BornNRaised

Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 8:29 a.m.

So, let's see. First you bash the public workers that serve you every day, now you're bashing a military man of 25 years the was willing to give his life as many have. You're something else Alpha. One day maybe the rest of us will rise to your godly level.

AlphaAlpha

Wed, Jan 12, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.

BornNRaised, if you wish to deny the numbers which everyone else accepts, fine. As Eddie would say, to each his own. Eddie - in light of the grueling post Viet Nam war experiences you must have endured, it's comforting to know that the nation will be generously serving your wallet for the next 50 years or so. Try to make the best of it.

BornNRaised

Wed, Jan 12, 2011 : 8:12 a.m.

You really don't get it. That number was posted by the city. The same city that won't provide the breakdown to that number. And further repeated by someone that fails to investigate the facts behind the numbers. Keep trying, now you're just amusing.

AlphaAlpha

Tue, Jan 11, 2011 : 10:44 p.m.

Though obvious to most, within the context of the issue of public employee compensation, it's worth noting whether one is on the public payroll or not. To advocate something in which one has a direct financial interest, without stating that interest, hints of a conflict of interest. It seems clear that most here supporting (even advocating increases in) generous public employee compensation packages are, in fact, public employees. That bodes well for most taxpayers.

AlphaAlpha

Tue, Jan 11, 2011 : 10:35 p.m.

"Hieftje stressed today the city should be focusing on employee benefit packages that are "out of line with the mainstream." He said that's causing most of the city's budget problems" "Council Member Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward, echoed those thoughts" "Fraser agreed employee compensation is a major issue" Mr. Stanton, would you please elaborate on this concept of city employee pay and benefit packages which "are out of line with the mainstream"? Thank you.

AlphaAlpha

Tue, Jan 11, 2011 : 10:33 p.m.

Col. Eddie was spot on when he pontificated: "Note: I agreed with DonBee that it needed to be taken one job at a time, implying that there needed to be job-to-job comparisons." Yes! Let the comparisons begin! All public employees should visit a site such as payscale.com or salary.com, to learn what the private sector compensation realities are.

AlphaAlpha

Tue, Jan 11, 2011 : 10:23 p.m.

Hello BornNRaised - "Alpha, It's a simple request. Show where you're getting your numbers from. Show us the actual break down of public employee cost. You keep quoting these numbers. Prove them. You lash out at those of us that ask for proof, but then call us out when we doubt your sources (you have yet to list them). Interesting tactic. I suppose I could go around people I could touch coal and turn it to gold. Doesn't matter how many times I say it, it doesn't make it true. Until I can provide actual proof, I'm just some nut saying the same thing over and over again. Provide the break down of your numbers from a credible source, or just stop. Everyone here is sick of it already." Hilarious. You are too funny sometimes... But seriously, if the answer is provided again, will you "just stop"? So, just for you you, read on... Approximately zero other people have posed your question regarding the origin of $104K/yr. Would you like to know why? It's because they read, and remembered, the following information: "The average Ann Arbor city employee earns a base salary of $65,198 and receives $32,993 in benefits. By those calculations, the average active employee costs the city $98,191 per year, a figure slated to rise to $103,769 next year. And that's not including overtime, which is an expense of more than $2.76 million on its own." That information is from paragraph 17 of the story linked above (from 2-28-2010) in paragraph 34. Most would agree that $103,769 rounds to $104K. But wait. There is more: the $104K does not include the cherished overtime gravy pay. Cool, huh? You posted to the linked 2-28-2010 story approximately 7 times; there was an underlying assumption that you read the story. If you have not, you should, as it provides excellent background and supporting references to support the fact that Ann Arbor employee average total compensation is $104K per year. That is compensation, as well as 'cost', ex-OT, of course. So, now you have your answer. As they say, thank you for asking.

Snehal

Tue, Jan 11, 2011 : 10:28 a.m.

Whatever happened to Republicans rhetoric that there would be no increase in taxes? Come on Rick, explain to these people how can budget be balanced without increasing taxes!

BornNRaised

Tue, Jan 11, 2011 : 9:47 a.m.

Alpha, It's a simple request. Show where you're getting your numbers from. Show us the actual break down of public employee cost. You keep quoting these numbers. Prove them. You lash out at those of us that ask for proof, but then call us out when we doubt your sources (you have yet to list them). Interesting tactic. I suppose I could go around people I could touch coal and turn it to gold. Doesn't matter how many times I say it, it doesn't make it true. Until I can provide actual proof, I'm just some nut saying the same thing over and over again. Provide the break down of your numbers from a credible source, or just stop. Everyone here is sick of it already.

AlphaAlpha

Tue, Jan 11, 2011 : 6:48 a.m.

So many words... It has been stated on other threads here that Edward, John Q, and BornNRaised are all longtime active or retired public employees. This is public knowledge, and it greatly, and rightly, influences their opinions, and their desire to keep their cherished high pay rates. It also helps explain some of the diversionary debate tactics they employ. Eddie claiming public sector (e.g.) tree trimmers can't be compared to private sector tree trimmers? Or sanitation workers? Or many other jobs? Specious. John Q wanting to discuss the Governor's pay, instead of the pay of city employees? John is a great debater and strong defender of high public compensation; both of them wanting to discuss hyper specific high profile cases instead of the more costly mass of ordinary employees? Clever. BornNRaised...might be happier if known compensation numbers were not simply re-quoted by others. In terms of pay, public servants have become public masters. Too many public employees are paid upper class wages for middle class jobs. The public is less wealthy now than they were recently, and they are rightly concerned about, and increasingly determined to resolve, inappropriately high compensation levels of public employees.

YpsiLivin

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 10:31 p.m.

DonBee, The PBGC guarantees private pensions, but public pensions aren't insured by the PBGC. Public pensions don't have a safety net of any kind, so if a city were to be declared insolvent, a monthly public pension could go to $0 in a hurry. States can also renege on their pension obligations, which is exactly what California did in 2007. Second, your estimate of what the PBGC does is not quite accurate. The PBGC will pay private pension benefits up to the statutory maximum of $4,500 per month but that doesn't mean that people whose pension benefits are less than $4,500 each month get their full basic benefit. How much a person gets from the PBGC depends not only upon the person's age and retirement status, but also upon why and how the pension plan was terminated; whether the plan was properly funded or underfunded when it was terminated; what assets the PBGC received when it took over the pension; whether the pension plan was the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding and what the bankruptcy judge did; whether the employer was "distressed" or not when the plan terminated; whether the PBGC intervened to terminate the pension plan, and so on. Third, the PBGC is operating at a $23 billion deficit, and could be on the hook for about $170 billion more in pension liabilities from plans that are known to be in trouble now. What happens to the GM/Chrysler/UAW pensions remains to be seen, but they could end up with the PBGC, too.

Joel A. Levitt

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 8:42 p.m.

Based on advice received from an attorney who was standing on one foot, the Michigan constitution forbids us from levying a graduated income tax. Too bad, but I, nonetheless, will be happy to pay 1% to keep Ann Arbor a grand place to live. The arguments that businesses will leave, and others will not come are groundless. Those sensitive to tax rates have already moved to surrounding areas, where they can derive much greater savings from much lower property taxes. Compared to the level of services and to quality of life, taxes are only a minor concern of businesses looking for a home. Finally, a low rate income tax will place a smaller burden on our hard-pressed low-income neighbors.

DonBee

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 7:58 p.m.

@YpsiLivin - Try being the surviving spouse of a retired GM Salaried employee. You don't get $15 a month, you get nothing. The Government engineered bankruptcy left the retired GM salaried surviving spouses with nothing, no bonds (zeroed), no stock (zeroed), no health care (dropped) and no survivor benefits for retirement. Nada, nothing These folks were left out of the quickly US Government engineered bankruptcy that GM filed. Very, very few government employees have watched their retirement go "POOF" all gone. We can run thru a whole range of private employers who have gone bankrupt and left their employs with no retirement benefits, beyond what the US Government offers them from the PBGC. The PBGC has more than 27,000 companies who's former employees they provide money to. They promise to meet your basic benefit - not $15 of $500 but the basic plan with no sweeteners or early retirement bonus...etc. So if your plan was $2,000 a month as the basic plan, you would get $2,000 a month. If on the other hand your basic plan was $1,000 a month and you got a kicker to retire early of $1,000 and another kicker for something else of $1,000 then you would only get the $1,000 that was the basic plan amount. The PBGC offers up to $4,500 a month to people who's plan qualified. So your statement of: "How would you like to be in your 80's and find out that your $500/month pension check is now a $15/month check?" Is just not the way it works. If that happened, you need to contact the PBGC and find out why.

Jay Thomas

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 6:30 p.m.

"How would you like to be in your 80's and find out that your $500/month pension check is now a $15/month check?" @Ypsilivin: I understand from what you wrote that you are a public service family but that's really quite a straw man you've built there! For the education of other readers I have found this: http://www.crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2000s/2009/rpt356.html It points out that the average pension of Michigan state and local government workers is over twenty thousand a year! That average includes people with varying lengths of employment (such as yourself). Some of these pensions are a LOT higher than that (3x). The basic philosophy seems to be that the taxpayers should take care of public workers in their old age and that asking them to save money out of their paychecks is something preposterous (even though the rest of us are in that boat).

YpsiLivin

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 4:57 p.m.

So, for everyone who thinks that a state/local pension is a golden ticket, think about this for awhile: Local governments can discharge their pension obligations if they declare bankruptcy. The PBGC will take over the pension payment, but the PBGC typically pays pennies on the dollar. How would you like to be in your 80's and find out that your $500/month pension check is now a $15/month check? State governments don't have to honor their pension benefits at all. The State of California walked away from $800 million in pension obligations in 2007. This year, they've got a $28 billion budget hole. Think they won't do it again? Michigan's Public School Employee Retirement System is more than $10 billion in debt right now, primarily because the state "borrowed" money from the pension plan and never put it back. The Legislature created the insolvency, and when push comes to shove, the State will just walk away. Sue the State, you say? Sure, you can take a state to court, and you can even win a judgment. You just can't get it enforced. How's that for security? There's a lot of risk in public pensions (for the participants, that is) because even though the deal is in a contract, a deal with the State is a deal only as long as the State says it is, and when the State changes its mind, you have no recourse.

