Ann Arbor's proposed $270K cut to parks funding goes too far, violates city policy
Hayleigh Weatherholt, 3, sits with her brother Christian Banos-Weatherholt, 2, on a swing while playing together at Buhr Park on Monday afternoon.
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
Under a council-approved policy dating back to 2006, cuts to parks cannot be greater than the percentage reduction in the city's general fund in any given year.
The city is proposing about a 3.1 percent cut to the general fund starting July 1. Meanwhile, funding for parks is proposed to drop by about 4.2 percent, though city officials say that's due largely to efficiencies in service delivery — not actual service reductions.
Still, members of the city's Park Advisory Commission have lamented the cuts, as well as the fact that the budget for park operations shifts nearly $250,000 to the city's stormwater and Metro Expansion funds.
The issue took center stage Monday night during a special working session of the City Council. After a lengthy discussion, city officials came to an agreement that the recommended budget for parks next year falls about $90,000 short of adhering the 2006 policy.
That's when considering the $2.5 million park operations budget and the separate $3.5 million parks and recreation budget as a whole. Together, those budgets are proposed to be cut by about $270,000 in the fiscal year starting July 1.
Now council members either have to amend the 2006 policy or find another place in the budget to take $90,000 from, and that's easier said than done.
Ann Arbor City Council Member Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward, fears reducing cuts to parks by $90,000 will mean the elimination of another firefighter or police officer.
Taylor said there would need to be a permanent lasting cut somewhere else in the budget to restore that $90,000 to parks.
The city already is looking at deep cuts to public safety, including 25 positions in the police department and 12 positions in the fire department over the next two years.
When the parks funding policy originally was approved by the City Council, it was seen as a way to assure voters that once the parks millage passed that year, money from the levy would not simply take the place of general fund support for parks, PAC representatives point out.
PAC Chairwoman Julie Grand reminded council members last week that the millage will be up for renewal next year.
"Next year we are going to be asking voters to return to pass the millage again and the significant cuts really concern us," she said, adding she's worried the perception will be out in the community that "the millage will just be a substitute for the general fund."
The city's proposed budget includes $158,000 in savings by using temporary labor for vacant positions to maintain service levels in park operations. City officials also cite new equipment and changes in procedures that will allow mowing at the same level as last year.
The parks budget also includes a number of fee increases — such as at city swimming pools and the Buhr Park ice rink — that are expected to raise tens of thousands of dollars.
Under any other circumstance, Taylor said, the fact that the city has found a way to reduce costs and maintain service levels would be celebrated.
"In this context, we are operating under a resolution which does not talk about the services actually provided to the residents but rather the amount of money put into the parks budget," Taylor said, adding an option to consider is revising that language.
Council Member Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward, offered a similar take.
"I'm not reading it that it's a cut. I'm reading it that they've had an efficiency in how they do their work," she said, suggesting the general fund shouldn't be tapped for $90,000 for that.
Taylor said PAC members do fairly point out there have been cutbacks in park mowing in recent years, and they see making the city stick to policy as a way of clawing back.
"I know our parks commissioners work really hard and they had a chance to go over this, and what's coming back to us from that conversation is that we're about $90,000 off," said Mayor John Hieftje.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
snapshot
Wed, May 11, 2011 : 5:03 a.m.
The newly unemployed firefighters and police officers will have a couple of nice money losing golf courses with below cost tee fees to pass the time away.
Castanza
Wed, May 11, 2011 : 4:05 a.m.
Let us not overlook the $47 million money pit @ the library lot. Which equals $500 for each man,women and child in the city, for parking underground that you still have to pay to use! What a joke to hear these council people argue over $90,000. Dissolve the DDA
CincoDeMayo
Wed, May 11, 2011 : 6:20 a.m.
Isn't the population of Ann Arbor about 64,000, not including students? That would be more like $734 for each man, woman, and child. Or, if you divide 47 million by 114,000 (another population number I've found for the entire population), it would be about $412. For the sake of argument, I will use the number you appear to be using - 94,000 which is probably somewhere between total population including UofM students and population not including UofM students. Using that number as Ann Arbor's population it would cost only about $19 dollars for the entire year per woman, man and child to retain our safety services at the levels that they are now. $500. for underground parking, $19 to keep from laying off another 10 police officers and firefighters.....just saying
Larry
Wed, May 11, 2011 : 3:33 a.m.
