You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 12:12 p.m.

This time it's different - vote 'yes' on the Ypsilanti tax proposals

By Guest Column

Five years ago, I was a leading opponent of the City Income Tax (CIT). But that was then, this is now.

The projected increase in tax revenues without the CIT never materialized. If we had the $2-$4 million more annually, we would not be discussing a CIT today.

Further, in 2008 the economy crashed and the housing bubble burst. Taxable values plummeted causing an annual loss of $2 million in tax revenues collected by the City of Ypsilanti over what it was in 2008.

The election of a new governor and state Legislature in 2010 did not stem the tide of continued reductions of state shared revenues, now reduced by over $2 million dollars from several years ago. And lastly the debt payments for Water Street are now due.

050312_pete-murdoch.jpg

Pete Murdoch is an Ypsilanti City Council member.

During the last several years the city has reduced its workforce from 139 to 96; partnered with our neighbors for a mutual aid (box alarm) arrangement for our fire department and changed dispatching to the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Department. We reduced health care benefit costs; froze and reduced salaries; required additional employee contributions toward health care benefits and reduced pension and health care benefits for new employees.

For the last year, City Council has worked on developing a long term plan that recognizes the shrinking revenue situation and the need to provide services to maintain a safe and attractive community. After considerable review and discussion of various items and alternatives, City Council adopted a five-year plan providing for a deficit free budget that stabilizes city services over the next five years and beyond. It is a balanced approach using expenditure reductions, a broader based replacement tax (CIT) that adds 6,000 new non-resident taxpayers and a temporary Water Street debt millage with city reserves reducing the millage rate in half.

The two ballot proposals are critical to our community’s future. Failure to find replacement revenue and remove the Water Street Debt obligation from the general fund WILL result in major reductions in city services and employees next year and the years following. These reductions will impact public safety and other services and make us a less desirable city to live, work and do business in. It’s our community and our future. It’s up to us. There is no rescue squad from Lansing. I urge a YES vote on both proposals on May 8. A note about Water Street: The folks that we previously elected committed the city’s full faith and credit to payment of that debt. We were left unprotected by those who involved us in this project. We are now stuck with a debt obligation that we cannot ignore and will not go away.

We can continue to rail at those who got us here. But they are gone. We are left to clean up the mess. I refuse to allow the farmer’s folly fiasco of Water Street to spiral into the permanent death knell for our community. That would be the ultimate in cutting off our nose to spite our face. A temporary debt millage restricted solely to pay this debt is the best of bad choices. For further information on the May 8 tax proposals, go to the city website cityofypsilanti.com/Government/MayorCityCouncil/CityIncomeTaxandWaterStreetMillageInfo or contact me at 485-7799 or Murdock.sweeney@comcast.net.

Pete Murdock represents the Third Ward on the Ypsilanti City Council.

Comments

dading dont delete me bro

Thu, May 3, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.

no

Honez

Wed, May 2, 2012 : 4:14 p.m.

We need to cut management positions in half. We need to merge our police and fire with Superior and Ypsilanti Township. We need to merge our trash pickup with Superior and Ypsilanti Township. We need to merge our snow removal/salting with the county. We need to end public support of festivals. We need to sell all of the parks to neighborhood associations. There's the $2-4 million we need. No city council, you haven't done enough.

Mary Ann Barbary

Wed, May 2, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.

I agree that this is something we can do for our city and we're not going to be getting help from Lansing. In fact, if we want to keep local control in place, we better all get out and vote YES next Tuesday. No EFM for Ypsilanti. Let's come together as a community and save our city!

Macabre Sunset

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 5:16 p.m.

A small child makes a mess. A positive-thinking, but still immature, small child attempts to clean up the mess by spilling massive amounts of cleaning supplies all over the mess.

Martin Church

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 1:55 a.m.

Where is the guarantee that this fiasco will end. You ran to bring accountability to the council, and yet recently it was discovered over 600k was found in funds for medical help. where else are funds missing. where is the clause that says if financial conditions change that the excess funds will go to the retirement of the water st. debt and pay this debt off quicker. This council has already said it did not need all of the requested millage. This tells me you have no idea of what is happening, no plan to sunset both taxes or to hold this government accountable. This means we the citizens must do so by voting NO. on both taxes. You want to take the funds I worked hard to earn and give to a body that has shown no interest in the welfare of it citizens. I SAY NO.

