Amid concerns over Ypsilanti finances, 13 expected to leave public safety ranks in 2012
The City of Ypsilanti is facing the prospect of a public safety personnel exodus in 2012.
Nearly one-third of the police department and up to four firefighters have retired, resigned, announced their retirement or are considered likely to leave the city sometime this year.
The reason: Officials say it is concern over the city’s budget situation and a new health-care arrangement that requires employees to pay 20 percent of their health-care costs.
Ypsilanti Fire Chief Jon Ichesco said his department will deal with vacancies on staff, paying additional overtime if necessary.
“If this happens, we’ll certainly be ready for those changes,” she said. “What else are you going to do? You have to keep moving forward.”
But the city will have to wait until after a May 8 vote on an income tax proposal and Water Street debt retirement millage to determine if it can fill the vacancies.
Staff and council are working on a five-year budget plan that includes asking voters to approve the two new taxes. They have said the plan won’t include any layoffs, though one fire department vacancy won’t be filled.
Fire Chief Jon Ichesco said he has one firefighter who was injured on the job but had already submitted his retirement paperwork prior to the injury. That firefighter is scheduled to leave in March.
Two other firefighters are retiring in October, Ichesco said.
Currently the department operates with six firefighters on the first two shifts and seven on the third shift. With the retirement of a command officer who won’t be replaced, all three shifts will have six firefighters.
Ichesco said he hasn’t received any direction to replace any staff.
“There’s more gray than black and white in this situation,” he said.
Filling the vacant positions is a staff, not city council, decision. Acting City Manager Frances McMullan did not return calls from AnnArbor.com.
Ichesco said he also has nine other firefighters who could retire at any time, but he doesn’t expect those retirements to come before 2014.
“We’ll deal with it,” Ichesco said. “The more people we’re down, it essentially creates overtime.”
The firefighters' union contract is up on June 30 of this year. The union agreed to a 5-percent pay cut in return for a no-layoff clause during 2010 contract negotiations.
The police department has already seen two patrol officers resign, and one more will retire by the end of the fiscal year. Among the two who have departed is Officer Richard Houk, the city’s downtown police officer who is partly funded by the Downtown Development Authority.
One officer, who wasn’t named by officials, recently took a position at the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office.
According to a memo McMullan provided to City Council, the city is also expecting to lose three sergeants to retirement, two more patrol officers and Lt. Craig Annas by July 1.
Walker said the budget situation is the departing officers’ “only concern.”
“As chief, I don’t want those people to walk out the door and they have the potential to stay here, but I understand that if contracts change, to the dismay of everybody, then they need to do what they need to do,” Walker said. “What I've heard in my discussions with them is that no one wants to leave YPD. It's a family-type atmosphere here.”
Walker said she is already interviewing candidates for the two vacant positions and she expects to replace everyone who is leaving. Still, the number of new faces that could potentially be in the YPD in 2012 is a new challenge for the department.
But whether some of those positions are filled could be impacted by the result of the May 8 income tax and Water Street debt retirement millage votes. The city is asking voters to approve a 1 percent income tax for residents and 0.5 percent tax for those employed in Ypsilanti, including at Eastern Michigan University, but living elsewhere.
Voters are also being asked to approve a 4.7085 mill tax to retire the city's Water Street debt, but city officials now say they would likely only levy 2.3543 mills.
Council has warned that failure to pass the taxes could lead to significant cuts in the city. Though no specific cuts have been named, they are likely to include reductions in public safety personnel.
“We are certainly facing tough times and this special election coming up in May is very important to what public safety is going to look like,” Walker said.
Mayor Paul Schreiber said the situation is cause for concern, but he added that it wasn't totally unexpected. He said 14 city staff — including six police officers — retired or resigned before voters rejected an income tax proposal in 2007.
He also said that passing the income tax and Water Street debt retirement proposals are critical to the city being able to fill the vacancies.
"This may be a preview of what it would be like without more revenue," Schreiber said. "We have no magic way of sustaining the services we have without more revenue."
Tom Perkins is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. To reach the news desk, call 734-623-2530. For more Ypsilanti stories, visit our Ypsilanti page.
Comments
Martin Church
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 5:45 p.m.
The effort for these taxes should go into something that will really work. get more business into Ypsilanti. we knew these debts would come due and could have worked to get business in. Instead we have seen the elected officals choose to ignore business for residental property. I have now seen many fires in our city being responded to by pittsfield and the township, not to mention ann arbor. this means our fire department is no longer self supporting. We need to start looking at a eastern Washtenaw fire department to support all of these communities with the proper staffing. it's an election year and who will run in ward three to hold taxes down and change the way we do business. In May I will be voting NO on both issues.
