Christopher Taylor champions tax increase for sidewalk repairs in letter to Ann Arbor residents
"Sometimes we don’t get it right," Ann Arbor City Council Member Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward, writes in a letter e-mailed to city residents today.
His comments come in reference to the city of Ann Arbor's sidewalk repair program, an issue that will be on the city's November ballot.
City officials are asking voters to approve a 0.125-mill increase in property taxes to shift the responsibility for sidewalk repairs from individual residents to the city. The increase would raise taxes by about $13.38 per year on a home with a market value of $214,000.
Christopher Taylor
Over the past few years, Taylor says, Ann Arbor sought to ensure the good repair of sidewalks by creating rotating enforcement zones in which staff would inspect sidewalks and notify property owners of their obligation to fix them as necessary.
"This program of inspection and decentralized repair always struck me as problematic because it failed to recognize that sidewalks are a public asset and failed to take advantage of economies of scale," Taylor writes. "The policy unfairly imposed high cost on some residents and zero cost on other residents."
Taylor said he understands why some would see Ann Arbor’s assumption of responsibility for sidewalk repairs as unfair to people who already have paid to replace their sidewalks.
"Folks with this concern argue that these homeowners would essentially be paying twice — once to fix their sidewalks, and again through the tax increase," he writes, going on to acknowledge that "any change will create some inequity" but he still doesn't think it's reason enough to oppose the ballot proposal in November.
He says going to a new system of maintaining public sidewalks by spreading the cost throughout the taxpaying population would be a "substantial improvement."
The City Council voted unanimously earlier this month to put the sidewalk repair question to voters this November. The question will be worded as an increase in the city's street reconstruction millage — raising the levy from 2 to 2.125 mills.
The extra $563,000 from that increase, city officials say, would be dedicated to the new sidewalk repair program, shifting responsibility away from homeowners and back to the city.
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
sojourner truth
Tue, Nov 8, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.
In Ward 2 every vote is crucial. We need an independent voice on council. The mayor walked door to door with Rapundalo along with several other coucil persons. Doesn't that smack a bit of cronyism? If you want the government that we have had for the past 6 years, vote for Rapundalo. If you want a candidate who thinks things through and independently, elect Jane Lumm.
A24Mee
Mon, Nov 7, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.
Although it seems unfair to be taxed for something one has already paid for, we forget that the trees will continue to break up the sidewalks and we may need to repair more slabs. How will you feel if you have to pay yet again to repair your sidewalk? Think forward, not backward!
ligrasp
Wed, Sep 7, 2011 : 1:51 a.m.
I don't understand why the city doesn't have the responsibility (and dedicated staff) to maintain the sidewalks as part of its street maintenance. This way we would have uniform quality of sidewalk repair rather than the hit-and-miss situation we have now. At the same time the sidewalks are being maintained there could be inspection of vegetative growth around sidewalks and citations given to those who have shrubs, rocks, and other vegetation encroaching on the walkways. Let's see our city services in action.
Howie
Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 8:04 p.m.
I complied with the City's program and paid over $1000 to repair my sidewalks two years ago. My neighbor across the street, however, ignored their marked slabs and about 9 slabs remain badly broken. Seem inappropriate to reward this type of non-compliance. If this millage passes, those of us who paid should get a tax credit for the new millage.
jaynor
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 3:56 p.m.
Don't most civilized city governments take care of their infrastructures?
sojourner truth
Tue, Nov 8, 2011 : 6:42 p.m.
But 1% of each millage for infrastructure, goes for public art. Have you ever seen the historic monuments around town? They are paid for with private money! For your $2.2 million, you have two orange trees in West Park and the "sculpture" at city Hall.
Seasoned Cit
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 5:05 p.m.
Why not have each repaired sidewalk block have a commissioned art work imprinted? We could then use some of the Public ?Art funds.
Bogie
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
Love the Ronald Reagan quote about government and a baby are much the same. They both eat and eat with the same end result!
jeff4179
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 3:16 p.m.
It appears that the City Council has lost its credibility (and deservedly so), which is why a modest proposal for $13/year tax increase has people fuming. The sidewalk folks originally went through our neighborhood in NE Ann Arbor shortly after the national economy tanked, and were extremly liberal in their interpretation of which sidewalks needed repair. Sidewalks with a very small crack, no uneven pavement, were marked for replacement. I couldn't believe how out of touch City Council was for not reconsidering that program when residents were facing dire economic times. And now that they have alienated the residents with this issue (among many other issues), they come up with the idea of taxing citizens so that next time individuals don't have to fork out hundreds of dollars to ecstatic concrete contractors. It really seems like Council just doesn't have its finger on the pulse (or anywhere near the pulse) of Ann Arbor citizens.