Murf

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 4:26 p.m.

Good point, Martin Church. They also didn't have a clue as to what to make the AATA millage hence AATA coming back shortly thereafter saying that the millage doesn't bring in enough money for the service. I hope the same person who did the bad math on that one isn't in charge of the Water Street millage too. God help us if they are and this vote passes.

Mike

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 12:52 a.m.

you gotta be kidding me. good luck with that re-election.

Bilbo

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 11:22 p.m.

If Pete, of all people, supports this then I think people should consider why. He was rabidly anti-tax last time around, and is putting his name out there to say that we need this now. Why would he do that unless there was no other option? I don't like it, I don't like taxes coming out of my check or being added to my house payments, but I don't want to see the city fall apart. Seriously? You people are gonna leave or not come here over 1%? How about those of us who are underwater on our homes and can't leave if things get bad due to crime and lack of basic stuff like street lights? Thanks a lot - I thought we lived in a city, you know, where people are part of a community together? Looking out for the collective best interest, not your 1%. If you want to live in a city like Ypsi, which I do, you have to get serious about keeping it safe and a good place to live.

eastsidemom

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 10:45 a.m.

a 28% increase over 5 years according to the city's calculator, not a simple 1%.

pseudo

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 11:14 p.m.

I am loath to say this but I agree with Pete on voting for the millage and income tax. (these words are likely never to appear in the same sentence ever again). I believe we need to act as a city to continue to fund very efficient services, specifically police protection. Its that simple.

eastsidemom

Thu, May 3, 2012 : 9:39 p.m.

no worries Lorie, I bath daily...

pseudo

Wed, May 2, 2012 : 2:08 p.m.

once again, there is no secret that I haven't agreed with Pete much of anything. My being "loath" to say something is my issue and, btw, no insulting to Pete. My comment is and remains supportive of voting yes on both of these proposals because I want to keep our police protection and our parks and the rest of this things that make Ypsilanti livable under our control where the City of Ypsilant's residents can control our future services and not the township or some political hack from Lansing. I encourage you to re-read your comments here and think clearly about how you look to others reading this because you are now my example of who-ever-smelt-it-dealt-it.

eastsidemom

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 7:34 p.m.

"I am loath to say this but I agree with Pete on voting for the millage and income tax. (these words are likely never to appear in the same sentence ever again)." Nice to agree and insult at the same time and on the man's b-day. I guess politically strange bedfellows is more accurate.

pseudo

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 2:50 p.m.

@eastsidemom - where might my statement be hypciritcal? I have been pro-income tax since the first proposal. I have never been a fan of Pete or the way he does things. Also - very consistant. So tell me, where have I done one thing while saying another? Further, YOUR comments prove to me that its your side that won't compromise, won't propose an alternative, won't debate in public and clearly spell worse than I do (which is pretty bad).. Sling the words you wish- but this is clearly your problem, not mine.

eastsidemom

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 10:43 a.m.

@Stephen - You no nothing of me and my motives. Pathetic and disgusting...this is just what the Yes campaign has brought us to, neighbor against neighbor, now that is disgusting.

Stephen

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 3:20 a.m.

eastsidemom - the only hypocrisy I've seen in the comments on this website have been coming from you and your cohorts. Your whole cut off your nose to spite your face attitude is disgusting. Your claims of caring for your city while only voting to protect your pocket book are pathetic.

eastsidemom

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 1:43 a.m.

hypocrisy rules

City Confidential

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 11:12 p.m.

The reality is that Ypsilanti needs these sources of revenue to replace what the State and the property value crisis of 2008 took from our general fund. Without paying for the Water Street debt with this millage, payments WILL come out of our general fund. Without a new revenue stream from the city income tax, we WILL face a gaping hole in the budget that pays for basic & vital city services. It's not a scare tactic. It's true. There are no magic solutions and those who think we can just renegotiate our debts or pension contracts obviously do not know the realities of the situation. People are doing a lot of magical thinking and choosing to hear what they want to hear, but all of that fantasy will not keep us safe and keep Ypsilanti stable when our savings are depleted in less than two years. We must VOTE YES on May 8.

greg, too

Thu, May 3, 2012 : 4:45 a.m.