I don't believe we need as many parks as we have in this City. We need to focus our spending on the big parks and let the neighborhoods take care of the smaller parks. You can drive around town and find huge and brand new play sets in tiny neighborhoods that are not being used, but go to Gallup park, the most crowded and profitable in town, and the play set in the main area is bad, small and old, the bike path entrance from Geddes avenue is littered with pot holes and is dangerous, not enough water fountains...etc. The huron hills golf course should be used in the winter as an ice rink, near the river. There could be a dog park near there too. Why would anyone take there dog to swift run? it is a dump and a barren naked shell of earth. Also, there should be a walking bridge from Gallup to golf course - which the city should convert, at least part, to other uses. In these lean times we can't please everyone and have city funded parks in every neighborhood. Let's get real, focus our resources. Ann Arbor's greatest resource is the huron river. spend money cleaning it, the areas and parks around it. Stop funding neighborhood parks completely. Sell the land if the communities don't want to organize to maintain their neighborhood parks. We can't give everyone 7 acres and a mule. We have so many services to maintain, so many tiny parks no one really uses, that are tax rate is so high no one wants to move to ann arbor anymore. we will end up with more empty parks. Make the tough choices. consolidate, consolidate, consolidate and focus on a few gems, not a million pebbles.
kathryn
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 11:31 p.m.
I think many people are missing the point. Robbing Peter to pay Paul (shifting money that was explicitly voted for parks around to cover other expenses) is a kind of stealing. This is similar to Snyder shifting money out of the K-12 funding pool to cover other expenses (and ultimately to cover his tax cuts). It leads to a distrust of government when it's found that promises will not be kept. Why should I believe again anybody asking for a millage for a specific project? It seems that when the going gets tough, someone will decide that the money is up for grabs.
CincoDeMayo
Wed, May 11, 2011 : 5:58 a.m.
kathryn, The way I read it, it is NOT that money is being shifted "that was explicitly voted for parks around to cover other expenses", but just about the opposite -- that there is consideration of taking money out of the General Fund, to give to parks (in order to accommodate a 2006 policy that protects the parks - of all budgets - from being cut more that any other budget). From the article: "Now council members either have to amend the 2006 policy or find another place in the budget to take $90,000 from." "Taylor said there would need to be a permanent lasting cut somewhere else in the budget to restore that $90,000 to parks."
Rachel
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 11:04 p.m.
It is a shame funding has to be taken away from parks--however SOMETHING has to be cut. Education has already taken hard hits, and so have firemen and police officers. I only hope that we don't forget that parks are what makes Ann Arbor unique.
bruno_uno
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 9:53 p.m.
there goes my vote for anyone on this council....obviously they are crooked as the unions (police, fire, PUBLIC servants, and teachers)
CincoDeMayo
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 4:39 a.m.
I'm surprised the union busters haven't noticed your comment and robo voted it up yet.
amlive
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 6:19 p.m.
Could we save any money by getting rid of the "Voice of Thor" lightning detection alarms from our parks? Are there any other ridiculous projects like this lying around that could be replaced by common sense? Times are tough you know, and maybe we could just learn to look up at the sky and judge for ourselves when there may be a storm coming...
Sarah W.
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 4:53 p.m.
Now Im no politician or anything like that, but cant they choose a few areas to cut spending on instead of making just one area suffer? Those are my kids in that picture for this article, and Im pretty sure we are not the only family that goes to spend time at parks and such, its not fair to make the children and those of us who enjoy the parks suffer cuts in the funding to maintain these places. Next thing you know there will be parks closing down and kids are in the streets doing nothing good because their favorite park got closed and the politicians are shifting subjects to ignore the fact that they caused this...how about the politicians take a pay cut? (Im pretty sure they are not suffering like the rest of us) Along with revised budgeting for a few choice areas that wont cause a catastrophy if we trim some of the excess off? it would take some work but at least not just one area is hit hard with budget cuts, just some thoughts!
JSA
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.
I no longer live in Ann Arbor and I find this tremendously amusing. People, you elected these financial incompetents. You made a decision you need to live with it. Throw them out at the next election and maybe consider getting rid of public art on buildings, art paid for by the taxpayer to foreign nationals, and stupid million dollar fountains.