YpsiVeteran
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 6:56 p.m.
The farther away your fire protection gets, the more your homeowner's insurance costs. Do you think it will be less expensive for you as a homeowner to support the fire structure necessary for the entire county?
LC
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 4:31 p.m.
akronymn wrote: The whole idea that people will flee the city with their wallets when an income tax is passed is unfounded hyperbole touted by those who have either given up on Ypsilanti or are unwilling to do their part. Why don't you call these people un-American too? Can't we just admit that the people of Ypsilanti are hurting? Property values have dropped for some, but so have income levels. The residents of Ypsilanti are not City Council's ATM card. Some of us just can't afford it.
akronymn
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 9:06 p.m.
There are several exemptions from the city income tax that will protect the most financially vulnerable among us most notable the low-income and retired. The short and long term effects of this tax has been very carefully examined.
akronymn
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 3:57 p.m.
The whole idea that people will flee the city with their wallets when an income tax is passed is unfounded hyperbole touted by those who have either given up on Ypsilanti or are unwilling to do their part. Ypsilanti is a tight knit community of people who understand that you don't just get the great city we have without actively committing to it. The fact of the matter is residents are paying significantly less in taxes now than they were ten or even five years ago and that is in no way sustainable. Voting against the two proposals on the ballot in May will be tantamount to voting *for* an Emergency Financial Manager. The most important thing to understand about an EFM is that they are not responsible to the people of the city. They are responsible to the creditors. This means that an EFM will make prioritize moving money out of the city over the health of the city. Yes we have debts to pay and no I am not arguing against taking responsibility for those debts. In fact I am arguing for the city taking responsibility for our obligations over waiting for an EFM to do it with anything but the best interests of our city in mind.
akronymn
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 8:59 p.m.
This is not an asinine pseudonym. This is a screen name that I have been using on this site and many others for years. I have never hidden behind this screen name nor had any hope that people would not figure out who I really am. My real name is Adam Gainsley and I've never tried to hide that. If you're done using inflammatory tactics to try and distract from the issue and ready to move on to a real discussion of the issue at hand so am I. I have made productive, well thought out arguments for these two ballot issues. I have not resorted to using asinine slogans and insulting people because they don't agree with me. Further I have gotten beyond using superficial sloganism to try to garner support for a cause based on emotion instead of well reasoned argument.
Rodney Nanney
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 6:12 p.m.
I find it so fascinating to be going "Back to the Future" with the "CIT ][ Strikes Back." The "Vote YES and give us more of your money" crowd are using the same tactics as before; posting under various asinine pseudonyms on various social media platforms to pretend to show popular support that exists only within their own minds. Kudos to Glen Sard and Lorie Thom for continuing to post under real names, and shame on the rest of you....
Rodney Nanney
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.
The same folks who put this fine city's future in doubt and who mortgaged all of our futures for 38 acres of futility now want another shot at passing a local income tax that even the city's own experts say will not be nearly enough to keep the city financially afloat beyond 2017? I don't think so. The city income tax proposal is just as bad an idea in 2012 as it was in 2007 when it was fully debated and squashed flat by the voters the first time. In a town with 2/3 rental properties and a growing number of vacant homes that the owners aren't even bothering to try and sell, it will be far too easy for many folks to move beyond the city borders. Worse yet, this CIT ][ scheme is already causing some of the best and brightest at EMU and in the business community to reconsider their commitments to the area, and even to make plans to quietly exit and take their wallets and purses with them. By the time the tax could be imposed, a fair number will be gone I suspect.
YpsiVeteran
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 6:50 p.m.
Instead of railing against the only solution left to the problems created by Farmer and her group, why aren't you campaigning for a change to city policies that would forever eliminate the possibility that one or two incompetents could ever put the city into a situation like this again? I'm still stunned at the idea that these people were ignorant enough, and were allowed, to commit the city financially and float these bonds without so much as even a completion bond from the "developers." I'm not a legal expert, but it seems pretty obvious to even me. The basic idea of collateral never even came up? This is what needs to be changed. No municipal representative body should be able to compromise the long-term viability of a city without financial collateral in place. Any group who can't post a several million dollar bond or otherwise indemnify a city against their failure to complete a project of this magnitude should be told to hit the road.
Glen S.