Agreed YpsiVet. The city council has known about this debt for a decade and now we are left with two "pass it or the world will end" taxes on the ballot just to keep the sparse services (not knocking our excellent police or fire) we have and the lights on at city hall. It is truly sad that they backed the citizens into a corner like this. Hopefully, whether it passes or not, the voters remember this in the next election....you know, like they did when all of these guys got elected.

YpsiVeteran

Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:41 a.m.

Notfromhere, I do see your point, and I actually agree that revenue must be generated from something other than taxes, and I'm not at all convinced the people currently in office are up to the job. In fact I'm certain that a specific couple of them, at least, especially the one still around who was also on the Water Street council, have absolutely no business on any city's council. If I had my way, I'd not be having an election right now at all. I'd like to see a new city manager in place first. Someone with experience will very likely offer a fresh perspective on the situation, and may have ideas no one's thought of. If, after a few months to get acclimated, it appears a ballot proposal is necessary, then it could still be presented. None of this is going to happen, however. I also like the idea of an income tax, even though it would take money out of my pocket, because I think it's not fair that Ypsi property owners are the only ones carrying the burden. I do think the current proposal is a**-backwards. City property owners should either be exempt or should be paying the lower percentage, not the higher one. Millage rates can be reduced and income taxes can be eliminated. You can not, however, keep people in a city that's not safe ong enough to see the benefits of plans to increase future revenues to make the current millage rates unnecessary.

greg, too

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 5:03 a.m.

Sorry Ypsi Vet, but you're the one missing the point. It's not about the short term, it is about the long term. What happens when the next crisis happens? They cannot tax anymore after this, if it even passes. Where is the plan to make sure they do not have to tax again? Where are the increased revenue plans? I have not seen a single one. All of the plans I have seen are all tied to revenue from taxes, nothing else. To pay the bond debt? As city confidential (we all know who that is) stated, we have a couple years of reserves, which are pledged to pay part of the yearly debt already. Find some more revenue in those couple of years. And if the city council cannot, find someone else who will.

YpsiVeteran

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 4:52 a.m.

Notfromhere, thanks for providing a classic example of "magical thinking." Your post makes it very clear for those who may not have seen it before. The only "ills" the city has are the Water Street bonds. The city has made a proposal to deal with the problem. You keep saying the city has no plan, at the same time you're telling everyone to vote no on the plan. What is your answer to how to pay the bond debt?

greg, too

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 3:26 a.m.

"Without a new revenue stream from the city income tax, we WILL face a gaping hole in the budget that pays for basic & vital city services." What happens when the next crisis comes up, maybe with the schools or the roads or the water system (again)? What if the police or fire need new technology or new equipment that exceeds their budget? Can the people of Ypsi pony up for that one like they ponied up for the roads, and schools, and pipes, and others before? There comes a point when the solution is worse than the problem, and taxing the citizens into foreclosure is that point. The pro tax people will counter with "well, what is your plan?" I think the voters who fear increased taxes should wait until they hear what their plan is first. A tax increase is not "magic solution" to the city's ills, it is merely a band aid on a "gaping hole." Proper planning, aggressive attempts to increase revenue outside of taxing, and trying to sell the Water St. property (not that anyone would buy it) would be a good start. But none of those have been attempted. Sit in a city council meeting and hear it first hand for yourself. A city's job is to take care of its people, not tax them into bankruptcy.

chris

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 10:02 p.m.

"....with city reserves reducing the millage rate in half." Then reword the ballot proposal for November and ask for half. I put zero faith in a politician's promises.

Stephen

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 3:18 a.m.

The ballot wording was mandated by the state. This was not something the city had any control over. This vote is not a referendum on our council. If you don't like their politics or don't trust them there is an election in November. This ballot is about providing our city with a long term balanced budget.

EmmaG

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 9:28 p.m.

I respect Pete's stand on this. I'd rather see this plan than a financial manager come in and sell Riverside Park. He's got my vote for sure.

Stephen

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 3:16 a.m.

A very good point, EmmaG, voting yes on these measures is a vote for keeping Ypsilanti citizens in control of our city.

eastsidemom

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 1:42 a.m.

you think that people will buy the trout ponds?

ypsilanti

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 8:15 p.m.

Good luck with your re-election campaign, Pete. You are going to need it.

Murf

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 4:28 p.m.

His sidekick on the council is strangely quiet on this topic. I wonder if Brian Robb is up for re-election this year.

CroseW

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 7:04 p.m.