KeepingItReal
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 2:54 p.m.
This is what yo get when you don't vote. You end up with a one party system where decisions are made unilaterally. The insane thing is that with all of the complaining, people will vote for this millage anyway and the same politicians they complain about. I guess a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush,
JSA
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 2:53 p.m.
There seems to be one small flaw in his plan. What guarantee do you actually have that the city will spend this money on sidewalk repair as versus just siphoning this off for another water fountain? Tax and spend is all these folks know. They do not spend it on real needs, they spend it on their own pet projects and the heck with the financial health of the city or the good of the taxpayer.
63Townie
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.
Typical politics, typical of the current administration. I'm thinking homeowners in the 3rd ward haven't been gigged yet for their own sidewalk repairs. I hope the collective "we" shoot this down in flames in November.
Arno B
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:43 p.m.
Well I sure appreciate all of the deep thinkers who help elect these people to City Hall! It keeps getting worse, doesn't it? Of course I vote NO to Taylor's proposition. Those who babble for a "City Income Tax" are just as bad. Note that the City Income Tax words are couched in terms of "Taxing the non-residents who come in." However, after reading the fine print you will find that all of us residents are taxed too. What will these proponents do when even more funds are decided? I'd say vote them all out. As Mark Twain said, "We've got the best politicians money can buy"!!
Mr Blue
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 2:41 p.m.
Where's that fine print that you're talking about? You're making this up. A city income tax allows for those who live in the city limits AND are employed in the city to get a rebate on the city income tax they pay. That's the way it works in most every city that has an income tax.
justcary
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:06 p.m.
<$20 for sidewalks, fine. But those who already paid for repairs should get a tax credit.
momzilla
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:39 p.m.
I agree with all those that have cited that they complied with the city request (back in 2007, as I recall?) to repair their sidewalks and feel it is unfair to now be taxed for work we already had completed. Our neighborhood worked together to get the best price per slab and had the work done by one contractor, who did an excellent job for us. I personally paid $1,100 in sidewalk slab replacement when it was not really convenient to do so, but felt it was my duty as citizen of Ann Arbor and as a homeowner. Unfortunately, my neighborhood included a number of rental homes, whose landlords did not comply with the city requests. The rental home sidewalks were finally done 3 years later after the city contracted to have the work performed. Taxing those that have been compliant is not the right thing to do. The city council consideration of a tax for sidewalk repair simply rewards those that were not compliant, most noticeably (in my neighborhood, at least) the rental home landlords. As one who usually votes for tax increases to help our community, I must in this particular case, vote "no" on this proposal. A guarantee of a refund or tax credit for what we have already paid might convince me to vote differently.
PersonX
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 12:51 p.m.
I am in full agreement that such a tax would, in the long run, be preferable to homeowners taking care of sidewalks. However, the problem has been that some of us complied and spent quite a bit of money repairing sidewalks, while others did not. If you walk around in the near downtown you will see that most private homes have decent sidewalks, while many, although not all, that are owned by rental landlords or managed by companies do not. No one seems to have done anything about this. By all means, transition to a modest tax and take on the job, but first make those who did not make the effort pay a fine or fix their sidewalks before the new system comes into play.
Bertha Venation
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 12:32 p.m.
OK. So what about those of use who live in the city, pay city taxes and do not have sidewalks? For example, I live on a gravel road with no sidewalks in the city of Ann Arbor. Why should I pay for something that does not benefit me whatsoever??
Esch Park
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 10:34 a.m.
This is a bad idea and totally unfair to those of us who followed the rules and paid for our sidewalk repairs. The City needs to enforce their current program. How about a special assessment for lawn cutting and house painting.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 3:38 a.m.
@snapshot: a city income tax would raise about $8 millon a year after administrative expenses. We don't need a city income tax. The city has more than $250 million in cash lying around, but it's trapped in separate dedicated accounts ("buckets") and it can't be moved to where it needs to be used to meet urgent needs like fire and police safety. City council should be spending it's time discussing ways to drain the buckets to get the resources where it needs to be. This is complicated and takes time, but if they don't start to discuss it and instead spend their time on lower priority items, like sidewalk repair or ticketing cars that idle, they will never begin the process of fixing this big issue. Drain the buckets! P.S. @Stephen Landes has some good thoughts above your comment on the way it could work.
Bertha Venation
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 3:26 p.m.
Very well said, Steve! I couldn't agree more!
snapshot
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 2:03 a.m.