JSA
Wed, May 11, 2011 : 4:14 p.m.
dotdash, Agreed.
dotdash
Wed, May 11, 2011 : 12:52 a.m.
Well, okay, that's a legitimate concern. We are all in the same county-wide boat on some levels. My personal hangup is how the rest of the county defeated the "it takes a millage" -- but we probably all have some problems with each other. Pax.
JSA
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 5:20 p.m.
dotdash, I worry about it because of the continous attempts of Ann Arbor politicians and bureacrats to stick it to everyone else in the county. You did the greenbelt county wide millage, you're pushing for a transportation millage that is a farce. You continually elect jokes to office and they are potential pains to everyone, not just the ignorant of Ann Arbor.
dotdash
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.
Um... How to say this? Since you have moved out of town, you should feel free to spend your energy fixing any problems you might have in your current place of residence.
Lifelong A2
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.
Here's an idea: repeal the 2006 policy. A lot has changed since 2006: the Great Recession, Pfizer's departure, the proposed drastic cuts to revenue sharing, etc. Even after the $90,000 cut to parks, we will still have a well-funded expansive parks system. And if the voters choose not to renew the millage next year, they will be choosing drastic cuts to parks funding. That's their choice. The Council shouldn't have to bribe the voters by kicking in extra money from the general fund.
George Gaston
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 4 p.m.
Would this be a good time to ask how much money the Ann Arbor park system would get by the City entering into an agreement with the University of Michigan to allow the Hospital to build a parking structure on a city park? I can see why the University likes the idea, they get to build on free and ideally located land. If this proposal goes forward, how will our parks benifit? Location, location, location; this land is valuable.
bulldog01
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.
What do you want the Council to do? Get real people - the park will still be there - maybe we should all pitch in and clean it up when we see a mess - community pride. Cuts will abound everywhere get used to it.
dotdash
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 2:06 p.m.
If you want the ball field cut, bring your lawnmower before a game. Do some weeding with your kids on Sunday. Pitch in cheerfully. I'm more worried about the part about trading good jobs in for "temporary labor". I'd rather have tall grass and employees who can feed their kids than minimum wage workers. Yes, we can save a few bucks that way, but wouldn't it be better to provide good jobs?
dotdash
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.
bulldog1: that is why I said I'd prefer to have longer grass and keep the pay rates the same rather than switching out good jobs for more minimum wage jobs in order to keep the grass short.
bulldog01
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 3:26 p.m.
There is NO money to pay people more.
Major
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.
How about cut some of the so called "parks" themselves! I see many minute patches of land, one couldn't even build a house on, being called a park all over AA. What's the deal with that? Seems like a lot of money spent to make a sign and maintain, for what amounts to nothing more than a small patch of land that NO ONE uses...what a complete waste of tax $$.....only in Ann Arbor!
MikeyP
Wed, May 11, 2011 : 2:23 a.m.
Considering there are 157 city parks it shouldn't be too hard to sell a few! Heck, some parts of town there are parks across the street from other parks which are practically next-door to another park! All this hulabaloo about the "park" that the train station/parking garage would cover seems to ignore the fact that this park is across the street from another park that has yet ANOTHER park right behind it with ANOTHER park about 100 yards to the west along the river and MORE parkland (albeit UofM property) about 50 yards east of it! Yeah, getting rid of that one "park" (currently a PARKING LOT!) isn't going to be the end of "enjoying nature" in Ann Arbor. Or take Clinton Park on Stone School... nice little park, sure, but Mary Beth Doyle Park is right down Birch Hollow Dr. AND there's another park on the other side of Stone School a bit up the road! Really, three parks in this little corner of the city? Mary Beth Doyle Park is large enough with enough facilities to compensate for the elimination of BOTH these other parks IMHO. I'm just flabbergasted that there are 157 parks in this city! That's crazy! That's a big number for an entire county!
kathryn
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 11:17 p.m.
Which park(s) do you suggest selling?
MikeyP
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.
Cutting back on the number of parks in Ann Arbor, that's a good one! The day that happens is the day we're ice skating in hell. Preserving highly manicured representations of nature so the denizens don't have to experience actual natural conditions is the kind of hypocrisy that must be protected at all costs. Heck, if you let the grass grow then maybe some critter will hang out in there... some wild beast! We can't have our elderly being carted off as dinner by some rabid raccoon.
leezee
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 1:20 p.m.