Actually, we enjoy very responsive services. Already, the cuts, and proposed cuts, are diminishing that capability. The 2- 4 million is revenue already lost, not $ on top of what we have had. Ypsilanti has already been operating on less and less over the last ten+ years. The millage and Income tax proposals do not replace all of the revenue that has been and will be lost as property values are projected to continue to fall for several years. New businesses,(sources of revenue), are not so likely to choose a community where services are poor. Several new businesses have opened in Ypsilanti, and are working very hard to draw people in for each other. So even with a vote of increases our taxes will continue to go down. Our per ca pita investment and what we spend are less than surrounding communities, even though the rate is higher. Our insurance premiums, would increase by more than the proposals are asking of us. I prefer my dollars to stay here and benefit our community. Many of our citizens have contributed a great deal to make Ypsilanti a great place to live and work. Their efforts need not be lost or under-valued. Our contribution is needed. Our efforts and work will Save Ypsilanti. I will vote Yes on both proposals. BTW, Grand Rapids instituted Income taxes back in the sixties, and are still there and successful today.

eastsidemom

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 10:37 a.m.

or Pontiac?

chris

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 10:04 p.m.

Flint has an income tax too. Why don't you bring them up?

Murf

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 7:29 p.m.

Here we go with the Grand Rapids thing again. If you are a frequent reader of the articles on this topic along with the comments, it was stated in a previous article by someone that Grand Rapids enjoys a much smaller property tax which makes a world of difference. Kind of like comparing apples to oranges. You should delve into the archives of this topic and you will find the info.

dading dont delete me bro

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 6:45 p.m.

no

glimmertwin

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 5:54 p.m.

>> If we had the $2-$4 million more annually, we would not be discussing a CIT today. The story of any politician's life. Not just Ypsi's. More. More. More. Public safety... in Ypsi? Are you kidding? Taxes are already insane in Ypsi. Adding more is just pouring gas on a flame.

John Q

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 3:42 a.m.

Nice job missing the point.

jbhuron

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.

Yet another 3 minutes wasted listening to council about how we need to slash and raise taxes. I have been demanding for months now that a growth plan be presented even if inconjunction with these revenue ideas. Still not a single word on growth. Read for yourself the minutes, the opion articles, or any other lanuguage the council and administration has been spewing. Not once do they mention growth. They do not mention a growth plan. They do no mention a way to grow our tax base with anything more than more additional taxes. If this is a stop gap measure Mr. Murdouch, what's next? Are new taxes going to draw people to our city? I'm fairly liberal, and will be voting No because this vote has absolutely nothing to do with growing our city. Same old crappy Ypsi services, at a new higher price. That is until the tax base completely leaves the city.

greg, too

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 4:57 a.m.

Saying you can balance a budget without any actual plans for growth is not a plan. They are hoping that the current taxes take care of the problem and thatnon one notices that no one in their right mind will pay half of what the Water St. property is worth. If you get someone on the hook for the bill, what try and sell it? And their last five year plan balanced the budget and ended up off $5 million at the end. (http://www.annarbor.com/news/ypsilanti-officials-frequently-change-5-year-budget-projections-as-vote-on-tax-proposals-near/). Sorry for the misquote. But misquote or not, they have a track record of having no idea how to compute a five year plan. Why should we believe the budget will be balanced now? What have they done to make you believe they can do this or that their numbers are right? I agree, "if you can't pay your bills, what good are pie-in-the-sky plans for anything else?" But since they cannot balance their budgets when they thought they would be millions in the black, why should we believe them now?

YpsiVeteran

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 4:46 a.m.

Notfromhere, how is a balanced budget not a plan? It's a plan to balance a bare-bones budget that funds just about nothing but the bare necessities. If you can't pay your bills, what good are pie-in-the-sky plans for anything else? What is the "just say no" group's plan to balance the budget?

YpsiVeteran

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 4:43 a.m.

Jb, how can you present a "plan for growth" if you don't know if, or how much, money you can budget for the effort? Plenty of people who just want to say no talking out both sides of their mouths and they don't even see it. All the hollering about why doesn't the city do this and do that and spend money to make these things happen...what money? What people? City Hall's running on a skeleton staff. You want a growth plan? Great. Fund it.

greg, too

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 3:49 a.m.

And Stephen, the last long term ended being off by $7 million. Do you really trust the new plan that will balance the budget? I don't.

greg, too

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 3:33 a.m.