Why is this going to the ballet box and not a city income tax? What is it with leadership and their opposition to putting a city income tax in front of the voters? What are they afraid of? Their jobs maybe because all those union members can organize and vote colletively to get them out of office. Does that seem fair to all the property owners who continued to get "gouged" with tax increases? Who do these "leaders" really represent? Not us homeowners.
Stephen Landes
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:50 a.m.
If this simply creates another dedicated fund which restricts the use of funds for other purposes then I absolutely have to vote NO. What doesn't the City Council understand about the problem we have with too many buckets of funds with too little flexibility to spend money as needed. What we need is to eliminate the "fund buckets" and replace all the city shenanigans with a capital budget and an operating budget -- two very simple budgets without all the various accounts, funds, restrictions, and rigidity of the current process. This change would put the responsibility for spending squarely on City Council: they would have the flexibility to manage the city funds as needed to meet citizens' expectations and the accountability at the ballot box for their actions. No more pushing responsibility on previous councils or restrictions decided long ago during some obscure funding battle.
Stuart Brown
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:40 a.m.
An easy way for all homeowners to get their money back is by voting down the renewal of the 2 mill Streets Fund this November (notice how the the Streets Fund renewal is worded to sound like a new sidewalk program at a cost of only "$13.38" per average household--if you're dumb enough to pull the lever for the sidewalk program, you're also approving the 2 mill millage renewal.) The average homeowner would get back about $200 dollars per year if the Street's millage is not renewed. Voting down the Street's millage gets around the thorny problem of having to figure out how much to pay people who have already paid for sidewalk repair. What about roads you say? Well, while Ann Arbor roads have been cratering over the last few years, rather than spend street repair money on street repair, the city has opted to accumulate a huge surplus of about $28 million in the Streets Fund. Don't ask me why this was done, I don't know and the people who do don't seem to be talking which is why I don't trust the city and I want my money back. I can do more to stimulate this economy with my $200 dollars than the city can. Drain the Streets Fund bucket! We can talk about restoring this millage when the city demonstrates that it intends to actually use street monies to fix streets!
Bill
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 4:27 p.m.
You are absolutely right, this isn't just a small increase it is an extension. Voting it down might send a message to the mayor and city council and force them to start thinking with some fiscal responsibility rather than wasting taxpayer time and money deciding on their next art project.
thinker
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:17 a.m.
We pay the highest taxes in the area, taxes which pay for public art, green belts, and other things we do not "need" . Our taxes have gone up as our property values have gone down. We pay extra for more garbage containers to haul our trash and compost. Next we'll be paying for any trash collection., for snow removal, for street sweeping. I say "no" to higher taxes.
Ron Granger
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 12:23 a.m.
He didn't mention my concern - that the city will just spend this cash elsewhere, and the sidewalks still won't get repaired. Then, sometime in the future, we'll hear a song and dance over how it didn't work out because they need yet more money to fix the sidewalks.
Dagrmc McEwen
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 12:22 a.m.
No new tax, absolutely not. The city council can't manage the money they get now. Raise taxes to build asphalt sidewalks; you have to be joking. Fix the streets. I walk 3 miles a day, and I can tell you the asphalt sidewalks aren't worth the money. Ask Frazier and Hentje to give some of the money back from his buy out, pension or whatever gift he got.
Are you serious?
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 12:02 a.m.
I have neighbors on a fixed income who have a corner lot. They paid over $1,000. Wonder if they would like a refund/reimbursement? Part of Taylor's email and my question: "It is correct that some folks will have paid dearly for sidewalk repair in the past, and some folks will have not paid for sidewalk repair at all. This is a true inequity and those who have repaired numerous slabs recently will have just cause for disappointment. To address this disparity, some have suggested that we reimburse homeowners who have fixed their sidewalks. This would be a fine solution in an ideal world, but to do so would cost many millions of dollars and create an administrative quagmire." I'm more than a little curious - where did the "many millions of dollars" number come from? And what kind of "administrative quagmire" are you talking about? I have seen nothing at all to justify those kinds of numbers. Are those of us who spent hundreds or a thousand dollars to just say "oh, well, life's not fair?" "It is simply not practical (to reimburse people who paid)." That is just a short hand way of saying the council doesn't want to go to the public and say we screwed up. I still contend that if there was a millage put on the ballot that included some form of reimbursement that it would be perceived as fair by everyone, not this Johnny come lately lame attempt to fix the problem. Thankfully the city did not make homeowners pay for the pavement in front of their houses although that would have made as much sense as the sidewalk "program."
Carole
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 12:35 a.m.
