Ryan J. Stanton

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 2:52 p.m.

Margie Teall offers her take on the Huron River plan and river millage here: http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-city-council-member-margie-teall-taking-questions-tonight-on-ctns-ward-talk/

Russ Miller

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 12:18 p.m.

Doh! A millage is not mentioned specifically in the Environmental Commission or Park Advisory Commission either.

Russ Miller

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 12:15 p.m.

"Hohnke said he doesn't personally support a river millage at this time, but didn't object to maintaining it as one of the 30 consensus recommendations." Without judging the merit of the millage proposal I would like to point out that while finding sustainable funding sources for auqatic vegetation management is mentioned in the HRIMP committee report, there is no mention of a millage. A millage is not mentioned specifically in the Environmental Commission or Park Advisory Commission either.

Gill

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 10:39 a.m.

Ok, maybe not completely clear cut, I see a few trees in the historic photos: http://aastreets.aadl.org/gallery/aastreets/site3/FRAME-3_bartondam_150.gif.html

Janelle Baranowski

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 10:31 a.m.

@Ryan Stanton, Thanks for the info. "Sandwich Sign Board Task Force"...Brilliant! *sarcasm*

Ryan J. Stanton

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 10:25 a.m.

@Janelle Baranowski City Administrator Roger Fraser raised your same concern at a recent City Council meeting where the council voted to create a "sandwich sign board task force" to look into issues involving those signs you see out in the sidewalks mostly in the downtown. Fraser expressed concern that each time the council creates one of these new boards or committees or task forces -- whatever you want to call it -- someone from city staff is assigned to coordinate or oversee that body and it's starting to drain limited city staff resources. Here's the link to the new sandwich sign board task force: http://a2gov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=531082&GUID=92EBB51C-710C-4FE9-B770-FBB9305AA949&Options=ID|Text|&Search=sandwich

Janelle Baranowski

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 10:15 a.m.

a2cynic, I totally agree; I actually just posted about this on my blog yesterday. "The Ann Arbor City Council has a unique aptitude for creating misc. committees, boards, commissions, etc. Currently, their are 88 boards and commissions and another has been proposed. http://a2gov.legistar.com/Departments.aspx Grand Rapids has 33. Kalamazoo has 30. East Lansing has 21. I think it's time the city council looked up the definition of streamlining." Janelle Baranowski www.some-other-viewpoint.blogspot.com

townie54

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 9:12 a.m.

I dont want to pay money for a (dam n) dam that shouldn't be there any more

Rork Kuick

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 9:03 a.m.

That more pro-dam folk show up at meetings proves they are well organized, not that their opinions are more common. That counterpoint has been repeatedly made, but it has no affect on a small group of pro-dam writers. One reason a committee might be needed is that options for the river have not been costed out very thoroughly, for example what outside funds might be available for dam removal, what the costs of dam removal really are, or what the real costs of moving rowers might be. Things are hitting the fan since dam maintenance or destruction costs will no longer be hidden away in some water supply funds. These decisions are big ones, technical ones, and very long-term ones - things ill-suited to politicians. Wystan Stevens needs to visit Hudson Mills, and review the history of the Huron-Clinton Metroparks, where heroic long-term planning make for a history with meaning, show action worth emulating, and have given us splendid parks that also protect the river.

Gill

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 8:41 a.m.

If people want to maintain the dam per its 1832 look, we should probably cut down all the trees to the horizon to match the appearance in 1832 - a muddy, clear-cut bowl.

Steve Hendel

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 7:18 a.m.

Well, Dalouie, you are right up to a point: When a new committee of residents is created that means more public input, that seems like a good thing to me. Going out of their way to incorporate public input into legislation adds a lot of time to everything. That is the major reason things take time in A2 city Govt. The problem is that 'public' input in A2 is often used as a way for elected representatives to avoid making an actual decision and being held accountable for that decision. Anyway, 'public input' seems frequently to involve just the most vocal and committed 'players' and not the average citizen-you know, the one who elected the Council member who is supposed to be making the decision in the first place. There IS a point beyond which additional options and choices and opinions become counterproductive, and just a way of avoiding a decision.

logo

Wed, Nov 18, 2009 : 12:02 a.m.

Candy: You might be right that the collection per land owner is higher than in some other cities. But you seem to miss the point that with 40% of the land off the tax roles there is a lot less land to tax than most other cities. Remember the city only gets 28% of the property taxes paid. Ann Arbor city govt. is doing a lot better than other major cities in this state despite all the non-taxable land and now the loss of 5% of their tax revenue gone with the Pfizer site. Have you seen what is going on in Grand Rapids?