John Q

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.

"As of 09, the AA median wage was $38,810, the mean is $48930, primary source is Wolfram Mathematica City Data, the FHA, Demographics USA, and about 20 more sources." Again, pointless to a discussion about what is equitable pay for city workers or to the issue of the city income tax. If Ann Arbor is such an expensive place to live, as opponents claim, then who are all of these people who can afford to live here if they make so little money? What a kid flipping burgers at McDonalds earns and what Mary Sue Coleman earns are data points. Neither are helpful for determining whether a city police officer or planner or maintenance or parks employee or department supervisor makes too little or too much.

DonBee

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 4:30 p.m.

EMG - According to the Department of Labor (www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2010/ownership/private/table02a.htm): 65 percent of non-government employees have access to a retirement program 20 percent of the total workforce to a defined benefit plan (e.g. a plan that provides a promised amount in a check each month) 45 percent of the total workforce have a defined contribution plan (e.g. a 401K type program) For state and local workers (www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2010/ownership/govt/table02a.htm) 90 percent have access to a retirement program 84 percent of all state and local employees have access to a defined benefit program 29 percent of all state and local to a defined contribution plan No, the numbers are not wrong, some state and local employees have access to both a defined benefit and a defined contribution plan. So yes technically many people have access to retirement benefits. The rub for many folks who are not government employees is that they no longer have access to the defined benefit programs.

YpsiLivin

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 4:26 p.m.

stunhsif, Read more carefully. I never said private sector employees got pensions. Private sector employees are often allowed to choose the level at which they participate in an employer's retirement program, or whether they participate at all. Sometimes private employers match 401(k) contributions as an incentive to participate. Some plans have no employer match. Regardless of whether a private employer offers a retirement plan of some sort, private sector employees have the ability to open their own retirement savings accounts and forgo the employer's plan. Public sector employees have no choice except to participate in a public sector retirement plan, not all of which are pension plans. Many are 401(k) or 403(b) plans, but participation isn't optional. How do I know? I worked in the public sector for nearly 20 years, during which participation in my employers' retirement plans was mandatory and at a fixed contribution level. My spouse also works in the public sector. Again, participation in the employer's retirement plan is mandatory, and employee contributions are determined by the plan. We couldn't back out if we wanted to.

stunhsif

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 3:31 p.m.

YpsiLivin said: "Participation in pension/retirement plans in the public sector is for the most part mandatory. The public sector employee has no choice in whether they participate or not. That's not true in the private sector, where employees can often choose their level of participation, if they participate at all." Where on earth are you getting your "facts"? Private sector employees don't get pensions anymore so there is no choosing a level of participation. Good one though, you pick on AlphaAlpha and say he makes things up which is exactly what you are doing.

leaguebus

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.

As of 09, the AA median wage was $38,810, the mean is $48930, primary source is Wolfram Mathematica City Data, the FHA, Demographics USA, and about 20 more sources.

DonBee

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.

EMG - I did not know the Superintendent was a City of Ann Arbor employee. Let's not confuse the issues here.

John Q

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.

"Based upon my unscientific observation, cities which impose income taxes generally experience business and population loss." Good that you admitted it's unscientific. A number of those communities are in much better shape than their peers who don't levy an income tax. Cities like Albion, Ionia, Lapeer and Walker are doing OK despite all of the hand-wringing about the negative impact of income taxes. As for the downtrodden, there's plenty of Michigan cities that are suffering and don't levy an income tax. How about ponying up some evidence to back up your unscientific beliefs?

YpsiLivin

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.

AlphaAlpha, Your argument regarding public sector compensation is somewhat misguided. I'm not sure where you're drawing your figures, but my spouse works in the public sector and earns a salary that is significantly BELOW the industry average for the occupation, given my spouse's experience. Participation in pension/retirement plans in the public sector is for the most part mandatory. The public sector employee has no choice in whether they participate or not. That's not true in the private sector, where employees can often choose their level of participation, if they participate at all. In some cases, the selection of health care benefits is also mandatory for public sector employees, unless you can prove that you have alternate coverage through a spouse or another source. The public sector employee has no opt-out otherwise. Again, this isn't true in the private sector. Public sector benefits cost more because the employer mandates participation. You can't fairly compare public sector benefit costs where participation is mandatory to private sector benefit costs, where participation is often voluntary or employees can opt out and receive a cash benefit instead. Public sector employees get "benefits statements" every year that show how much the employer paid in benefits on behalf of the employee, in addition to their salaries. WIthout fail, these "benefit" statements include the employer's Social Security and Medicare taxes. These aren't "benefits." They're taxes assessed on employers by the federal government, yet somehow magically this money turns into "compensation." Another example of "compensation" is sick leave. Employers offer a certain number of sick days per year. Regardless of how many days the employee uses, the employer counts the full value of all sick days as part of the employee's annual compensation. Sick days are benefits only when you use them, and the employer may not even incur an added cost as the result of employee illness, since the employee gets paid the same, whether s/he works or takes the day off. Sick employees are often not replaced for temporary illnesses, so the employer often doesn't even need to bring in additional help. Most public sector employees are given (or earn) a bank of days. Sometimes, the bank is capped. Rarely (if ever) can the employee "cash out" his/her sick days when s/he leaves, yet this bank of sick leave - which has no cash value to the employee - takes on an absurd cash value to the employer as a "benefit." When employers count their tax payments and unused/unusable sick leave as "employee compensation" I think it's fair to take their reported benefits costs with some cubes of salt. Tread carefully; the ground you're standing on is soft.

beuwolf

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 1:33 p.m.

Michigan cities which have city income taxes are hardly an inspiring bunch, save for Grand Rapids: Albion, Battle Creek, Big Rapids, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Grayling, Hamtramck, Highland Park, Hudson, Ionia, Jackson, Lansing, Lapeer, Muskegon, Muskegon Heights, Pontiac, Port Huron, Portland, Saginaw, Springfield and Walker. Based upon my unscientific observation, cities which impose income taxes generally experience business and population loss.

Speechless

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 1:04 p.m.

From further above: "... 'a set of alternative ideas is vital now.' The novel alternative idea exists: equal pay for equal work." Wow, one of my critics appears to be an old-time radical Wobbly! You know... I, too, could go for the idea of paying the exact same salary to Roger Fraser, the various department heads, and all the clerks & assistants underneath them. They each happen to work for a living and, at the end of the work day, the job that each does is equally important. One size fits all! Hacking away at the pay disparity could save a chunk of change as well....

BornNRaised

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 1 p.m.

Is it just me, or is everyone else on this site (and in the city) sick and tired of hearing Alpha state that Ann Arbor employees make $104K? I work in the city. I'd be happy to have you look at my W2. Tell me where I even COME CLOSE to that number? And as for you quoting the city... because we all know they NEVER twist truths to suit their needs... We've asked COUNTLESS times for the breakdown on what it costs to fund a public employee. They won't provide that to the people that work for them. So I'm curious, other that the mass regurgitation that you've been doing, where are your FACTS? BLS data tells you flat out NOT to use their raw data for comparables. You ignore that though. We can't get the city to provide the breakdown, but you must have it since you keep saying the same thing over and over. Please provide a link to your break down of city employee costs.

Stan Hyne

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 12:57 p.m.

I have not always been happy with some of the decisions of the city government who wants to live in the most grand and glorious city in the world, but I at least get to vote for (or against) them. It is even more aggravating not to vote. Having worked in two cities with income tax I can tell you I am violently opposed to city income taxes. I live in Ann Arbor and am retired so I may personally benefit from the tax, it would in the long term be disastrous for the city. Drive through Detroit, as I have done several times in recently, and you don't need a sign indicating the city limits. It is where the closed businesses end. Look at the cities with city income taxes, Saginaw, Flint, Detroit, Highland Park, Pontiac, Port Huron, Etc., and they are all in decay with extreme financial problems. Workers who spend part time working in the city do not have any meetings within the city limits. All business meetings are scheduled outside the city limits to avoid another taxable day. Thats what I did. Don't add Ann Arbor to this list.

JSA

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 12:52 p.m.

Reviewing the comments has been both interesting and amusing. First, the University is never going to give the city a dime nor will they stop taking land off the tax laws. Currently, under the law, they are not required to do so. Any other expectation is fantasy. Second, Ann Arbor's problem is heightened by decades of financial mismanagement. It is not so much the salary of the city's employees as the benefit packages. These are, for the most part, much more that offered in private business. The quickie pulled by Mr. Berlin on his departure was a beautiful exercise in incompetence by the city council. Until the city council gets its act together and stops pandering to every little group of disgruntled "activists" it won't change. Argo Dam, the stupid fountain, murals on building, publicly funded art. The search for new revenue is a response to the misuse of current revenue. In any case, the voters will never vote for it and they shouldn't because the city council is the source of the problem.

John Q

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.

" The truth is as you stated, city workers in Ann Arbor ( which includes garbage truck drivers--lawn service workers--clerical workers--office assistants) make almost double what private sector workers make." Except it's not true and neither is it true in schools or county or state government. As the Ghost pointed out, there's a lot of positions where the salaries are far below what people are paid in the private sector. $159,000 for the Governor of the state? Who in the private sector oversees an operation as large as the state for that salary?

snoopdog

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 12:05 p.m.