Glad you did not have to pay for pavement of your street--many years ago, I did and a corner lot at that, thousands of dollars. Then after all was paid -- took a few years, they came back and said they under estimated the bill and I was to pay hundreds more. Fortunately, the community came together and beat the city that time. We definitely need to stay on top of what city fathers are doing -- because they are not doing it right.
Let me be Frank
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 11:56 p.m.
Why not pass a resolution recognizing sidewalks and the ladder fire truck as objects de arte and make those priority art projects? I already paid planty to have my sidewalks repaired. Sidewalk repalcement should not be set up as a government entitlement program.
snapshot
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 2:26 a.m.
Sidewalk repair should never have been "privatized" to begin with. The citizens "allowed" that to happen and now they are complaining because the "bad" program is being "righted". You should have been more vocal and demanding of your leadership when they screwed you over by privatizing the sidewalk repair program. Now you lose twice. All you can do is vote no and see what happens next.
seekplsntpeninsula
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 11:51 p.m.
Now hold your horses there folks! Aren't you being a little unfair to Taylor's money grab. Perhaps its because you didn't know the latest - this just in (turn on sarcasm font at this point) - Mayor says more money needed for sidewalk repair due to global warming and the complex need for complex engineering studies. He says you wouldn't understand and you don't need to know - everything and more will be taken care of. Now get back to work and keep sending that money in for less and less in return. Got it?
Mike
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 11:50 p.m.
Never ceases to amaze me that there are people out there who actually believe the city can do ANYTHING less expensively than the private sector. Creating another government bureacracy will not solve the problem only increase the complexity, paperwork, and cost; and don't forget the legacy costs involved. Time to wake up and smell the coffee folks.............
Frank Donahue
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 11:50 p.m.
Wasn't Taylor around the last couple years when the sidewalk police marked up our sidewalks and forced us to pay for cosmetic repairs (either we could get private contractors or the 'A2 hardworkers' [at about 2X the private rate] to make the 'dictated' repairs). After last year's bill for my cosmetic repairs, I can't feel good about Taylor's tax!
sbbuilder
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 11:34 p.m.
Does anybody actually believe that a government entity can run anything efficiently? I see increased staff, increased health bennies, retirement costs, insurance liabilities, and on and on. They'll pile on so much bureaucratic muckety muck that it'll be a wonder if any sidewalks ever get replaced. We'll be waiting for matching Tiger funds from the Feds under a future stimulus. Just wait and see.
Arboriginal
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 11:28 p.m.
Deducting the amount that you had to pay from your tax bill seems to be a simple solution.
thinker
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:20 a.m.
Then you would be held in arrears in your taxes, interest would be accrued, and eventually you would lose your house due to non-payment. They get you coming or going.
jcj
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 10:46 p.m.
And WHO is going to make sure the repairs are made? Does ANYONE know of ANYONE that has had there sidewalk repaired by the city and then billed for it?
Tom Joad
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 10:14 p.m.
If it's the financial responsibility of the owner to repair the sidewalk, why the tax? Enforce the existing law with a letter, citation or suit requiring needed repairs.
zax
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.
To everyone asking about money being refunded, maybe you didn't get the letter, but Taylor said no, it would cost way too much money to refund to those homeowners who have already paid for sidewalk repairs. But the new neighborhoods being repaired are going to be affordable for the city with the tax increase? Come on! About the time my neighborhood needs to be redone they will change the law back to the homeowners responsibility and we will have to pay again!
Carolyn
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 9:17 p.m.
Will I be refunded for the $2000.00 I was required to spend to fix the sidewalk in front of my home? Maybe when the tax increase goes through the city might consider deducting this past expense from my tax bill.
Mike
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 11:51 p.m.
No...........
Kevin McGuinness
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 9:01 p.m.
Why not enact the new tax for sidewalks after the cycle for the city is complete. Also can we get an assurance from the city they they will be able to negotiate a value price for the whole city. I know that cost I was given from the city to have them repair the side walk was much higher than what I an individual was able to get it done for.
eCoaster
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:54 p.m.
Taylor's ward includes some of the most pedestrian-traveled parts of town, so of course he wants everyone else to cover the expense of repairing and replacing sidewalks. He's only "championing" the best interests of his constituents. I'm willing to pay my fair share for services - part of why I live in town - but I won't vote for a tax that charges me twice. There should be an exemption for those of us who made repairs already. I'm out over $500 (have a receipt to prove it!) and the thought of paying "only" another $20 because the program was mismanaged just makes me mad.
eCoaster
Wed, Aug 31, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.
@Mike - "I'm willing to pay my fair share for services - part of why I live in town - but I won't vote for a tax that charges me twice." Yeah, I get that living in a city means paying for services. I just draw the line at getting charged twice for something because my tax dollars were completely (and admittedly) mismanaged.