Thick Candy Shell

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 10:24 p.m.

Well it is good that people can see that the "rate of tax" has gone down. It has in most places. The fact is that Ann Arbor still has a higher per capita collection than most. It still doesn't matter, the people will read the millage that says "preserving the river" and vote for it because it makes them warm and cozy in their McMansions and driving their $75,000 S.U.V. while claiming they are for the people. I for one, don't care which way you view life conservative or liberal, just be consistent.

logo

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 9:58 p.m.

Are some posters here dense, can't read, don't understand? The city council did not come up with this idea. The committee of 26 tax paying citizens who studied the issue for two years did. They made 30 recommendations. Looking at a millage was one of them. The council has to consider all of the recommendations. Beyond that those implying taxes have gone up are barking up the wrong tree. The millage in Ann Arbor, as another poster wrote, is lower now than it was in 2000. The millage has not gone up even in a period where cities are going bankrupt in the worst economy in 70 years. Even in a city that has 40% of its real estate listed as non-taxable. Find a new tree to bark under.

CynicA2

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 9:56 p.m.

Every time our esteemed mayor and council talk about creating another commission, or committee, or study group, I just cringe. Not only do all these groups cost taxpayers money, they invariably come up with some unneeded plan to fix some imaginary problem, which, of course, requires yet more tax dollars. Enough, all ready - time to declare a moratorium on all this so called "planning", and get back to basics - which have clearly been neglected by most of the current lot in city hall.

bunnyabbot

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 9:19 p.m.

response to Val Losse's post. no, ann arbor is the best community to do this, ann arbor is obviously the more conscious river community. ann arbor will lead by example. ann arbor is in the best, unique position as an international (intergalactic?) beacon of artsy fartsy hoighty toightiness. ann arbor will save the world! the residents of ann arbor will sacrifice their money where others will not to prove how wonderful ann arbor is. Even if it take city council to decide to do it on the peoples behalf. Because, obviously, city council knows what is good for the people and that means you Val! enjoy your last potato. please people, it's time to clean out the mayors office and the city council. there will be a need for shovels, resperators are suggested, the stench is overwhelming.

bunnyabbot

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 9:11 p.m.

NO MORE BUCKETS!

PformerPfizer

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 5:41 p.m.

Out this way in NJ, by law, cities are forbidden from raising property taxes by more than 4% annually. Their way around this is to break out of the city budget line items and bill for them separately. Things that historically had been a part of the general fund and financed through general taxation are removed and bills are sent to households & businesses for those services. Thus they raises taxes by 4%, then bill separately for something, say trash removal or sewage or sidewalk repair or tree maintenance or parks & rec, and effectively raise taxes 5%, 6%, or 8% without breaking the law. Next year they do the same, reducing standard city services and billing, without recourse to withhold payment, separate for things they need to raise more money for. They always claim it is revenue neutral - we're just billing people for what they use rather than by millage, but always also state, "this will increase revenues by $5 million" Shared services and essential city functions should be paid for through general taxation. Either break-out every line item and allow folks to approve/disprove everything by vote, or keep it all in the same pot!

larry

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 5:41 p.m.

First of all, this is not a debate about Argo Dam. But keep it. Draining Argo would expose low-lying wetlands that could serve no useful purpose. Further, you cannot truly restore the natural river flow without removing ALL the dams in the river's path (fluid dynamics 101). Secondly, this is the typical government response to any problem -- raise taxes. It's nice to see that people are getting sick of this approach. It's typified by the current administration in Washington, who want to actually propose more SPENDING at a time when we are running RECORD DEFICITS. One has to only look at Japan to see where such policies have led them - a stagnant economy with a national debt that is over 250% of GDP. A hole they cannot possibly dig out of. So there are two simple choices -- cut spending and live within our means; or tax and spend and kick the can down the road until the hole becomes too deep to dig out of. Perhaps then we would be bowing to China ALL the time.

John Galt

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 5:37 p.m.