Mister Ed said regarding AlphaAlpha's post: "So comparing average Ann Arbor income to public sector compensation is a gross misrepresentation which proves nothing the mendacity of your posts." Such big words, we are most impressed. You are not a liar Alpha Alpha or spreading falsehoods. The truth is as you stated, city workers in Ann Arbor ( which includes garbage truck drivers--lawn service workers--clerical workers--office assistants) make almost double what private sector workers make. Throw in their cradle to grave pensions and healthcare and it widens even further. Unfunded public pension liability in Michigan tops 61 billion dollars, in Illinois it tops 77 billion dollars. I really doubt that taxpayers have any interest in bailing out these bloated pensions?

snoopdog

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 11:45 a.m.

Marvin Face said: "Almost every one of our people live within the City limits. None live in Ypsilanti, Saline, Brighton, Howell or Pittsfield/Scio/AA (etc) Townships. It is true that we never even thought about moving out of the city because it would effect our existing staff and put us at a severe disadvantage to our competitors. When I sate that we would be long-ago closed if we were located in one of the townships or surrounding communities, I'm very serious." What is your percentage of minority workers you employ Mr. Marvin? If all your employees live in Ann Arbor I would bet you don't employ many? And to think that if your business was located outside of Ann Arbor it would it would absolutely fail is a silly statement.

DonBee

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 10:42 a.m.

@John Q - And city employees include folks driving dump trucks and pushing lawn mowers. Not everyone one on the city payroll is a PhD Hostage Negotiator or a Physical Assistant Emergency Medical Technician. The only way to do this is job by job. Both sides need to slow down and take it one job at a time. There are some jobs, I am sure are over paid. There are others that are probably competitive. I will say that when I started to look at employment with the US Government in the 1980's that my supervisor to be told me: "Your salary will be less than if you were in the private sector, but no one can touch what you get in the way of retirement benefits and to be able to retire early will mean you can have another career if you want." Whether he was right or wrong I cannot tell you. I did not join the Government, and I did not join the Government, but it was because I did not want to live in Washington, not because the offer was not attractive. There are lots of studies out there on both sides of this question, both sides have axes to grind. It is a complex issue that offers no easy solution. We need to be fair to both employees and tax payers. Balance is hard.

John Q

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 10:22 a.m.

Let's also be clear about the households that are covered by the Census data. It includes teen moms supported by welfare assistance, grad students living in university housing and retirees living on their retirement incomes. How the household incomes of those people are relevant to what the people who work for the city are paid has never been explained.

Top Cat

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 9:12 a.m.

The voters will never, repeat never, pass a city income tax. They know better. Case closed. Next!

YpsiLivin

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 8:37 a.m.

Leaguebus, A Michigan city can only institute an income tax if it adopts the Uniform City Income Tax Code. The code states that the tax will apply to city residents and businesses equally. There's no picking and choosing when it comes to a city income tax in Michigan; either everybody pays it or nobody pays it.

AlphaAlpha

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 6:13 a.m.

"A2 has a median income of what, $80K." Wow. Regrettably, that's not even close. Per the US Census Bureau, median household income in A2 is $51,001 per year. That's wages and benefits. For the household, not just a single wage earner. So, a single city worker at $104K out-earns an entire city household. By twice! Appropriate? Many believe not.

racerx

Mon, Jan 10, 2011 : 2:31 a.m.

Part of the problem with A2 is that for many years city leaders want to keep A2 from growing, thus their ruse to keep buildings at a certain height. Get over it, A2 needs to grow. By growing you may get more traffic, crime, but investment within the area to fully maintain a tax base. Over decades A2 has followed this same pattern. The city has become very expensive to live in, thus UM employees, the thousand who can't afford to live in the city aren't making salaries over $40K. Think about it. It takes a minium of $40k to live in A2, and that seems to just get you by. Oh, this is rent only, not purchasing a home. A2 has a median income of what, $80K. Taxing those clerical employees at the U', the bulk of which don't make those "bloated" salaries that so many here seem to think, doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And, if these commuters only commute into the city to work, then why should our salaries go towards, un-profitable golf courses that's been losing money for decades, sheltering the homeless, subsidizing low income residents, or art fountains! As most have said, it's the same with Fraser each time the budget comes up. If he hasn't any new ideas, then maybe it's time council seek someone who has. Hey, since there's no crime in A2, let's get rid of more police officers. Wasn't this the same logic Fraser used for the Fire Department?

Marvin Face

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 11:15 p.m.

leaguebus, I'm not a big proponent of it but it doesnt appear that it would effect our bottom line all that much. It is not something that I will think that much about. Now health insurance...THAT'S worth wringing your hands over.

leaguebus

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 11:03 p.m.

Marvin, as a business person, what do you think of the income tax proposal.

Marvin Face

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 10:50 p.m.

Wow, fishnuts. So many exclamation points (you may want to wipe the spittle off your screen before you read this). The company I own will remain nameless. We rely on recruiting our staff from across the nation. We compete for these individuals with our competition in locations such as San Francisco, Austin, DC, Madison, and Boston. Being in-town Ann Arbor assists our recruitment and retention of our most valuable asset, our people. We hear over and over that being IN Ann Arbor is what attracts people. Beleive it or not, we have many people who bike, walk, and take AATA to work. Almost every one of our people live within the City limits. None live in Ypsilanti, Saline, Brighton, Howell or Pittsfield/Scio/AA (etc) Townships. It is true that we never even thought about moving out of the city because it would effect our existing staff and put us at a severe disadvantage to our competitors. When I sate that we would be long-ago closed if we were located in one of the townships or surrounding communities, I'm very serious. There is no way we could recruit the national-level professionals we need to compete without all the tangible and intangible things that in-town Ann Arbor offers. I guess I dont see what you find so incredulous about my statement.

leaguebus

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 10:36 p.m.

If everyone is so worried about businesses leaving, leave them on the property tax and make the income tax for individuals. Ed, I think most people commute long distances to AA because the housing costs are much higher here than in Jackson, for example. I do like your tax numbers, make sense to me. To all the no new taxes people, if Snyder cuts business taxes as much as he says, he will need to cut $3B from the budget this year. Where will he get the money to invest in businesses to stimulate new jobs? Plus we lose more teachers, police, and fire fighters.

talker

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 10:36 p.m.

"No one wants fewer public safety personnel. It's their pay which needs to be reduced." I was answering a post regarding paying public employees less so they'll move to the private sector. You may not want reductions in public safety personnel, but when public service personnel move to the private sector they are no longer public service personnel. Replacements at lower wages might not be as well trained and as experienced as those who leave the public sector. Even if the number of employees isn't reduced, the caliber could be. Plus, it's difficult for public service personnel to concentrate on their jobs if they can't afford to pay their rent or mortgages. First the city needs to stay away from even considering projects (convention centers or others) that require we the citizens of Ann Arbor to issue bonds or otherwise guarantee the project. We don't need more empty hotel rooms and we certain don't need to have a choice down the road of paying back the bonds or forfeiting the full faith and credit of Ann Arbor. The underground garage next to the downtown library was a costly error. An above ground garage costs so much less. I think the idea of the underground lot was to leave room for a convention center that we don't need and hopefully won't guarantee. We need to stop spending money like this. We need to look into putting money allocated to outdoor art and other non-essentials back to basic city services. We have outdoor art in beautiful historic structures. It's a matter of stopping and looking at them. Stop and look at the buildings on the south side of Washington between Division and 5th. That's one of many many example we have. Read the historic descriptions and look at the pictures on so many corners. This is worthwhile and I'm guessing it cost a lot less than some projects that were meant to beautify the city. All this has a lot to do with whether to impose an income tax or cut the pay of police and firefighters. There is waste in Ann Arbor that can be cut, but it's not essential services. There are sources other than income tax that could help provide more income. There needs to be serious negotiation with the U. of M. about paying more since taking over more real property.

Basic Bob

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 10:33 p.m.

@talker, "Heardoc commented that the salaries of police, firefighters, and teachers should be lowered to make it more likely they'll move into the private sector." That is how we measure that the jobs are competitive. As long as people are unwilling to leave these jobs, they either LOVE their jobs, or couldn't possibly do better elsewhere. With as many sullen *public servants* complaining about their work conditions, I believe the latter to be true. By the way, I'm all in favor of improving working conditions for police, fire, and teachers. That can only be accomplished by lowering individual compensation so more people can be hired.

stunhsif

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 10:08 p.m.

Marvin said: "Peter Baker is absolutely right and braggslaw is absolutely wrong. I own a 60+ person company in downtown Ann Arbor that has boon looking to relocate. At no time did we ever look to a township or other location for new space. Being in Ann Arbor proper helps us attract and retain staff. If we were in a township, Ypsi, Saline, etc. We would be long-ago closed. If we were in a township, Ypsi, Saline, etc. We would be long-ago closed. on top of your quote above, let's do another! "I own a 60+ person company in downtown Ann Arbor that has boon looking to relocate." Boon? If we were in a township, Ypsi, Saline, etc. We would be long-ago closed." Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a ridiculous statement. on top of your quote above, let's do another! "If we were in a township, Ypsi, Saline, etc. We would be long-ago closed." Please explain why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So Marvin, tell us what actual business you own, what is the name of your company? How on earth can you predict your company would fail if it were located in Saline or Ypsi? There are hundreds of companies that are making a go of it in Saline and Ypsi, show us your proof?

AlphaAlpha

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:56 p.m.

"a set of alternative ideas is vital now." The novel alternative idea exists: equal pay for equal work.

AlphaAlpha

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:53 p.m.

"I'd prefer to see backlash on this private gain and public liability at the national and local levels." Likely you have much company on this issue...but it may be beyond the scope of this discussion...when you are the biggest political donor, you get to write, er, influence the legislation...

Speechless

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:52 p.m.