Carole
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 12:29 a.m.
I believe that most of us don't mind paying for needed services, but we are not getting those needed services -- just look at the streets, short staffed AAFD, and AAPD -- when the powers that be become accountable and responsible with the funds they already receive, then I would rethink my opinion.
Mike
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 11:53 p.m.
You live in a city, and it costs money for those services. Like someone else said, "move to the country". I don't really believe that but just thought it was worth repeating
Mike D.
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:49 p.m.
Sidewalks?! How about the roads! I'd vote for an extra millage for roads that wouldn't blow up my rims.
RUKiddingMe
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:45 p.m.
This WOULD be a GREAT idea if the city and its leaders/decisionmakers were good at managing money OR projects. But they are not. They mismanage, make poor decisions, hire expensive and often incompetent consultants, throw money after good AND bad money, look for ways to spend money, etc. Giving the people currently in charge money is a terrible idea. Giving them responsibility is a terrible idea. Let's wait to see if they can manage three projects, consecutively, from beginning to end, on time and on budget and accurate in terms of predicted outcomes. Until then, we should be taking money and responsibility AWAY from them.
sojourner truth
Tue, Nov 8, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.
If you are not happy with the decisions that Council is making and their management of your tax monies, vote for an INDEPENDENT voice (Jane Lumm) in Ward 2.
leaguebus
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:32 p.m.
I just spent $660 on my sidewalks. Unless a bomb hits, my sidewalks are good for another 50 years. Unless they find the fountain of youth, I won't be here in another 50 years, so let the next owner of my home fix the sidewalks like I did.
Mick52
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:29 p.m.
What does he mean "sometimes we don't get it right?" How about "often?" I always felt the sidewalk repair issue was the best example of how a city can screw a resident. "It's not yours, its ours, you have no control over who uses it, even if their dog really likes your yard, but you have to shovel it and even repair it. Thank you very much. Silly you for buying a corner lot." So this is not all that bad idea but Mr. Taylor blew it with his letter. I am thinking that if the city wants to do this because it is fair, then it is also fair to reimburse the folks who under city threat has paid multiple year amounts of this tax to fix the city's sidewalk. Why would that amount to a "would cost many millions of dollars and create an administrative quagmire. It is simply not practical" opinion by Mr. Taylor? Millions? Administrative quagmire? Says who? Just because some bucko says so does not make it so, some are not that easily fooled. Some folks would like some explanation and some numbers of why that can't work. Especially in light of the fact that some posting here believe this will create a bucket of money. Pay those folks back from that bucket if they have a receipt. I prefer administrators who can work out what others fear as a quagmire. And if residents have paid millions, then my hat is off to them and I hope they get their money back. Get rid of the trees near sidewalks and that will save money.
Bob W
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:27 p.m.
"We got it wrong." No kidding! What about those of us who have already been bludgeoned into repairing multiple slabs in the past few years? Will we be reimbursed? If so, I'm for it, if not, forget it. Let everyone deal with it the same way we did. At that time, the city wouldn't even get involved in a city-wide bidding process with the homeowners footing the cost of the replacement. They started out "getting it wrong" even then.
mojo
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:08 p.m.
Ann Arbor should consider all it's sidewalks to be "art" - - then it will be funded with millions of dollars.
Cat
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 11:51 p.m.
Amen.
dconkey
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:07 p.m.
Ryan, In year past, when ever a tax increase was discussed, the dollar amount was alway based on a home worth $100K. In this artical it is based on $214K. Is that the meadian value of a home in A2? Why not use the $100K value so it would be a simpiler calcualtion. Just wondering, thank you,
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:13 p.m.
City officials are using $214k as the average market value of a home in Ann Arbor.
slug
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:56 p.m.
I would like my $400 sidewalk repair refund in either a check or tax credit. Thank you.
silverwings
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:52 p.m.
Are people aware that some of this money will go to public art if the millage is passed?
Mick52
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:33 p.m.
More on that please.
Dog Guy
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:42 p.m.
Since when is a councilman recommending a tax increase news? The only surprise is Taylor forgetting "for our children" in his pitch. Most of the money collected into this "bucket" will leak out to be spent on smoke and moonshadows--bold, cutting-edge things to get in our way and uglify our city; the rest will be spent on shoddy temporary patching (except on U of M sidewalks, of course). Ann Arbor's dictator has established a track record of mismanagement and uglification which precludes crediting his minions with any honesty or competence. Such a proposal might be considered in a city with a rational government answerable to the taxpayers, but not in a city with a transient U of M sophomore electorate.