This city is wack. The parks are already showing neglect due to cuts, but, by all means, lets add more bike lanes and asinine artsy bike racks.
jns131
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 1:51 p.m.
I must say one thing. Canton is doing a darn fine job with their cut backs and still maintaining a pretty nice dog park and bike path from Morton Taylor Road to the highway. Sounds like Ann Arbor is taking after Detroit. Hi maintenance administration sucking every penny from whatever can be found. Sounds like another Kwame administration to me. Good luck Ann Arbor, you won't have much left if you let the city bleed you dry.
63Townie
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.
I'd rather they cut the parks budget than lay off one more public safety employee.
blahblahblah
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 12:38 p.m.
Another week, another stake holder is heard. Last week it was social services, this week the parks dept. Greater transparency and open discussions are a good thing but eventually some hard decisions have to be made. Personally, I would have more sympathy for the parks dept. if they 1.) had the guts to stand up against the Fuller Station proposal and 2.) quit subsidizing two golf courses (one's enough) which has siphoned parks money away from more far reaching capital projects like the border-to-border trail. In regards to the border-to-border trail, how much longer are residents expected to illegally cross railroad tracks at the Arb and Bandemer/Barton parks in order to fully enjoy the river trail? With supposedly faster trains on the way, when will these remaining capital projects ever see the light of day? Parks millages and greenbelt funds have supplied plenty of funds but how much has been spent or will be spent on these remaining linkages?
CincoDeMayo
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 12:28 p.m.
Thank you Chris Taylor for putting things in perspective.
CincoDeMayo
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 12:21 p.m.
I will NEVER vote for a millage for the parks again if this year's proposed cuts to our police and fire go through.
mireader
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 12:17 p.m.
The grass last summer was so high that it was a deterrent from entering the parks. How much more can they cut it back?
Epengar
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 12:38 p.m.
you didn't go into city parks because the grass was too high? Really? Why? That seems absurd.
a2grateful
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.
The budget or the grass? ; )
RUKiddingMe
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 12:06 p.m.
And how much did we already spend on that new "train station"? "We live in difficult times", eh? Seems weird to put so much money into this Fuller Transit station then. You know, what with there being ZERO justification for it. It's hard to believe how completely impervious these people are to shame. And they'll just keep pushing forward with it, too. Unbelievable.
InsideTheHall
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 12:01 p.m.
There would be plenty of money for recreation if the Green Belt boondoggle had not siphoned away the money. Meanwhile the grass continues to grow and ball fields sit idle.
andys
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 4:29 p.m.
Exactly grye. The days of being able to fund that kind of thing are long gone. It should be repealed, and the money re-channeled to essential services. Or are there extremist out there who gladly watch safety services being cut so that land that will now never be developed will be purchased to let sit idle?
CincoDeMayo
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 12:27 p.m.
I agree grye. And, just for the record, in theory I am a greenbelt proponent, but I was one of the minority who voted "no" to to the millage as proposed. My lack of faith in the administration, and awareness of critical needs in the city, overruled my luxurious wishes (of which I have many....)
grye
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 12:10 p.m.
The Greenbelt millage was completely separate from the rest of the city budget. Funding to provided to the purchase land we can look at cannot be used for other purposes. It would be much better if that millage was replealed and a new millage at the same level were proposed to allow necessary funding of essential govt operations.
Scotsman
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 11:33 a.m.
So we are penalizing the Parks for being efficient? Are we making the assumption that the Parks Dept is the only one that has gotten more efficient? What a crock!
Jack
Wed, May 11, 2011 : 1:27 a.m.
What makes you think the parks are efficient? Just wondering. I see poor maintenance of parks being an issue. Plus we keep buying up land for parks and greenspace even when times are hard. It's a waste.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 11:07 a.m.
"Under a council-approved policy dating back to 2006, cuts to parks cannot be greater than the percentage reduction in the city's general fund in any given year." How about this for an option.... Under a council-approved policy dating 2011, cuts to parks can be as great as needed to balance the budget without endangering citizens safety by further slashing police and fire.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, May 10, 2011 : 10:19 a.m.
"PAC Chairwoman Julie Grand reminded council members last week that the millage will be up for renewal next year." No, voters who were lied to about no cuts if the supplemental parks millage was passed when voting in the tax before will be more than happy to wear a 'kick me' sign on their backs once again. We loved being lied to.