Various pseudo-informed assertions that residents and businesses will flee Ann Arbor — upon arrival of a one percent city income tax — amount to little more than another round of FUD. Those notions can, and will, be widely rejected by city council and by locals accustomed to thinking for themselves. This article presents, or at least implies, three potential major options to help relieve budgetary shortfall in the years ahead. Two of these, the city income tax and a Headlee override, will require council to sell the idea to Tree Town residents. The city, unfortunately, has squandered noticeable political capital by financing exquisitely expensive downtown projects during the last decade, rather than budgeting annual surpluses in anticipation of inevitable rainy days ahead. Such days have since arrived. The third significant option entails going on a warpath against city employee compensation, especially that of unionized workers. Here, city council would have the cheering adulation of dittoheads and hard-right libertarians who normally despise any Democrat who falls to the left of Genghis Khan. On the other hand, the predominantly white-collar liberals who elect city council members often tend to be apathetic toward the welfare of public employees until staff cuts start to reduce the quality and reliability of municipal services. So, it's time for local activists, politicos, and public employee advocates to begin crafting constructive approaches to budget balancing. Regardless of whether or not a (non-regressive) city income tax or a Headlee override ever occur, a set of alternative ideas is vital now. Concrete proposals will be needed to counter any inclination from some city officials (not to mention their unexpected allies in the right wing echo chamber) to slash away at budget line items which support municipal programs, services and staff. This is a time when decision-makers seek out politically vulnerable targets.

AlphaAlpha

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:48 p.m.

"To those who ignore the benefits of having highly trained, public sector police and firefighters, I have [...] questions." Your questions are specious. No one wants fewer public safety personnel. It's their pay which needs to be reduced. Look at the bright side: with the $36 million the city could save via competitive wages, it could actually hire more employees for all departments.

talker

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:37 p.m.

Reply to Jay Thomas: Physicians are among the population of my Ann Arbor neighborhood of houses that are about half that size and half that price.

talker

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:29 p.m.

P.S. I don't think we need a city income tax in order to remain safe. I agree with the poster who listed some higher than necessary city development expenditures and guarantees. A developer asking for city guarantees is part of the new economy method of privatizing gains and socializing losses. An example is that savings earn next to nothing, so firms that benefited from CMO's can get discount rate money at next to nothing and then make money even on 3% Treasury rates. I'd prefer to see backlash on this private gain and public liability at the national and local levels.

Jay Thomas

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:21 p.m.

"Comment to Jay Thomas: Not all six figure incomes are equal,even among the M.D.'s you want to carry the load. The difference in annual income between a primary care physician and director of a medical center is about half a million dollars (sometimes more)." @Talker: I am well aware that most Doctors make 500k less than Ora Pescowitz. Spare me the hard luck story that they can't chip in a thousand dollars at a 200,000 salary when they drive back to their 500k McMansion (normal 25% of salary mortgage qualification) that is twice as large as an Ann Arbor house of that price and requires less in property tax as well. Ask me how I know!

DonBee

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:18 p.m.

@johnnya2 - Chase has more employees out of NY than in NY. They are a Delaware, not a NY corporation. Their headquarters is in NY, but many of their executives are actually employed in other states. It is called "tax shopping". There is also shopping for regulations, which is why most credit cards are issued from North Dakota. Laws, taxes, and regulations draw or discourage business. Michigan has a lot of laws that discourage some types of business, many of them are justified, some may not be. Take logging, the regulations on the land that the state took over a few years ago from a private land owner (the largest in the UP) discourage much of the logging that had been done on a sustainable basis, so that the land would be more friendly to recreation. Net result, the UP has lost a number of saw mills and a paper mill. A few thousand jobs lost. Good thing? Bad thing? Is it more important for people to be able to hike in the forest without the noise of a chainsaw or to provide jobs for the local folks? Do we allow on shore drilling for natural gas under Lake Michigan or do we not allow it? The wells will be a half mile inland from the shore line. If we don't do we let Wisconsin drill for the gas? Do we encourage or discourage the processing of the mine tailings piles in the UP for copper and iron? Do we allow off shore windmills? As a state we need to decide, are we a tourist destination or an industrial state or...? Each regulation, each law, each tax has an impact on whether people come or go. At the same time each cut in services also has an impact on whether people come or go. The answers are not easy. The UofM is an engine for the local economy, providing jobs and spin off companies. Is that enough of a payment to the community, or should they contribute directly? Different people will give you different answers. An income tax will take money directly from UofM salaries, is that a right thing to do, remember for every employee that makes a million dollars there are hundreds of part timers that make a few thousand a year to help pay for their education. The actual picture is many shades of gray.

talker

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:17 p.m.

To those who ignore the benefits of having highly trained, public sector police and firefighters, I have three questions. 1. Do you want a rapid response by police if you or loved ones are in danger? 2. Do you want a rapid response by firefighters if you or other people or pets are trapped in a burning building or car? 3. Do you want a rapid response by EMT is you or a loved one collapses or has other immediate medical needs? Now I'll follow those three questions with these? 1. Are you willing to train to do those jobs and to put your own safety on the line for any less than current public sector salaries? In fact, are you willing to fight fires or try to capture armed and dangerous criminals even at higher salaries than most are earning now?

talker

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:13 p.m.

To those who ignore the benefits of having highly trained, public sector police and firefighters, I have three questions. 1. Do you want a rapid response by police if you or loved ones are in danger? 2. Do you want a rapid response by firefighters if you or other people or pets are trapped in a burning building or car? 3. Do you want a rapid response by EMT is you or a loved one collapses or has other immediate medical needs? Now I'll follow those three questions with these? 1. Are you willing to train to do those jobs and to put your own safety on the line for any less than current public sector salaries? In fact, are you willing to fight fires or try to capture armed and dangerous criminals even at higher salaries than most are earning now?

Peter Baker

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:04 p.m.

"Some people like walking to get a latte... Others do not" Oh, I see what you did there. That's clever.

Jay Thomas

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:03 p.m.

@russellr: If you are a retired senior in Lodi Township then I fail to understand why you would be paying the hypothetical Ann Arbor income tax we are discussing. It would apply to people working in the city. The purpose of this proposal is to capture revenue from the professional class who makes their living here and often spends it someplace else. Anyone who thinks a few sandwiches at lunch is paying their share to keep the city maintained is delusional. When the roads that these commuters travel on daily need to be repaired their contribution doesn't add up to a whole lot despite the fact that they use more of our roads to get to work. The property owners in this town are overtaxed already and deserve the relief. A student tax (existing in other college towns) is overdue as well. Know who requires and involves police, fire and other public services but pays little to nothing? Same kids that riot after football games. The income tax could also be made to exclude lower wage workers (who simply don't have it) with a deduction. Having said this (and not usually being a fan of taxes) I would rather see them reduce benefits for city workers first. The average Ann Arborite has nothing like these benefits.

talker

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:02 p.m.

Heardoc commented that the salaries of police, firefighters, and teachers should be lowered to make it more likely they'll move into the private sector. Police and firefighters aren't private sector jobs. Public school teachers aren't private sector jobs either. All three job categories are basic to our city and our nation. People in those three job categories are part of the American system. We shouldn't cut public sector jobs that benefit everyone of every economic level, and let only the richest gated communities hire private protection and fund only private schools. I am concerned about health and safety for all. At the moment I'm lingering over the comment that in the Tucson, Az. massacre, it took EMT 10 minutes or more to arrive on the scene. Is it a sign that cost cutting has eliminated denser coverage of EMT vehicles and staff. We should never let that happen here. While I have no connection to an EMT (or to police, fire, or public education workers), I believe they aren't overpaid and may be underpaid because the pay schedules in our economy increasingly value those who manage money and who create money even if it's from sending jobs to China at the expense of American workers. I'm concerned about changes in our value systems over the past decade or two. There's an old acronym: GIGO. It stands for garbage in, garbage out. A recent example is comparing average public sector salaries to private sector salaries without considering the value of the services or the required skills and education of the public sector health and safety employees.

braggslaw

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:48 p.m.

Marvin Glad to hear you are committed to Ann arbor But I do not think your example is the norm Some people like walking to get a latte... Others do not

Gorc

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.

I work for a company that relocated to Livonia, from Ann Arbor, over 5 years ago. There were 200+ employees that worked at that location. And property taxes did play a small role in that decision....no matter how you cut it with property taxes or income taxes this will impact businesses remaining or considering setting up shop in Ann Arbor.

Roadman

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.

A city income tax will fail as it did in Ypsilanti with the voters. The city income tax plan proposed by Leigh Greden was a factor in his being voted out of office in the 2009 primary. Let me know who on Ann Arbor City Council supports a city income tax and I will recruit dozens of Ann Arborites to ensure their electoral defeat.

Marvin Face

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:05 p.m.

Peter Baker is absolutely right and braggslaw is absolutely wrong. I own a 60+ person company in downtown Ann Arbor that has boon looking to relocate. At no time did we ever look to a township or other location for new space. Being in Ann Arbor proper helps us attract and retain staff. If we were in a township, Ypsi, Saline, etc. We would be long-ago closed. Nobody would come work for us in some soulless office park or commercial strip.

braggslaw

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 7:48 p.m.

John. Straw....camel......back

John Q

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 7:41 p.m.

"Companies in Pittsfield will have an annarbor address and it is only a stones throw from annarbor" What's stopping them from moving today? They would be paying less in taxes today if they were located in Pittsfield and not Ann Arbor.

tim

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 7:31 p.m.

? If someone lived in Dexter and worked in Ann Arbor and both cities imposed a city income tax would they have to pay two cities income taxes?

Kai Petainen

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 7:24 p.m.