BobbyJohn
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:39 p.m.
I am confused, because I remember that the city explained why they did not want the responsibility of fixing sidewalk damage by saying if the city did the repairs it would cost 3 times the $125 per sidewalk flag (section) of concrete that a private contractor typically charges. So, how much does Mr. Taylor expect to spend per sidewalk section now if the city is involved? If it was too expensive for the city to do it 2 years ago, what has changed?
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:36 p.m.
Why would we create yet another dedicated fund ("bucket") with a dedicated revenue source where the money can't be moved as circumstances merit to where they need to be to meet urgent needs? The city already has 58 separate buckets. We need to be going to the voters with plans to reduce the buckets not to build more. Why go to the voters now to raise money for this when next year's budget plans to lay off even more first responders on top of all the police and fire fighters laid off this year?
MyOpinion
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.
While I am a walker and believe in city infrastructure, the city needs to prove to me how it will run this program before I volunteer more $$ to the city. My bet is the first $100,000 the city collects will go to an new employee and his/her assistant to manage the program. And, this will grow to a unit within 5-yeasr. There will be no guidelines for the city to determine which "new" sidewalks to repair/replace so it will turn into a squeaky wheel service that will have no economies of scale to it. If the city uses its own employees to do the repairs as opposed to outsourcing it to private contractors, the slab repairs/replacement will be more expensive than projected. The city's 'keep track of what we've done' system is inadequate. Not only can't the city refund/reimburse folks for the past 5-years worth of repairs, I'm betting they can't provide an accurate number of slabs tagged/repaired in the past 5 years. Having good data is pretty critical for making projections, but as most of us know, the city often uses faulty data/projections for their cost estimates.
KJMClark
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:34 p.m.
For me, it boils down to the fact that the city can get the same job done for so much cheaper. I had my entire sidewalk replaced a few years ago. It cost about $2000, and the sidewalks were put in when our house was built, in 1968, so about 40 years. My taxes will go up about $8 per year. 40 x $8 = $320. So the city is essentially saying they can take care of the job for about 1/6th what it costs us individually. That seems pretty worth it. My other concern was equity, and it looks to me like the city is taking this seriously, and getting everything caught up before starting the millage.
Mick52
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:36 p.m.
I hope you get your $2000 back.
SonnyDog09
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:32 p.m.
Councilman Taylor never met a tax increase that he did not like.
Tony Livingston
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:33 p.m.
Property tax increases, that is. I don't hear a peep from him about the tax that really needs to be imposed --- city income tax to capture fees from those who use the city resources without paying a dime.
workingman
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:32 p.m.
So after many residents have had to pay for thier own sidewalk repairs, now they want to tax us to pay for other's repairs? The lens you view this probably differs on whether you've just paid for your own repairs or have upcoming repairs that you don't want to pay for. Will the tax reimburse me for the city mandated repairs that I paid for to my sidewalk?
zags
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:27 p.m.
I'll be happy to to support the tax provided it is paired with a rebate for those good citizens such as myself who complied with the law and paid hundreds of dollars to do what our taxes should be paying for in the first place. Tax me once, shame on you. Tax me twice, shame on me. Go stick it in your ivory fountain.
Alan Goldsmith
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:26 p.m.
"This program of inspection and decentralized repair always struck me as problematic because it failed to recognize that sidewalks are a public asset and failed to take advantage of economies of scale," Taylor writes. "The policy unfairly imposed high cost on some residents and zero cost on other residents." This is the kind of leadership we want. Fixing screw ups years after the fact becasue you didn't know how to lead in the first place. Beautiful.
A2G
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:24 p.m.
How about cutting some of the funding for public art and put it toward the taking care of city infrastructure and parks vice just raising taxes? How about having a city income tax to get something from all the U of M workers who do not reside in the city who are using streets, sidewalks, sewers, water and other city services for free?
Bill
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.
I agree with MikeyP, outsiders do pay in the form of taxes paid by the business owners they support. U of M is often looked at as a non-contributor to Ann Arbor, face it, without U of M, Ann Arbor would be an even smaller, insignificant town in Michigan.
MikeyP
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 10:59 p.m.
I agree with the first part, but disagree with the second. I'm a UofM employee who happens to live in the city, but I still don't see how commuters aren't paying their fair share. They eat at the restaurants (just look at how they're all packed at lunchtime!), stop to shop in stores, come to town for other events, etc. If it wasn't for the tens of thousands of workers (most of whom commute in) would there be as many restaurants in this city? Of course not. Is it cheap to own/operate a restaurant here? Nope. Do those restaurants pay taxes? Oh yeah, a LOT of tax revenue comes from them (not to mention stores and other services commuters utilize.) I've seen this complaint mentioned several times in various articles... it doesn't hold water IMHO. Businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do. Out of town commuters make up a huge proportion of those customers. You start taxing their income what's the first thing they're going to cut back on? Going out to lunch. Be careful what you ask for, you just may end up getting it in the end.