Good luck with passing a new millage in this economy. Of course, if it is contained to the Ann Arbor voters, it may pass. They are predominantly government employees (or the university-- almost the same thing) and have not felt the level of pain that the private sector has been exposed to----yet.

a2mutant

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 5:30 p.m.

another useful purpose of further "study" or "public input" is to "stiff arm" having a decision made when you recognize that the current is going against you. Council members Hohnke and Teall, as sponsors of further study, are longtime outspoken proponents of removing Argo Dam. Could their recommendation for further study flow from the recognition that there is not strong enough sentiment either on council or in the community to remove argo dam and, even it there were, there is plainly no realistic local, state, or national funding available to pay for such a step? But there is public sentiment for dam removal, you say? Time and again, proponents of retaining Argo Dam have far outnumbered proponents of dam removal. For example, at the end of October, a council motion to move forward with repairing the famous toe drains certainly sent a flurry of emails to groups representing both opinions that this resolution could be "the one". A sum total of 4 individuals in the audience stood in response to Laura Rubin's request that individuals in support of dam removal make themselves know, In contrast, perhaps 4 DOZEN readily identifiable "pro dam" people were present, including (yes) rowers but also individuals who were clearly not rowers and stated so. Just one week later, in council elections, one outspoken dam out proponent was trounced by his dam in opponent and an incumbent in another ward (who has not publicly stated a position) was narrowly defeated by an outspoken dam in candidate. It is understood that argo dam was at most only one of multiple factors on the minds of voters that day. However, it is clearly apparent that outspoken support did not hurt and, in the minds of some, likely helped elect council members in 2 of the 5 wards in the city. This conclusion is consistent with the large number of "save argo pond" signs apparent throughout the city. The overall point? The public has had "input". Many times. And is is now time for members of council who may not agree with the message to do the right thing and move on.

Alice Ralph

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 5:24 p.m.

The Argo Dam is in good condition. Because of the recreational value of its impoundment, the AD should be/is a public asset. The questions should center around how to maintain an asset, while deciding what treatment is needed for the mill race embankment at the Argo Dam. Meanwhile, wouldn't it be a good idea to figure out a plan for the Huron River as an important asset along with the elements that add value as both a natural system and a recreational system. I would like to see less piecemeal 'flailing about'.

YpsiLivin

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 5:10 p.m.

in search of the Golden Fleece?...Golden Fleece... heh. That about sums it up, doesn't it?

Dalouie

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 4:34 p.m.

The members of the HRIMP committee who recommended the city explore the idea of a millage for the river were taxpayers and the members of the new committee would be too. People on the Envir. Commission, Energy Commission, etc. are taxpayers. Council members are taxpayers. When a new committee of residents is created that means more public input, that seems like a good thing to me. Going out of their way to incorporate public input into legislation adds a lot of time to everything. That is the major reason things take time in A2 city Govt.

Wystan Stevens

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 4:32 p.m.