I'm puzzled about the idea of water quality sampling by the AAFD... "City officials are considering having firefighters take over some duties from the water and sewer departments. One proposal calls for firefighters to assume responsibility for maintenance of fire hydrants, including painting, lubrication, testing and water quality sampling." When the spill happened in the river, http://www.annarbor.com/news/chemical-discovered-in-huron-river-near-university-of-michigan/ the AAFD water quality testing figured it was 88% confident phosphoric acid. A followup report by the UofM seemed to have debunked that and said it was mineral oil. So there appears to be some sort of problem with inconsistencies between water quality testing, even when material collects on booms. I'm not sure who's fault that is with regard to the testing, but it bothers me. Also, with water quality testing in Ann Arbor, 88 of the outfalls that flow into the Huron River, belong to UofM property, and so anything flowing through them is (from my understanding) the responsiblity of the UofM to investigate and not the city police, the AAFD, the DNR or the EPA. So, wouldn't water quality sampling and the costs associated with it, fall partly on UofM? Since the water flows through portions of it, and their test (in this case) seemed to have offered different results? Or perhaps, water quality testing only applies to fire hydrants? If the AAFD is supposed to do the water quality testing, then perhaps folks should take another look at the test they did last year and see if they agree/disagree with it. If they disagree with it, then perhaps someone else should do the testing.

UtrespassM

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.

The city should ask money from U-M. 1.To be fair to every citizens in Ann Arbor school school district, U-M should pay for the family housing kids to attend Ann Arbor schools and to use the city libraries. 2.To promote a better community, U-M should shutdown it's own police department, give the fund to the city and let the city police take care the campus safety.

YpsiLivin

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 6:31 p.m.

It seems reasonable to define which city services are "essential" and which are not. Those deemed essential get fully funded; those deemed non-essential get prioritized and funded until the cash runs out. (That may mean calling back laid-off fire and safety to provide service levels that are consistent with whatever generally accepted metric is used by cities to determine these staffing levels.) If the city ends up with more cash or spends less than planned on the essential services, those unfunded, non-essential services can be reconsidered as money becomes available. Alternately, more non-essentials can be subsidized at some level but not fully funded, and additional funding sources would have to be found to cover the difference between what the city can pay and the cost of the service/program. That seems somewhat more balanced than laying off firefighters in order to sterilize feral cats, doesn't it?

d_dilary

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 6:12 p.m.

Looking at the tax base of Ann Arbor, the "city" has over 133 propertied (not including parks) that pay no taxes at. Also the University of Michigan has numinous no buildings (houses) that they also do not pay any taxes on - why not pay taxes on these properties and NOT do a city tax. I happen to work at the U, and I live in AA; just pretending you "lower" my taxes on my house and start a city wide tax - in a very short time, a few years my property taxes will be again at the same level and I will still be paying the city tax. Say NO to city wide taxes - in the end we all lose

C. S. Gass

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 5:35 p.m.

"One of the proposals being considered on the police side is creating a regional K-9 unit. Another cost-cutting option is eliminating "party patrol" during the University of Michigan football season, which would decrease police responses to drunken partygoers." Good. Let college kids and revelers do what they came to A2 to do, party. I see no problem with that. In fact, and this is not directed at the police but the city government, getting out of micromanaging people's lives in general, when they don't have their own fiscal lives in order, might be a good idea. Taxing people who live in a city is a good way to get them to leave. I would certainly move out (if I lived there) after the 'couch ban' and now tax me for the privilege of being oppressed? And to head this idea off at the pass: A city SALES tax would make me go to Ypsilanti. Anything I need I can get there as well so don't even think about it. There is only one solution: Cut spending. And not on police and fire. That is an old tactic, "Oh, we can't raise taxes so I guess we'll have to cut police..." Then scan the room to see what idiot bites the hook... AA city government is too big. There are always room for cuts to non-essential (police and fire being essential) services. That's why they're called non-essential. If you didn't have them life would go on. Life needs to go on in AA.

stunhsif

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.

American Family said: "Trim the fat. All of it. Then if after ALL the bloat is gone, and the city is still in the red, then and only then can the city come to the people and ask for more money. Cops and firemen are needed people. They above all are not bloat. ALL of them." I agree that we must trim all the fat and excess from city government. Unfortnately American Family, the cops and firemen's pensions and Cadillac benefits are part of that bloat. Your cradle to grave entitlements are helping to bankrupt this city and this state. Taxing the taxpayer 1% more while keeping your pensions is not fair nor is it reasonable.

81wolverine

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 4:42 p.m.

I'm getting fed up with the City continually wasting time debating the Argo Dam fate. They've spent enough taxpayer time and money on this and have decided to fix the headrace and embankment. The majority of the public want the dam to remain in place. QUIT DEBATING IT AND MOVE ON WITH MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES! Further, the $100K per month maintenance number is not even accurate. It's much higher than all the budget numbers I've seen. Probably another bogus estimate from the Huron Watershed Council. In this case, I agree with the Mayor. Stop talking about removing the dam unless everyone is prepared to remove all 4 dams. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

AlphaAlpha

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 3:50 p.m.

Hello Sallyxyz - While you have posted many excellent comments, it must tactfully be noted that you have made a common error in 'list' interpretation; it could be equally well put that you have fallen victim to journalists with an agenda, and here is how: look again at the various occupations listed at the page you mention...now, note how for each occupation in the 'list', there is a 'fatalities per 100,000' figure stated, ok? Then look at the various figures for the various occupations listed. You will see that, in fact, they are quite out of any particular order. Clever journalism? Perhaps. Regardless, it is less than obvious that police and firefighter fatality rates are much lower than many listed these both before after the so-called #12 & #13 indicated. Due to this misleading list, it's likely nothing can be trusted as accurate in that list. Perhaps we should stay with BLS and OSHA data. Unless there is 'paper-pusher' (per above comment) who keeps better statistics. It would be nice if journalists with an agenda were more obvious...

Sallyxyz

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.

@alphalpha: Go to the daily beast dot com, look at the list of the top 20 most dangerous occupations, and you will see that police officers are #12 and fire fighters are #13. I'd consider those rankings indicative of very dangerous occupations.

Sallyxyz

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 3 p.m.

The city needs to provide core services for the safety of the residents (police, fire, street maintenance, trash collection, etc). That's it. Beyond core services, start charging higher fees for the use of optional services: recreational facilities, park use, etc. Get out of the business of arts funding, and any other "extras" that simply cannot be afforded when times are tough. Cut the salaries and benefits of the workers (AAPS bus drivers and custodial staff took an 8% pay cut this year to keep their jobs; that's an example of a real pay cut). Workers in the private sector have seen their benefits reduced and paychecks cut. UM has cut pay to support staff, laid off staff or not filled positions, and offered little or zero raises to some employee groups, and reduced benefits. The city workers need to do the same thing.

braggslaw

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.

Companies in Pittsfield will have an annarbor address and it is only a stones throw from annarbor

John Q

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.

I'm getting a good laugh out of the idea of all these businesses fleeing to Pittsfield Township to avoid a city income tax. If taxes were that important to those companies, they would already be in Pittsfield due to the difference in millage rates between the city and the township. Or they would move out to Salem Township which levies no local property tax. For all those claiming that lower taxes drive development, why isn't every business in Washtenaw County located in Salem Township? Is has the lowest property tax rate in the county.

American Family

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 2:39 p.m.

@AlphaAlph If the paper pushers say so, it must be true. Now go and tell that to the orphans and widows of the Firefighters and Police Officers that died protecting and defending............. Some people will believe anything.

braggslaw

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.

Busiineses moving out of Ann arbor because of a city tax has nothing to do with what I want desire or control... It is simply inevitable My close friends who are managing partners in many firms have said as much......let us see if they are bluffing

AlphaAlpha

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.

BLS & OSHA data show police & fire fighting are not particularly dangerous jobs.

Gorc

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 2:17 p.m.

The city of Ann Arbor does not have a tax revenue isssue...they have a tax spending issue like the State of Michigan and Federal Government.

American Family

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.

It has been proposed by some to limit the compensation of police officers and firefighters. That there's no other way to balance the budget. To me this is plain silly talk. Off all the people that we need to compensate well is the very people that could be killed protecting you and your property from death and destruction. Why is it so had for some people to understand you can't keep reaching in to other peoples wallets to pay for things that are simply nice to have or nice to do, but not really necessary? Trim the fat. All of it. Then if after ALL the bloat is gone, and the city is still in the red, then and only then can the city come to the people and ask for more money. Cops and firemen are needed people. They above all are not bloat. ALL of them.

Sallyxyz

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.

dotdash: Cities like London that imposed a tax on driving into the center city have wonderful public transit options. The London Tube is a fantastic network of trains and subways in a world-class city. I would not call the AATA wonderful, by any stretch of the imagination. A2 is a car city and getting to work from outlying areas on the AATA is just not an option. Nor is getting to work from one side of A2 to the other on public transit. I live on Fuller and cannot even get to Plymouth Rd on a bus to go to Kroger's on Plymouth and Nixon! I'd have to change buses several times and take about 2 hours to accomplish that trip, which is all of 3 miles from where I live. And no, walking 3 miles to the grocery store and then carrying heavy bags another 3 miles back home is not an option. Sorry. Public transit in A2 is not efficient. Unless you live in one of the expensive lofts downtown, and also work downtown (this would be a tiny number of people), getting to work using public transit in A2 is just not an option for the vast majority of workers. A handful of workers might live on a bus route and work a daytime, M-F schedule that happens to coincide with a bus schedule, but once again, this is a very small number of people. There are just not that many routes on the AATA, the buses stop running in the evenings and they don't run on weekends, except for a few routes and times. Routes continue to be cut, unfortunately. And people don't all work from 9-5, M-F. Hardly. In addition, biking to work is just not a viable option, except for students, perhaps, or a rugged handful of people who don't need to wear business clothes at work, or who are willing to compete with automobiles and rush hour congestion. What happens to the bikers in the rain, snow and heat of the summer? Taxing people who drive into A2 is almost worse than an income tax. NO new taxes.

Rita Mitchell

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.