You are correct Stephen. Those opposed do not have a plan. But those who are for it, those in our city government, those who brought this forward, don't either. Taxing people into the stone age isn't a plan for success.

Stephen

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 3:15 a.m.

A balanced budget for five years is much more than you would generally get from any council or even a state or federal legislature for that matter. Not to mention the fact that everyone opposed to this has no feasible plan.

greg, too

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 3:12 a.m.

yes yes yes. What happens after the tax increases? What is going to stop this from happening again? What is being done to sell the land? These are questions that are not being answered. You cannot ask the tax payers, all of whom are in the same boat as the city, to pony up more cash without actually giving them a long term plan.

zdoggy00

Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 5:13 p.m.

The yes votes will not save Ypsi. They simply maintain the status quo for another 5 years. There is tremendous emphasis by those who support the taxes about the city becoming a less desirable place to live if these cuts go through. However, the city is already a less desirable place to live with the existing taxes in place...let alone new taxes on top of that. There is no explanation as to how more taxes are going to encourage more people to move to the city. Furthermore, passing these taxes before negotiating with the Police and Fire unions is insanity. Is there any wonder why the police and fire all support these new taxes? We need to encourage the most senior members of police and fire who have already filed for retirement to do just that. We need to get the "first in, last out" crew OUT. We need to honestly look at different methods of policing that include more part time officers. We need to keep the existing people in the city while encouraging others to move to Ypsi. We need a Water Street lockbox on the sale of the property to ensure that if a new millage were put in place to deal with Water St, it would be eliminated as soon as possible. More revenue will not solve our problems. We need to bite the bullet and take the beating now...and come out stronger for doing the right thing and getting our house in order...instead of having this same conversation again in 10 years. An income tax will keep new people out and the Water Street millage will force out those who are struggling to stay. Voting yes on these two proposals is a sure recipe for disaster for Ypsilanti.

zdoggy00

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 12:47 p.m.

"If you want your opinions to carry any weight, perhaps you should bone up on the facts:" Yah don't say? "You're about 4 years behind. The police and fire unions have been involved in helping to address this situation for several years now. If it weren't for Water Street, the city would be in relatively decent shape, even with the economy imploding. Water Street is the problem." Wow...and you're an Ypsi veteran? Part of the reason the taxes were proposed when they were was to get them approved before the new budget was completed and the police and fire contracts were negotiated. This is common knowledge and has been stated by council members several times. ...and no, Water Street is not the only problem. When you're surprised about the pension millage kicking in, feel free to come back and apologize. "The "status quo" is a city able to pay its bills, live within its means and deliver a respectable level of services to city residents. What's the problem there?" OK, then I guess it isn't the status quo...because this plan is not one to keep the city paying its bills, to live within one's means, or deliver respectable service.

greg, too

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 5:11 a.m.

"More doubletalk. The "status quo" is a city able to pay its bills, live within its means and deliver a respectable level of services to city residents. What's the problem there? Isn't that what we all want? " No. I want a city that can survive a future economic downturn without having to gouge it's citizens. I want a city with increased services, not maintained. For the tax rate the people of Ypsi will be paying, they should expect nothing less than the services (parks, schools, etc) that Ann Arbor gets. They want what they are paying for, not simply a government that wants to eek out a balanced budget with minimal services hoping and praying another downturn doesn't happen. Who wants a government that is entirely dependent on the over assessment of property in order to survive? If you want a government happy with taxing you to the eyeballs in order to payoff their debts while they do little or nothing to enrich the city, vote for the tax increase.

YpsiVeteran

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 4:57 a.m.

"The yes votes will not save Ypsi. They simply maintain the status quo for another 5 years." More doubletalk. The "status quo" is a city able to pay its bills, live within its means and deliver a respectable level of services to city residents. What's the problem there? Isn't that what we all want? You're right though, if you don't want to maintain the status quo, by all means vote no.

YpsiVeteran

Tue, May 1, 2012 : 4:40 a.m.

If you want your opinions to carry any weight, perhaps you should bone up on the facts: "Furthermore, passing these taxes before negotiating with the Police and Fire unions is insanity. Is there any wonder why the police and fire all support these new taxes?" You're about 4 years behind. The police and fire unions have been involved in helping to address this situation for several years now. If it weren't for Water Street, the city would be in relatively decent shape, even with the economy imploding. Water Street is the problem.