LETS KEEP ARGO POND The pond now called Argo has been a fixture of the local landscape since 1832, when Anson Brown, erected a grist mill beside an early wooden version of the Broadway Bridge, and built the first dam to hold water back to power the mill. (Born a New Yorker, Brown started the settlement known as Lower Town Ann Arbor, calling Broadway and Wall Street after thoroughfares in New York City. Brown owned the mill, but was not the miller, and he died in the cholera epidemic of 1834.) An internet search wont find early 19th-century references to Argo, because the pond didnt have that name until 1892, when a group of Ann Arbor businessmen, investors in the Michigan Milling Company, took over the operation (then known as the Sinclair Mills) and rebuilt the structure that they then named the Argo Flouring Mills. The dam and pond took their name from the mills, but no one knows where that name came from. Did the mills golden grain suggest a comparison to the brave ship Argo of Greek myth, which bore Jason and his men in search of the Golden Fleece? (The Michigan Milling Company had its offices at the Central Mills on First Street, where the Blind Pig is now and where, Im told, a certain golden liquid flows a beverage made from grain.) Through the decades, the dam was rebuilt a few times (and probably made a little higher, after the Eastern Michigan Edison Company acquired the water rights). But in a freak calamity that drew a crowd of spectators, the Argo mill exploded and burned on January 4, 1904. Firemen came, and the water that doused the flames left a white pall of icicles on the tall buildings ruined skeleton, a scene captured in dramatic photographs. The companys plutocrat investors decided not to rebuild, and a picturesque milling era we might call it the Flouring of Ann Arbor came to an end. From Argos ashes rose the Phoenix of a new era of power generation. Within a few years, the company later known as Detroit Edison had erected a power generating station on the mill site, running its turbines and generators with water from the millrace. Three weeks after the mill disaster, on January 27, 1904, the Ann Arbor Railroads trestle collapsed, dropping a heavy freight train and its cargo onto the ice of Argo Pond. In the days that followed, parties of gawkers turned out for that spectacle too, including small boys like the late Ray Spokes, who looted water-soaked crates of Beemans Pepsin Gum. The inadequate early trestle which stood close to the dam got replaced that year with another of thick steel, on massive concrete piers, a landmark still in place. (That year, 1904, was a bad one at both ends: on the last day of December, the Ann Arbor High School burned to the ground.) Throughout the 19th century, and early decades of the 20th, winter ice was harvested on Argo Pond, and stored in great blocks in straw-lined ice houses on the Main Street riverbank. Some of the ice buildings were owned by downtown caterers like Jacob Hangsterfer, whose big emporium depended on a steady supply of ice to preserve meat, and to refresh thirsty customers at his ballroom, year round. Another enterprising German immigrant was Paul G. Tessmer, who in 1898 sold his grocery business and opened a boat livery the U. of M. Boat House on the ponds Main Street side. By 1906, Tessmer had a stock of 160 canoes and 40 rowboats, all built by himself. He and his big family lived in a house on Sunset hill, overlooking the pond a building that became the Elks Pratt Lodge. Tessmers docks and boathouse later were moved across the pond, to the foot of Longshore Drive, and became William J. Saunders canoe livery, then Jack Wirths, until 1969, when the Ann Arbor parks department took over. On moonlit evenings in June, the pond was jammed with U-M students in canoes, boys in blazers treating their sweethearts to a mandolin serenade. Around 1900, these romantics began calling the path along the headrace embankment Lovers Lane. (In the 1930s and 40s, the embankment became part of Ann Arbors hobo jungle.) One of the citys public works projects during the Depression years was the building of a public bathing beach at the foot of Longshore Drive, where the canoe livery is now. Tons and tons of Lake Michigan white sand were hauled in and spread around, to make the beach comfortable and pretty. Repeated summer polio scares in the 1940s eventually led to its closing. The pond was drained in 1930, when Edison built a new dam, and again in the early 1970s, when Joe ONeals construction company built the present dam for the city a project completed in 1972. Treasure hunters prowled the muck for artifacts, and collectors found old Ann Arbor bottles for their collections. Construction workers pulled a particularly heavy souvenir out of the mud: a set of ribbed steel wheels, from one of the boxcars that fell off the old railroad trestle in 1904! Argo Pond is an essential element of the history of Ann Arbor; it helps define our citys character. In historical terms, Ann Arbor has always had that pond, has grown up around it, and would not be the same without it. It is a dynamic body, as dynamic as the city itself. The waters of the Huron have flowed since time began, and they have been flowing through the pond and over the dam, ever since Ann Arbor was a tiny village in the wilderness west of Detroit. By all means let us maintain momentum, improve the ponds surroundings, clear out shabby factory buildings on North Main Street, and replace them with an attractive multi-use facility, one which includes cafes and a dining terrace that overlooks trees and water. It is a view to be enjoyed in every season. But let us not rashly sacrifice our beloved Argo Pond, Ann Arbors urban waterfront. Argo is an asset, an amenity of the type that other communities long for. We should consider every means of enhancing access to it, and keeping its shining surface intact. Dont pull the plug on Argo dont let it go down the drain. My enjoyment of the river has been passive. I havent been out in a boat, havent stopped to watch the oarsmen, never even dipped a toe in Argo Pond but I appreciate Argos contribution to the quality of life in this place, and I like to see it now and then, and know that it is there. I hope that it will forever remain in the heart of our city, where it has been bubbling and rippling for 177 years.

Val Losse

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 4:31 p.m.

How interesting that people in Ann Arbor, some committee, believes that the health of the Huron River depends on us. That's like using chewing gum to repair Argo dam. The river happens to be hundreds of miles long passing through manh communities and recreational areas with hundreds of storm sewers emptying into it and all the run-off from roads, farm land and what-not. The health of the river depends on all of the communities that the river passes plus all of the streams and creeks that empty into it. Here we go again with the millage suggestion. How about the rest of the people who pay very little or no property taxes? Oh! I forgot the Democrats what my money again even though I am on a fixed income. What is another $20 added to the thousands I am paying already? A poltry sum.

Janelle Baranowski

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 3:40 p.m.

Why does it seem that everything needs it's own "Committee"? Every time a new committee, program, commission, or department is added, it just creates more government bloat. *"The Environmental Commission created a committee 3 years ago to develop a plan for managing the Huron River." *"The plan also states the city's Natural Area Preservation program lacks staff and financial resources to provide stewardship of aquatic natural areas and recommends expanding the program." *"Hohnke said the River Stewardship Committee would include representatives from the City Council, Environmental Commission, Energy Commission, Park Advisory Commission and others appointed by City Council with expertise in river science and river recreation." Janelle www.some-other-viewpoint.blogspot.com

iceman

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 1:43 p.m.