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
@ Rodney You say it is the "same" folks who are supporting this, yet the May 8 vote is the result of a unanimous vote of City Council -- including at least four members who were elected on a "no income tax" platform. Don't you think maybe that's because the magnitude of the current situation has led them to change their minds? Likewise, you know full well that conditions now (in 2012) are very different -- and even worse -- than in 2007. In the last four years, many Ypsilanti homeowners have experienced substantial drops in their property taxes. Where do you propose we make up for that lost revenue? Lastly, you know what will cause many of our "best and brightest" to "reconsider their commitments to the area?" I'll tell you: A City that's facing deep cuts to police, fire, and other city services that are necessary to keep our community safe, healthy and attractive. As usual, you take the knee-jerk approach of "no new taxes, without offering any constructive solutions for how to deal with Ypsilanti's structural budget deficit. Honestly, if there were a simpler, more politically popular solution to this problem, don't you think City Council -- and especially Council Members Murdock, Robb, Richardson, and Beaudry -- would have proposed it by now?
blahblahblah
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.
"As chief, I don't want those people to walk out the door ........but I understand that if contracts change, to the dismay of everybody, then they need to do what they need to do," There will be a lot of taxpaying property owners walking out the door (doing what they need to do) if all these tax increases go through.
stunhsif
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.
Once finalized, please give the ages and pension benefits these 13 will be getting. Go Green Go White
Linda Peck
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 12:45 p.m.
This is not a good situation, high crime rate and fewer police officers. Or is it my imagination that Ypsilanti has its fair share of criminal activities?
CountyKate
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 4:44 p.m.
Of course Ypsilanti has its fair share of criminal activity, Linda. But it does not have the exaggerated amount that some people try to claim for it. Ann Arbor, too, is seeing a large increase in home break-ins. EVERY city has a fair amount of crime. Ypsi's is not abnormal for its size.
Glen S.
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 12:34 p.m.
Ypsilanti residents and business-owners who have invested in our community need and deserve to know that they will continue to have high-quality public services, such as police and fire protection. Ypsilanti public servants, who work hard every day protecting our community, need and deserve to know they will continue to have competitive salary and benefits, and a modest degree of job security. Potential new residents or investors (including for the Water Street site) need to know that Ypsilanti is "stable," with a long-term budget plan, and the means to continue providing services that keep the community safe, clean and attractive. For years, Ypsilanti's structural budget deficit has cast a cloud over the community and its future. Our lingering budget uncertainty is bad for residents, bad for business, bad for City employees, and bad for our region. On May 8, Ypsilanti voters will have a chance to put aside this uncertainty, and provide a solid foundation for new growth and development for at least the next five years, by voting "YES" on both ballot questions.
Rodney Nanney
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.
"For years, Ypsilanti's structural budget deficit has cast a cloud over the community and its future." Glen, Ypsilanti has enjoyed substantial budget SURPLUSES since 2008 when the (former) Council majority you support was booted out in favor of a bare majority of fiscal hawks. Under the leadership of the people you support, including ex-Mayor Farmer, the City Council took the actions that led directly to the massive Water Street debt. Under the leadership of Pete Murdock and Brian Robb, the city reduced spending while preserving services as best as possible, building up a significant cash reserve. Neither Mayor Schreiber nor (former) City Manager Ed Koryzno can claim credit for those savings - Paul Schreiber in particular has repeatedly voted and spoken against much of what has been done by the Council majority since 2008. That is an accomplishment that cannot be reasonably denied, even by you. It is those you support who put this fine city's future in doubt and who mortgaged all of our futures for 38 acres of futility. Now you and those who failed so completely want another shot at hammering in the last nail? I don't think so. The city income tax proposal is just as bad an idea in 2012 as it was in 2005-07 when it was debated and squashed flat by the voters the first time. In a town with 2/3 rental properties and a growing number of vacant homes that the owners aren't even bothering to try and sell, it will be far too easy for many folks to move beyond the city borders. Worse yet, this CIT ][ scheme is already causing some of the best and brightest at EMU and in the business community to reconsider their commitments to the area, and even to make plans to quietly exit and take their wallets and purses with them. By the time the tax could be imposed, a fair number will be gone I suspect.
Mark Hergott
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 12:15 p.m.