The article and apparently the presentation by Mr. Fraser lack information on the cost to collect a city income tax. The net gain in funds from an income tax must account for the costs of staff, software, training, and compliance management on income tax collection and management. What proportion of those eligible for the tax will comply? What will be the costs to the people and businesses to comply with the tax? There is much more detail to be learned about this proposal than has been yet presented.

bunnyabbot

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.

well we can see this is a heated debate. you can't charge an income tax on people that own property in A2, that is why they pay property taxes and are able to vote in A2 you can't charge an income tax on people that work but do not live in ann arbor, b/c they can not vote here and that is taxation without representation. raising taxes and creating taxes is suicide. don't give this government more money, they haven't shown any responsibility in controling thier spending and budgetting for a number of years, they'll just squander it.

Trouble

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.

Mr. Berlin & then council give away ship. Now time to sink ship!

dotdash

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:49 p.m.

Does anyone else think that a better solution would come from not spending every last single dime in good economic times? We know the down years are coming, after all. Couldn't we plan for the inevitable? Then we could wait out some of these downturns without proposing untenable structural changes. (Of course, it's too late for this downturn. Sigh.) Would it be too much to ask the Council (and administration) to plan ahead for the inevitable? And if we are going to have a new tax, let's figure one out that actually move ahead our vision of the city. A car tax, for instance (like London) could get money from people driving into the city to work here but if people wanted to avoid it, they could bike or take public transportation. The tax, therefore, would either raise money from people who use the city but don't currently pay property taxes OR it would increase energy efficient modes of transportation.

Sallyxyz

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.

There are a high percentage of renters in A2, and if an income tax were instituted (I don't think it would pass the vote), and then the property taxes were theoretically lowered, do you think any of those renters would see one dime of decrease in their rent? Do you honestly believe any of the big property management companies in A2 that own the majority of rentals would reduce the rent? Dream on. This is one more way to gouge those "rich" students that populate the apartments and many also work at the UM, and would then have to pay an income tax on top of higher, not lower, rent. Landlords in this town are not about to lower rents, for any reason, particularly if they had to start paying an income tax on all those rental income revenues. PROFIT is what it is all about for the big landlords in this town. A city income tax would affect students living in A2 in a very negative way, double whammy with continued increased rents and then an income tax on top of it. Not all are "rich" by the way.

David

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:37 p.m.

Nothing could be worse for the economic success of the people of Washtenaw County than an income tax in Ann Arbor. First, the income tax is based upon the assumption that the government levying it owns ALL of your money and only ALLOWS you to keep a certain percentage. How can anyone possibly support such a tax? Only statists who hate liberty support such a tax. Second, how about the city eliminates it's arts expenses, and other frivolous expenditures that do nothing for core services? It's fitting that a city filled with people who don't understand economics, or how a free society is supposed to function, would support such a proposal. In their minds, government is more important than liberty, and that government is the key to prosperity. Those of you who think that are mentally ill and should be treated as such. I just moved into this city as of August, and am going to be here due to lease agreements until at least August of 2012. Should this tax be created, I might just break my lease agreement and GET THE HELL OUT OF ANN ARBOR. I've lived in Washtenaw County for 11 years now, and this is one of the most disgusting displays of statism that I have seen in over a decade. Those of you supporting it and proposing it make me physically ill.

Marshall Applewhite

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:33 p.m.

We obviously have to limit the compensation of police officers and firefighters. There's no other way to do this.

AlphaAlpha

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.

BLS states average US total compensation is ~$57,000 per year. Our city could save ~$36,000,000 per year via competitive wages and benefits.

AlphaAlpha

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.

In all fairness though, $104K does not include the cherished overtime pay...

Old Salt

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:13 p.m.

The time has come for the city of Ann Arbor to reduce property taxes and have an income tax. There are thousands of individuals who work in Ann Arbor and enjoy all of the priviliges and good things in Ann Arbor and then, after work, go to their homes outside of the city. I understand Ann Arbor is an expensive city to live in but let those who earn their living here share a little of the cost of keeping Ann Arbor among the best in the country I was born educated, worked and retired here and intend to stay here. God Bless our great city.

AlphaAlpha

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:10 p.m.

Recent A2.com articles show average A2 city employee total compensation cost at ~$104,000 per year. Is $104K / year enough?

American Family

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:10 p.m.

Why is such a debate? This is very simple: Audit the financial books of Ann Arbor. Trim the bloated entitlements and amenities to the tune of $2.4 million. Keep ALL of the necessary services such as Police and Fire Departments running at full strength? Keep the roads and all such paths necessary for cars and trucks fully funded. These things are necessary. Bike paths, street art, drug addict and illegal immigrant cuddling and like things are NOT necessary. Time to grow up Ann Arbor, and deal with your money problems. The city only has so much income per year. That income is currently more then enough to cover what is necessary to run a city like Ann Arbor. Dump all of the "nice - nice" entitlements and amenities programs. Poof!!! No need to raise taxes, or create new ones. And you will have left over money to bank for city emergencies that crop up off and on. So many well educated people running Ann Arbor, and still they seem not to know how to do a simple budget. It is really a shame and an embarrassment.

dlb

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:05 p.m.

It obviously needs to be part of a package of finding ways to streamline, but an income tax seems a necessary way to go given the likely continued declines in revenue from the State.

blahblahblah

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 12:45 p.m.

For all those complaining about the U of M expanding their property domain, send a thank you card to the current and past city council members who have helped to push out private developers. The deck is already in the U of M's favor, so let's just eliminate all the competition for buildable space within the city (scare away all the private developers) and why were at it, let's just start giving away land to the U of M (Fuller Station) as well.

johnnya2

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 12:41 p.m.

@stunhsif If that is the case, why is Google located in high tax California? If that is the case why is Chase Bank located in high tax New York City? If that is the case why do Florida AND Nevada both have high unemployment when both have ZERO income tax? Businesses migrate to where there are employees and the brain power to drive their business forward. Taxes are a MINOR role in choosing where to locate. In fact, let's see which businesses would leave Ann Arbor if there were an income tax. Zero retail businesses would, unless of course you think all the retail on State Street, South U, and Main Street could survive in the "suburbs". Based on your analysis, New York City should have very low population and very low real estate values, since people make decisions because of taxes. Yet, their housing values are some of the highest in the country. Tax rates determining where a business or person locate to is a myth of epic proportions.

Ron Granger

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 12:35 p.m.

Ann Arbor is competing with not only cities that have no income tax, but states that have no income tax. It makes a big difference in my decisions on where to do business. Telecommuting makes it easier than ever to avoid the heavy hand of "tax and spend" types. Seattle is an example of a city with neither. It often is greener on the other side.

Dog Guy

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 12:30 p.m.

An Income tax would encourage U of M to site its highest paid operations in Superior Twp. or Scio Twp. and build an Even-More-North Campus. I look forward to free parking. Do we want the city hall gang to have even more shells for their shell game? Greed and pride have no limits.

Ron Granger

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.

Do city income taxes encourage sprawl as residents flee the city limits, and cities attempt to annex them in an effort to feed their hunger for cash?

Ron Granger

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 12:26 p.m.

The $2.4 million deficit seems completely insignificant when compared with the $40+ million the city council BLEW on their new palace.... And they spent that money in direct opposition to the intent of the voters in this city. The new palace will stand as a monument to waste and ego. I guess the $40M was just burning a hole in their collective pockets. Just imagine how far that would have gone in solving this crisis they have made.

YpsiLivin

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 12:18 p.m.

Ann Arbor has voted on city income taxes twice - once in the late 60's and once in the early 70's. Both times, the tax proposal was soundly defeated, so yeah, debling, put it on the ballot and see what happens. If it goes down, it will stay down for awhile.

Kurt

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 12:10 p.m.

White Cloud proposed a "city" income tax? White Cloud consists of one, possibly two stop lights at max. That is the funniest thing I've heard today.

debling

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 12:03 p.m.

Stop the debating. Put it to a citywide vote, see what the people want and let Democracy take over. It's just so crazy, it may work.

DagnyJ

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 11:39 a.m.

Get rid of Huron Hills.

Heady99

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 11:32 a.m.

This is exactly why I told my boss that moving our business into Ann Arbor might not be a good idea - city taxes! Thank you so much for bringing this up because I know for a fact that he already feels like he is taxed to death and a city tax would be just one more nail in our coffin! I have asked that we look every where except Ann Arbor - good luck - oh by the way I try very hard not to spend any money in Ann Arbor - I see Ann Arbor trying to suck the life out of the people that live there - taxes, tickets and a load of entitlement problems. Here is a common sense idea that maybe they (Ann Arbor) should look into - other cities who have instituted a "city tax" and what do they look like today????? Detroit???? Again just a thought! Ann Arbor needs to get off its high horse and get real it has been these circus tactics that drove many people out of your city already. Balance your budget from within like the rest of us had to do. If your union people don't like it they can leave believe me there are numerous people who would want that job and work very hard to keep it and guess what - the aren't looking for a lifetime of entitlements!

braggslaw

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 11:11 a.m.

May lawfirms and accounting offices on the Ann Arbor border could simply move 800 yds over the highway. Those businesses are not tied to capital equipment or industrial zones. I know many of my friends would move their businesses to avoid the taxes and they would still have an Ann ARbor address in Pittsfiedl

AlphaAlpha

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 10:33 a.m.

The 2010-12-24 A2.com article on Dominick's states: "U-M officials have said the university is willing to mitigate the loss of the on-street parking revenue..." Can this mitigation process be expanded to cover the loss of other revenues? To what extent? How?

Soothslayer

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 10:32 a.m.

@Ghost - you are doing well, just keep fighting the speculation with simple facts and figures. Aside from the economic damage that urban sprawlers "don't want to hear about" regarding the costs of commuting what about the massive amounts of lost time and productivity? How does this lost time (add it up in a week) help build stronger families and help to give us a competitive edge in the global marketplace? Folks could be with their families, gardening or reading. Any other activity makes more sense than wasting time, money and natural resources commuting. They forget the substantial environmental impact of landfill tires, parts and cars as they literally drive them into the ground and the massive carbon footprint from the additional fuel use. What about the money these commuters spend on fuel? How do they help to keep their hard earned resources in the local, state or even US economy when most of the fuel revenue GOES OVERSEAS. No, they do not think about these things because they do not want to acknowledge they exist. Even the treehuggers with hybrids can't refute simple economic and environmental evils of commuting. Regardless if you drive a sheikh loving suburban or a moped, if you drive less, you'll contribute less to landfill, send less on overseas goods (namely fuel) and much have less of an environmental impact. Bottom line is commuting is Un-American. (period)

Gorc

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 10:06 a.m.