Alan Goldsmith
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.
In this 'email' Council representative Taylor says it would be an "administrative quagmire" to refund money to all of us who've paid for sidewalk repairs in the last couple of years who will end up paying twice. So it's too complex to figure out, from permit records, who fixed a sidewalk and how much they've paid? Wow. And we trust THIS public servant to spend more of our dollars when he says it's 'too hard' to figure out how to pay everyone back? I guess the beauty of a press release is you don't have to face real questions. And why Council representative Taylor seems to deal with voters this way.
kathryn
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:10 a.m.
It's not too complex, but it takes time and money (and a city employee) to administer it. Best use of taxpayer money? Just bite the bullet and switch over to the more reasonable way of doing it.
Mick52
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:37 p.m.
I hope you get your money back.
AAbob43
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:22 p.m.
This program has been hideously mismanaged. I own several properties in AA. I have a file full of written apologies from the sidewalk-Nazis, regarding their repeated errors. This program has been a boon to both public employment and private contractors, but has ripped off property owners big time. Although all my walks are up to speed at some cost to me, bring on the tax increase, and leave me alone. Then, I'll pester the City to fix its sidewalks.
Tony Livingston
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
No, no, no. This will give the city even more money and power to waste resources on another poorly run program. If you own properties, then you must be familiar with the rental inspection program where they charge us $100 for a 15 minute inspection then force us to perform cosmetic repairs so they can come back and charge us again to check up on us. The city will simply have more money to waste on inefficient and ineffective programs.
Mick52
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.
That's funny AAbob. I reckon if it passes a whole lot of residents will decide the walk in front of their property is in need of repairs.
2WheelsGood
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.
"Then, I'll pester the City to fix its sidewalks." Do you currently pester the city to fix the roads? I assume not. People just accept what their government gives them. The same will happen when the sidewalks are in a state of disrepair. If we can't count on the city to take care of something as important as roads, how can we count on them to take care of the sidewalks?
America
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:22 p.m.
We want Ann Arbor to be a great example like Portland. We need to live up to that talk. This proposal will allow sidewalks to be maintained in a more efficient and consistent manner. It should be looked upon as a matter of civic pride.
Mr Blue
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
Portland is a true metropolitan city. Ann Arbor is a college town. The comparison between Ann Arbor and Portland has been made many times. They are apples and oranges. There is no comparison, so stop making this silly comparison. Let Ann Arbor be what it is, a great college town. Sidewalks are good and civic pride is good, but we don't need to be like Portland or anywhere else.
Carole
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 12:17 a.m.
This would be true if there was follow through--but if the inspectors can't get around to marking those sidewalk repairs that residents are to pay for, will they be able to get around to repair the sidewalks.
Mr Blue
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:20 p.m.
I'd prefer Mr Taylor to "champion" a broader progressive income tax on commuters and tell LAWNET to stay the heck out of our city. Either go big or go home. Too many spineless politicians nibbling around the edges.
Mick52
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:40 p.m.
I think there should be a tax on "medical marijuana" that is enough to fund health care.
a2grateful
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:15 p.m.
"We live in a city. Part of living in a city is paying taxes to repair things like sidewalks, roads, garbage collection, snow removal, schools, etc." Agree. Part of governing a city is spending tax dollars wisely, being accountable for expenditures. How have our stewards performed? Stadium Bridge . . . Decreased level of services . . . Disposal of parkland against citizen-created law . . . Unfunded pensions . . . Layoffs of public protectors . . . Construction of expensive and unneeded underground parking . . . Contract awards without competitive bids . . . Creation of "bucket funds" for pet projects . . . 3rd-worst roads in Michigan . . . Pledge of "sidewalk repair" when residents of entire city just paid for same . . . Instead of approving this, why not use substantial existing surplus in collected street maintenance fund to pay for sidewalks? Why not use substantial existing surplus in collected street maintenance fund to pay neglected street maintenance? Why would anyone support this proposal while or elected stewards have not spent existing surplus millage money? When streets are in good condition after spending existing collected millage money, and city government becomes MORE citizen and service oriented, we could wisely consider such a proposal. Ask us in a year if this occurs.