Come on council,bust a move! I'll be dead from a piece of state street bridge hitting me on the head before a decision is made. The school millage was a failure. River millage, please. How many studies? Gee those aren't free, are they! The cost of repair or replacement isn't going to get cheaper in the future. So don't take a spaceage to figure it out.

Rork Kuick

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 1:39 p.m.

To satisfy 81wolverine, I hearby propose that all 4 of the city owned dams be removed in the long run. Maybe in over 30 years for Barton, so don't hold your breath. (I haven't seen anyone propose that they remain there forever, perhaps because we would asked them to cost that out.) Water supply to Ann Arbor can happen without a stopper dam (see Washington, D.C.), and I think the hydro power obtained is not worth continued abuse of the most beautiful river in lower southern Michigan. Hydro makes no direct CO2, but it is hardly "green". That is an old debate out west, but I think few people here seem familiar with it. Perhaps the costs of dredging Barton will have to become eminent before we realize the extent of the services a healthy river system provides. The river may be Ann Arbor's most important natural feature - it has just been treated very badly.

David Cahill

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 1:19 p.m.

"It takes a millage to raise a river." Hmm. Needs work.

Dalouie

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 12:02 p.m.

People: City council did not propose a millage. The millage is one option presented in the report of the HRIMP committee. The committee was made up of tax paying citizens of Ann Arbor; rowers, environmentalists, water quality specialists, interested residents etc. In fact if you look at the city millage rate today it is lower than it was ten years ago, the millage has not increased despite the long drawn out recession in Michigan.

braggslaw

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 12:02 p.m.

Tear the dam down!

Moose

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 11:20 a.m.

So council wants to make another "bucket" to put more of our tax dollars into, then turn around and distribute them to the AAPAC, Parks, the General Fund and wherever they can all while claiming the the "river" needs a special millage to save it. If the Huron River could speak for itself, it would tell us that it wants to be left alone.

bruceae

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 10:21 a.m.

We need people in this town on the school board and on the city council that can find solutions to problems without just proposing a new tax increase. Am I the only one that is sick and tired of this from the city council and the school boards every few months? Lets go to the root of the problem and vote out these people who think the answer to everything problem is to throw more of MY MONEY at it.

Chas Leaufe

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 9:59 a.m.

Dam removal expensive? Sure...but not nearly as expensive as keeping the dam. Every year the dam exists, you have to pay for maintenance to the structure and the pond. That's $60,000 in a good year, when nothing's going wrong. But the embankment is in terrible shape and needs fixing; the dam mechanicals need an overhaul in the next couple years. That's extra hundreds of thousands of dollars. The pond is overgrown with weeds and filling in; the rowers have to mow it every day during the summer, and it's only getting worse. Of course it's more expensive to maintain a massive piece of infrastructure than to remove it. And the longer it stays in, the more it costs. Argo is also one of the two worst dams in the state for changing river hydrology, which DNR reps say is their biggest concern in river health. This is one of the most damaging dams in the state, and its impacts travel downstream as far as Flat Rock. Take out Argo, free a great stretch of natural flowing river, create better paddling and tubing, open up a walk/run/bike route along the river so you don't have to travel on Main Street to get around the M14 bridge, and consolidate our recreation and expenses on the remaining three dams. Cheaper, more sensible, better for the river.

Ryan J. Stanton

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 9:58 a.m.

The resolution would direct the new River Stewardship Committee "to provide an implementation plan with identified funding needs and proposed funding strategies, including language for a river millage, within 6 months." It leaves it up to the committee to decide what, as it relates to maintaining the river, needs funding and how much is needed.

DagnyJ

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 9:30 a.m.

How out of touch could the council be? A new millage? Are they crazy?

A2liveandwork

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 9:29 a.m.

The city is completely out of control. The leadership's answer to every pet project and interest it to cry about not having enough money and propose a millage. Those who are proposing this should take a hint from the failure of the school's millage.

81wolverine

Tue, Nov 17, 2009 : 9:13 a.m.

The millage idea makes sense, but nowhere does the article say how much funding they are proposing. Maybe Council has no idea yet. The river system going through the city is basically beautiful as is in my opinion. The recreational impoundments (Argo, Geddes, Barton) should be maintained and improved where possible. Dam removal is an expensive, pie-in-the-sky proposal that will not bring most of the benefits it's proponents claim. Unless ALL 4 of the dams in the city are removed, it just doesn't make sense. The city has invested a lot of money over the years to create the wonderful park system infrastructure along the river. Maintaining it is the only option for the forseeable future, especially given the weak economic climate in this area.