The city of Ann Arbor is already difficult for new developmen to start there.. Go ahead and pass a city income tax and see how that too becomes anti-bussiness. Pittsfield Township would welcome more business development (Menards and Costco for example). Yes, I live in Pittsfield Township and LOVE the fact we are pro business that generate job opportunities and increased tax revenue.

YpsiLivin

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 10:06 a.m.

Joel Levitt, Michigan law permits only a uniform city income tax of 1% on residents and.5 on non-residents. A larger percentage is allowed upon the approval of the voters. Once a tax is in place, it does not expire.

David Cahill

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 10:04 a.m.

These comments show (once again) how divisive and politically hopeless an income tax is. AnnArbor.com, how about another poll on this issue? I suggest you keep it simple, just yes or no on the tax without attaching confusing reasons for each choice.

Joel A. Levitt

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:55 a.m.

I was raised in New York City and have lived in both rural and suburban Massachusetts. Ann Arbor is the best place in which I have ever lived, because of its schools, parks, university, theaters, restaurants, city services and community organizations. Most of these attractions are supported by the fact that Ann Arbor is the cultural and business center of our area. Unfortunately, it is so expensive that many city employees and others upon whom we depend cannot afford to live here. In these hard times, it has become obvious that Michigans property-tax-sales-tax-business-tax system is destructive and should be replaced by a graduated income tax. Our current problem, however, is financing not Michigan but Ann Arbor for the next few years. A graduated city income tax which expires in two or three years is probably the best solution. Such a tax would not impose additional burdens on those who are unemployed, under-employed or having a hard time keeping their businesses afloat and cant afford to pay their current taxes. And, no individual or firm is likely to entertain the large expense of moving out of town to avoid such a tax. However, I need more information to decide if I favor a city income tax. Does Michigan law permit us to levy a graduated income tax that will expire at a date certain?

rusty shackelford

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:50 a.m.

This is absolutely unacceptable. Shifting the tax burden away from those with enough money to own property, and increasing it for those who don't. Just terribly, terribly wrong. If you want to increase the tax rolls stop making it so incredibly hard for anyone to INVEST in the city's real estate, thus raising its value and thus property tax. As a renter, I already pay all of my landlord's property taxes (plus enough extra for him to make a profit). Now you want to lower his taxes and charge me more? This would benefit a small cartel of major property owners in the city and be catastrophic for the rest of us. I think recall proceedings are in order if this continues.

russellr

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:41 a.m.

I would like to also ad. We are seniors living in Lodi Township. We pay for our garbage pickup, we have a well, we do not have any children in school,college etc... We do not go to your parks or your golf coursees. I could go on and on. When do I or the rest of the seniors get to stop paying for all of this and now a city tax? Your killing us I feel like the red coats are coming.

Sallyxyz

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:38 a.m.

The UM needs to pay its fair share of taxes. It is a multi-billion dollar corporation, whether it admits that or not. It uses city fire and city police services, city snow removal and city street maintenance for the city streets that run through campus all over town. The fact that it is tax exempt while gobbling up 40% or more of the taxable property in a small city is not a viable situation. The rest of the city residents should not continue to get tax hikes which in effect are "underwriting" all these city services provided for the UM. This has to change. An income tax on the rest of the residents in A2, and not taxing the UM, is NOT a solution. Many aspects of the UM generate huge profits, such as athletics and the hospitals, etc. The UM needs to be taxed as the corporation it has become.

russellr

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:33 a.m.

Ann Arbor has a cleaning crew come in a clean it's offices all over town. Why don't you have the people that work in the office clean up there own mess. You could save thousands and it would only take your employees 15 20 min a week to empty there trash cans and run a vaccum and dust. Come on we do it at Meijer and they save a ton of money. Or are you not willing to save?

Sven49

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:31 a.m.

Look at the Michigan cities that levy an income tax: Detroit, Grand Rapids, Highland Park, Saginaw, Albion, Battle Creek, Big Rapids, Flint, Grayling, Hamtramck, Hudson, Ionia, Jackson, Lansing, Lapeer, Muskegon, Muskegon Heights, Pontiac, Port Huron, Portland, Springfield and Walker. Most have had it for many years and still have big problems.

average joe

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:21 a.m.

The City's biggest asset is the u of m. It is also it's biggest drain on the budget. At the same time as the millage rate is trimed because of headlee, the u of m is grabbing more (high value)property, & removing it from the tax rolls. Something has to give. The u of m is being legally irresponsible to the residents of Ann Arbor, & until the city can find a way to recoup those losses from the u of m, the city will have the same problem every year.

braggslaw

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:14 a.m.

Just FYI there is no Cruz Hybrid... that particular Cruz has active shutters and low rolling resistance tires. A base Cruz is cheaper. Again you are missing the point. Pittsfield is one mile from Ann Arbor (if not less as it borders Ann ARbor.) Most people buy cars, I was just pointing out some cheap alternatives... if people want to ride a bike from Pittsfield then I guess the only cost would be the depreciation on the bike and the cost of calories.

rosewater

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:13 a.m.

"we need to start collecting from the people that use the city" Well start with U of M!

YpsiLivin

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:11 a.m.

ERMG, As kathryn said, the real issue is not how much of an economic burden this places on residents, but rather how much of an economic burden the tax would place on businesses. A 1% tax on a business with revenues of $5 million would be $50,000. $50,000 in city income tax might be the difference between being in the black or in the red, keeping (or laying off) an employee, expanding or staying put. (Annually.) If I were a business owner in a city with an income tax, I'd be looking for ways to cut expenses that didn't require me to cut either employees or operations, or raise my prices. Saving $50,000 by moving to a nearby tax-free township would fit that bill quite nicely.

Heardoc

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 9:08 a.m.

I think we should be looking long and hard at these employee benefits and pay -- this is something that needs to be reigned in and will not be tolerated any longer. From teachers to police to fire -- all are really far overpaid for the work performed. Belt tightening is in order -- even if we were flush with money -- government pay and benefits should never been above private sector -- in fact - due to great job protection, pay and benefits should significantly less. This then gives the public employee incentive to move into the private sector. Public employees and their union, like AFSCME, should be barred. They hold the public hostage, there is no competition so when they go on strike we have really no alternative. Public employee unions should be banned by law. Public employee unions breed socialism and that is UNAMERICAN!

YpsiLivin

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:59 a.m.

Mick52, The discussion of a city income tax has come up numerous times, most recently: July 2009: http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-officials-lay-out-city-income-tax-plan-to-shift-tax-burden-to-commuters-increase-city-reve/ At that time, the same tax plan that is currently being considered was supposed to raise $7.6 million. I'm not sure why the same measure would now raise $12 million... See also (December 2008), following the Pfizer pull-out: http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2008/12/ann_arbor_city_council_member.html Earlier, I had said that Ypsilanti (in 2007) may have been the last municipality to try for an income tax, but White Cloud in Newaygo County asked for one in August 2010 and it was defeated 138-101. (White Cloud also unsuccessfully proposed an income tax in 1998.)

AlphaAlpha

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:49 a.m.

"Hieftje stressed today the city should be focusing on employee benefit packages that are "out of line with the mainstream." He said that's causing most of the city's budget problems" "Council Member Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward, echoed those thoughts" "Fraser agreed employee compensation is a major issue" Mr. Stanton, would you please elaborate on this concept of city employee pay and benefit packages which "are out of line with the mainstream"? Thank you.

braggslaw

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:48 a.m.

Most new cars fall in the $20,000 range. The cost for a Prius would be about 10 cents. the cost for a Chevyr Cruz around 14 cents. (bare bones about 16,000 bucks or you could buy a foreing car like a civic with comparable costs) The original point is that you can basically walk to Ann Arbor from Pittsfield and other such Townships.

Michael Psarouthakis

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:44 a.m.

There would be a significant decrease in property taxes if the income tax was passed. The most likely shift I see is people moving to Ann Arbor due to the lower property taxes. I like the idea of a county tax rather than a city tax, but think that is even more unlikely. Income tax is really the only way to tax "U of M", as the University itself is tax exempt from all income and property taxes and that is not going to change.

pbehjatnia

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:43 a.m.

@Jay Thomas: Instead of being envious of someone else's income, maybe you should do something to better your own income.

braggslaw

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:38 a.m.

Pittsfield would grab most of the businesses and people. As soon as you cross the highway taxes drop. The Boulder ridge development is 1 mile from Ann Arbor and has Pittsfield property taxes. People could bike in. There are dozens of such sub-divisions and corporate research parks that are within a few miles (not 18 mile round trips) that are in easy biking distance (or a short drive) to Ann Arbor. If you drive a Chevy Volt the costs would be about a nickel a mile for electricity.

kathryn

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:38 a.m.

The concern is not citizens choosing to move outside city limits...people will make that choice based on their own circumstances (and the cost of the house may be more of an issue than the taxes). I chose to buy a house in Ann Arbor despite the higher costs because I liked the city and all it had to offer. The real issue is whether a city income tax would discourage businesses from operating inside city limits. I don't think Ann Arbor will be better off if it's only UM and houses. We need the diversity of other businesses and employers in our community. I, too, am discouraged by some of the recent decisions (the Library parking lot for example--how could anybody start building that parking lot without having decided what was going on top of it??!!--and I have real concerns about keeping Argo Dam. Do we need a dam? Can we afford a dam?) So, for now I think that there needs to be some aggressive belt-tightening for the short term. But in the long-term, making Ann Arbor an attractive, diverse, and vibrant community is what will keep us economically healthy. Anything that drives businesses away (like income taxes) will probably not make the situation better.

pbehjatnia

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:34 a.m.