We have a box alarm system, so we really don't need a fire department, just a fire house. If Pittsfield, Ypsilanti Township, Ypsilanti, and Ann Arbor all paid into the same fire pension fund, The city of Ypsilanti would not have to worry about the upcoming retirement bomb. As for the police department, crime has cratered since the early 1990s. The fact is, we don't need thirty officers for four square miles any more. We do need at least thirty officers for Ypsilanti and the township. The answer to maintaining patrol levels in the city and reducing crime in the township is a regional police authority, with the township's help to defuse the retirement bond. I am going to vote for the Water Street millage, and against the city income tax. I think most people will do the same.
Rodney Nanney
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 2:45 p.m.
Wow, Mark. Where do you live? Normal Park has been virtually an armed camp of police cruisers some mornings after the huge jump in break-ins and thefts from vehicles last summer. A neighbor near Perry School has been broken into 3 times in recent weeks, leaving literally nothing left to steal and multiple windows boarded up. On the good side, it has been very peaceful in the Midtown neighborhood since the City Attorney finally managed to stop tripping over himself long enough to actually convince a judge to order the padlocking of the epicenter of criminal activity in the area last year. You must be a fellow neighbor in our little oasis of calm!
Glen S.
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 1:02 p.m.
"As for the police department, crime has cratered since the early 1990s." Yes, and most of us would like to keep it that way. Contemplating cuts to police (and fire) is a risky proposition for Ypsilanti at this time. My property taxes have dropped a great deal over the past four years -- so I don't mind paying a bit more to help keep our community safe.
Cash
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 12:02 p.m.
With the millage votes coming up, I am curious to know if the subject of this article and subsequent interviews were instigated by Mr Perkins....or by the city administrators and mayor. It's pretty rare that these administrators would ALL be available for interview, with the exception of the person who could talk about the reality of filling the vacant positions. Staged? I wonder. It appears to me (and I may be wrong) that this is a thinly veiled advertisement for a "yes" vote on the millage. Why do they always have to use fear to motivate? With city government they go right for the "crime and fire protection" fear factor. With schools they go right for" these poor children won't have sports" etc. I never hear them say...all of the highest paid employees are willing to take pay cuts and find ways to work within budget. It's always "push the voter's panic button". It seems to insult voters' intelligence. But maybe that's the point. Because it seems to work.
Glen S.
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 10:30 p.m.
@ Cash Do you even live in the City of Ypsilanti? If so, have you ever attended a City Council meeting and/or taken the time to actually read the City's budget reports? You claim that line-item budget information is 'NOT' available, but have you ever checked? (Hint: Check the City's website.) The reason the City is talking about cuts to Police and Fire is because those two items make up about *2/3* of the total general fund budget. And, regarding all the "highest-paid" employees -- many of those positions are currently vacant -- so there's a savings right there. Meanwhile, the folks in those (non bargained-for) positions which are NOT vacant have had their pay frozen in recent years, and have recently begun to pay a significant share of their health care costs. I understand that many people have different opinions on this issue, which is fine -- but can we please cut out the blatant misinformation?
Cash
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 10:05 p.m.
YpsiVet, I have NOTHING but admiration for first responders. MY point is that the administration is working the loss of first responders into a rush to fear, instead of: Being open about what THEY have been willing to cut from their ON benefits and salaries. And as you said, facts about cuts that first responders have taken .....that really would contribute to this discussion were conveniently left out. WHY? I wouldn't be quick to assume that a millage for Water street will mean that fire and police will get their vacancies filled. Has that been promised? No, it has NOT! That's one of the many problems I have with this kind of fear mongering. Instead of being honest and above board about the situation, they pick and choose what facts they reveal and yet the person who could really give the line item budget information.....is NOT available. How much money is needed to fund these positions and will they be filled if the millage is approved??? Sorry, we do not know because that ONE person was not available for this interview. Thus, they have promised NOTHING.
YpsiVeteran
Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 6:39 p.m.
Glaringly omitted from this article are facts about the salary and benefits cuts the police dept. has willingly realized in the last several years, and the reductions/changes to the benefits offered to new employees. Why this info is conveniently overlooked in articles of this nature is an interesting question. I would also suggest to you that the info in this article is not fear mongering; it is simply fact. These highly qualified, intelligent and dedicated people are leaving because they can't play Russian Roulette with the well-being of their families. I think one statement above is incorrect, however. I haven't spoken with a single person there who wants to leave because they have to pay 20% of their medical premiums. They were already paying more, and the increase to 20% is a small price to pay to ensure the continuation of health coverage. The younger ones are leaving because they can't afford to get laid off, and the 20+ years employees are leaving because they can't afford to lose they pensions they've been paying into for all these years.