Bill
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
It is time to say Goodbye to the current mayor and city council. Vote in November and remove any existing member running for reelection. Ann Arbor deserves a major and city council that will work for the people, not for their own self promotion. One of the first things that should be done at a council member once new members are on board is to vote to repeal the public art "law" and use the funds for basic services to improve Ann Arbor.
Bertha Venation
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.
Me three!
snapshot
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:56 a.m.
I agree, great job
Carole
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 12:16 a.m.
This individual is right on. Thank you for wording it so perfectly.
Peregrine
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 6:58 p.m.
Chris Taylor is correct. Sidewalks are a public good that we should all share the costs of. Transitioning from a less fair system to a more fair system will always be awkward. But I'd bet if you asked anyone who just replaced their sidewalks if it would be worth $13.38 per year to never have to worry about it again, I'm sure most would say yes. So the 0.125 mill would be $13.38 per year on a home with a market value of $214,000, and the median home price in Ann Arbor is $188,204, so most would pay less than $13.38 per year.
DanAA
Wed, Nov 9, 2011 : 3:15 a.m.
concern.
DanAA
Wed, Nov 9, 2011 : 3:14 a.m.
I spoke with Mr. Taylor last weekend, and asked him about the previous study cited in the original "shift to the homeowners the burden of replacing sidewalk slabs" that concluded that the cost to the city would be greater per slab than if individual homeowners were to replace the slabs themselves using private contractors. Unfortunately, Mr. Taylor chose to respond by telling me that he was unaware of the previous study because that study had taken place before he "was in office". Based on this, it seems to me that Mr. Taylor either does not do his homework and research his causes to be able to justify to the voting public why we should "spread the cost" across taxpayers in Ann Arbor, or he just does not wish to respond to the question. Either way, i was vastly disappointed in the fact that Mr. Taylor did not have a good rationale besides the fact that the homeowner's sidewalk would be repaired at a fraction of the cost. Essentially, this seems to me to be almost an "insurance policy", except that the total cost (unless there is contradictory evidence) to replace a sidewalk slab would still be greater to the city, yet the general homeowner would not see that additional cost (unless the sidewalk does not need replacing for over 10 years.). To me, this proposal stinks, because it almost seems like the city council would like to justify certain people's jobs (i.e. the sidewalk repair crews) at taxpayer's expense. If it costs the taxpayer $150 per slab to replace a slab of sidewalk, and it would cost the city 3 times the amount (the factor cited in the original study, I believe), then even though the homeowner would only feel an average cost of $13 (assuming a slab needs to be replaced), the total cost to replace the slab would still be greater. I would only urge Mr. Taylor to please research his position and not just state that studies done before he was voted into office should not be considered because they are not his c
Tony Livingston
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:26 p.m.
I spent thousands on sidewalk sections that did not need to be replaced. This was one of the most poorly run programs that I have ever witnessed. Do you want the city to have even more money and power to run an even bigger program? If you look closely at any of the city programs you will see how expensive and inefficient they are. They will have millions to work with and no incentive to be cost effective.
Forever27
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 6:51 p.m.
We live in a city. Part of living in a city is paying taxes to repair things like sidewalks, roads, garbage collection, snow removal, schools, etc. If your goal is to pay as little as possible and get as few services as possible, live in a rural area.
Tony Livingston
Tue, Aug 30, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.
Yes, the people who live in the city provide for those who live in the townships. Ann Arbor voters continue to vote for property tax increases for themselves to finance a city that is heavily used by thousands of people who pay for none of it. Greenbelt, parks, roads, and now sidewalks. Yipee! More free stuff for everyone else at our expense. Heaven for bid that Mr. Taylor would propose a city income tax to recoup even a small amount from those living out side the city limits. We wouldn't want to do that! Much easier to go to the same well that has been tapped for decades.
KJMClark
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:39 p.m.
Buildergirl, that's how the streets work. The city agrees to take care of them *after* the developer has built them to city standards. And we're paying an extra millage to help repair our streets, which this millage is part of. So would you prefer that all of us local residents get assessed for street repairs every time they repave our local street? It's exactly the same system.
buildergirl
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:10 p.m.
That is very true and I totally agree. If you want services from your government than you must pay for them. I think the problem most people are having is we all just paid out of pocket for sidewalk repair and now that the majority of sidewalks were all fixed the city is willing to take the responsibility back for a small tax increase. This is poor timing on the council's part. Also what happens when it all falls apart again? Will they keep it up regularly? Will they have the funds to fix them? Or will it be poorly manages and be tossed back in our laps?
Goober
Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:01 p.m.
They can get what is needed for sidewalk repairs from one of the many waste projects or art buckets. Too much has been wasted by this city council and mayor. They have lost credibility.