When they were ordered to put the money that was ILLEGALLY taken out and then penalized for doing so, the city simply added that cost of their actions to the heads of every city employee, making residents believe we make far more than what we do. I'm sure you wouldn't like to address that though, would you?

Dalouie

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 9:24 a.m.

Townie: If the funding crisis was created locally then how do you explain all the other cities with much bigger problems? The funding crisis was created by the falling state revenue sharing and property tax income. The city lost 5% when of their tax revenue when the UM bought the Pfizer property. Cities across the state are asking for tax increases or they are closing facilities and laying people off. A2 seems to be doing very well in comparison.

Dalouie

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 9:06 a.m.

I'm not sure what posters mean saying the city should cut more. Do you live in the city limits? The city has greatly reduced expenses by reducing the size of the workforce. They went from 1000 employees to 750. How many more can they cut? They do need to trim benefits but state act 312 makes it almost impossible to do anything with the police and fire and not even the Republicans in Lansing will do anything to change it. The city gets less than 30% of the property taxes we pay. They have to work with 40% of the land as non-taxable. The state has been cutting their budget for a long time. A2 has not raised taxes the way many cities have. Maybe it's time to vote for more revenue.

townie

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 9:02 a.m.

I'm not falling for it. This happens every year--dire warnings of deep cuts in popular programs followed by staged, last-minute heroics by whichever councilmembers/mayor in the clique are up for re-election. What a lovely feather in their caps right before the primary: "I saved the jobs of 20 police officers!" Sure you did. Sorry, but you aren't a hero if you created the crisis in the first place.

rossianroulette

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 8:55 a.m.

Great...so our craven city politicians are buckling in to this Union pressure in order to look good and get re-elected. The city's structural problem with the excessive benefit compensation packages of these safety union employees is just going to be kicked down the road for some more years. Taxpayers like us are still going to get hit (and see our city street lights "de-energized" to pay for these union guys.) An opportunity like this to negotiate those benefit packages down should not be wasted!

Awakened

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 8:50 a.m.

They've "solved" the crisis for now. But I hear nothing about cutting spending so the crisis will be back.

xmo

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.

Hopefully, the city council reduce the size of the city government due to the economic climate. Next year will be just as bad of worst so, lets not spend like we are members of Congress! We need to slowly cut so we have less pain while we can.

Dominick Lanza

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 8:21 a.m.

I think these qre good changes in the proposed budget but lets not get to excited. Most likely we will be in the same boat next year I watched the CTN coverage of last Mondays council session on the budget. While speaking to the council the Fire Chief said even if no cuts were made he would look to streamline and work to be efficent however I didnt hear the same from the Police Chief. Both Police and Fire unions should look at this reprive as an oppurtunity to guarantee their future by working with the city to be more efficent. Firefighters have given 4% and I think the council is taking an oppurtunity to say Thanks but Police havent done the same they need to get on board and show they too are willing to work with the city. We need pur safety services but times are tough they need to look at ways to do more with what they have and not expect these last minute saves every year.

jcj

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 8:12 a.m.

Good News for all of us that live in the city. But don't worry we will still have plenty to complain about. @ RU4A2 I would not want to see Handicap parking violations increased by that amount. But I would like to see some investigation into which doctors are authorizing these "handicap" permits and what the requirements are. I see many people with handicap permits that are perfectly capable of walking a few extra feet. But then 90% of the drivers out there are too lazy to walk 3 spaces more. They will go to the gym or run a 10k but then wait or circle at the grocery store for 5 minutes to park 3 spaces closer!

RU4A2

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 7:43 a.m.

Why not increase the Handicap parking violations also. I heard that California recently increased these fines up up $1000.00. What a revenue for A2 plus open these spots for people that have legal permits and need them.

Tim Darton

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 7:27 a.m.

These are smart moves, doing what needs to be done to save jobs. Why lay people off for something that probably won't happen? The big cuts to revenue sharing over the last several years are the root of the problem. Figure in the big decline in property tax receipts and you know why all the cities are hurting. The word from Lansing is they can't cut revenue sharing anymore in an election year. Now the state needs some improvement in sales tax revenue and things will start to look up for local governments. Good to hear the FF Union is willing to work with the city. Good work by all concerned.