@sbuilder: I grew up in Cadillac. My family was one of the original families when Cadillac was a logging village. The migration of businesses first to the far north end and more recently the far south end of town happened because at the time the original Walmart and Kmarts were built in the 80s the only zoned and available land for development was at the north end. Mcdonalds also began it's first location on the north end. Same for Payless. Downtown was still a fully loaded Main Street with family owned businesses of all kinds. These businesses dried up within 15 years of big box stores moving in. There are just a few families which own the properties lining Main Street in Cadillac. They want rents comparable to Ann Arbor or selling prices in the pure fantasy range. This is why Main Street is empty. My grandmother used to say Cadillac is a one horse town run by men with blind vision. Sure hope I never think the same about Ann Arbor.

golfer

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:30 a.m.

save money on huron hills 250k. close it or let miles run it.

Heardoc

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 8:20 a.m.

First -- on basic American principle of limited government -- The City of AA should never impose a tax on income. This city has just gotten too big for its britches. We need to downsize government -- not grow government. We need to reduce the spending -- not maintain or increase spending. The City of AA and the city government they have employed are now attempting to create a class warfare here -- those that live in the city and those that do not. The 'City Dweller' are upset that the non -Dwellers are getting services that they are not paying for -- yet this same city voted against the state of AZ when that entire state is upset with people utilizing it's services for free (and illegally). In drawing the parallel between the vote by AA city council against AZ, and it's attempts to control it's border from illegals (aka Non-City dwellers)n and protect it's citizens (aka City Dwellers), is exquisite. Just comical here -- poor city has all these services people are using and the city is not getting any money for it -- seems the shoe is on the other foot now -- City has no problem when other entities complain about this------ Noooooo.... people in AZ were racists for bringing this up -- they had to spend money on illegals in order to be not a racist -- Geez, these far leftists really are off their rocker!

LRP

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 7:20 a.m.

Bring on the Tax!

Sallyxyz

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 6 a.m.

A city income tax would never be approved by voters. This is not the way to balance the budget. Cut some of those retirement benefits just like corporations and the UM have had to do. Don't raise revenue on the backs of people already paying high property taxes and dealing with other costs that are spiraling out of control. Gas will be $4.00 by Memorial Day. "The presumption here is that we're going to continue to have a shrinking pie for the foreseeable future, and we need to make a change," Fraser said. Why is this the case? I think an analysis is needed to determine why revenues are falling. Those reasons are not spelled out in the article. Housing values are not going to fall indefinitely. Consider layoffs, early retirement incentives, cutting wages, outsourcing some services, charging UM for services that are in place because of the university such as the party control, etc. UM should also be paying taxes for police and fire and road services, since they use all of those. An income tax is NOT the solution. If that happens, I'd move out of the city.

Peter Baker

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 2:06 a.m.

"There are many many thousands of Michigander's who commute from lower tax communities to work in higher tax communites. The benefits for those living in those communities make it worthwhile to drive the extra miles (40+) to work in Ann Arbor. Not only that, many of those folks cannot afford the homes and high taxes in Ann Arbor." stunhsif I'd be willing to bet driving 40+ miles twice every day at $3/gallon more than makes up for the few hundred dollars per month in tax differences.

Somewhat Concerned

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 1:09 a.m.

It might be time to move one's business outside the city limits. That way employees will have a choice: the ones who wish to live in the city and pay an income tax will be free to do so; those who have no desire to pay an income tax will be free to do so by living outside the city. If my (or your) business stays inside the city limits, all employees, including those who live outside the city, will be forced to pay.

talker

Sun, Jan 9, 2011 : 12:33 a.m.

I agree with A A Joker's comments. I think many will agree that the U. of M. needs to pay more to the city. The U. has taken over more properties. Also, the U. should pay taxes to account for all the employees that commute into town, instead of taxing the employees directly. I think the taxation of religious facilities is interesting and worth discussion. I won't predict how popular such a move would be in A2, but it was the choice from three proposed forms of taxation by the people who replied to an unscientific survey conducted by CNBC. Comment to Jay Thomas: Not all six figure incomes are equal,even among the M.D.'s you want to carry the load. The difference in annual income between a primary care physician and director of a medical center is about half a million dollars (sometimes more).

Mick52

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 11:59 p.m.

One short add on. I don't recall a city income tax discussed during the last election. Did I miss that?

Mick52

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 11:58 p.m.

I am sure the surrounding townships will use an A2 city tax to lure businesses current and prospective. I have always thought the argument that UM employees should pay an equal tax to a person working in a private business in the city is unfair and here is why I think so. The UM provides a lot of services to its community. Police, street trash and snow removal, trash pickup from public garbage cans, street and sidewalk lighting, road maintenance on North Campus, parking enforcement etc. If the city were to put an income tax in place, shouldn't the city take up all of these services? I am sure the UMPD will not be dissolved, but suppose a UM employee would prefer an AAPD officer respond to a theft, auto accident, etc. Since they pay the same tax a business employee would be paying, shouldn't they have access to the same services? I think the UM would have the right to tell the city to install and empty city trash cans on sidewalks like they do on city walkways. Also do all the street cleaning and plowing around campus and every service provided to an person who pays the tax in the city. Then the U will save money, transferring the financial burden to the employees. For the city to insist the U keep up these services it would appear a UM employee is not getting the same level of service as a private business employee.

YpsiLivin

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 11:32 p.m.

sbbuilder, Michigan cities with income taxes are: Albion, Battle Creek, Big Rapids, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Grayling, Hamtramck, Highland Park, Hudson, Ionia, Jackson, Lansing, Lapeer, Muskegon, Muskegon Heights, Pontiac, Port Huron, Portland, Saginaw, Springfield and Walker. Since 1995, state law has required voter approval to impose a city income tax for the first time. No Michigan city has successfully instituted a city income tax since that time. Ypsilanti may have been the last city to attempt an income tax (2007); that measure failed by a 2:1 margin. Corporations that exist within a city that adopts the Uniform City Income Tax Code must pay the "resident" city income tax rate. That's a pretty good reason, from the perspective of the city's private employers, to either fight an income tax or relocate outside the city limits.

UtrespassM

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 11:21 p.m.

People live in Ann Arbor school district pay Ann Arbor school tax and Ann Arbor library tax.

Rodney Nanney

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 10:53 p.m.

I believe that a city income tax in Ann Arbor is exactly what Ypsilanti, Saline, Dexter, and Chelsea need for future success!

Speechless

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 10:08 p.m.

"... 'I don't see how we're going to avoid layoffs, whether that's in public safety or anywhere else,' [Rapundalo] said. 'What other choice do we have?'..." Umm... this is where Tree Town councilpersons get themselves into a moral quandary for having previously voted for optional high-ticket items such as the new courts building, with its precious fountain, and the new undergound parking structure. Rapundalo and other council folks absolutely do have another choice... or at least they did at one time before freely squandering it. They've already made the statement that new downtown construction is far more meaningful than maintaining full citywide services. Nonetheless, I think some form of change in taxation is waranted but won't speculate right now as to whether a Headlee override or a city income tax is the most optimal approach. Property taxes in A2 and Ypsilanti will always be very high due to the universities removing large tracts of land from the tax rolls. Alternately, slashing and hacking at city services will merely move us slowly in the direction of becoming Jackson with a big school. If a city income tax is eventually approved and instituted, I'd like for it to include a high deduction which effectively exempts, for example, low-paid restaurant employees. Otherwise, it will function as a very regressive tax that victimizes the working poor who badly need what the city will take out of their paychecks — unlike the legions of white collar professionals who have greater discretionary income available. On the other hand, a one percent income tax won't have a significant impact on business location decisions.

braggslaw

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 9:48 p.m.

The purpose of city govt. is to provide services not to be a public works project. The citizens should decide on that level of services and what they should or want to pay for.... not city employees.

pbehjatnia

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 9:46 p.m.

City income tax? Isn't there a law about this? Something like need to lower property taxes concurrently? Not joking. I do believe this was enacted in A2 some years back. With nothing in return no one should pay more. Attacking residents incomes is not the way to get the U to pay. If Huron Hills benefits only 7 to 9% of the population ( and this sounds mighty high) then it should be sold. Along with the Leslie golf course. The city should not be in the business of owning golf courses. If sold the sale would be huge not to mention the potential property taxes that would spring from development of these properties. And the parks we can't afford to keep up? Excess parks. Sell them. Take out Argo. Take the money. When you are homeless and hungry is no time to hang on to the family jewels or thinking about acquiring more.

Stephen Landes

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 9:46 p.m.

When David Cahill and I agree there must be something powerful going on! Even Gov. Cuomo, the new governor of New York was speaking about the tax burden in his state and the need to bring it down. Raising taxes encourages people and economic activity to move to where taxes are lower. This is just the same as individuals shopping for the lowest gasoline prices: you love your local station, but in the end it tends to come down to price. I have a friend in California who tells me that he sees many folks moving from CA to Nevada. Those that have the financial means are moving out and leaving behind those that cannot afford to move. The financial situation in CA will get much worse as the tax base declines. We don't have to look as far away as CA for an example: look at what Indiana is doing. They have lower taxes and better growth than we do. They are agricultural/manufacturing and their weather isn't markedly better than ours yet they are doing better economically than we are. From what I have heard their is a business drain from Michigan to Indiana and similar places. Think how much easier it is to move a business outside A2 and move yourself outside, too. A2 is a great town as far as I am concerned, but other than our huge stadium and a couple of concerts we're not so different from any other town as we would like to believe. Taking steps to make having a business in A2 and hiring people to work here, even if they come in from outside the city limits, more expensive is bad for our town.

bruno_uno

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 9:32 p.m.

dont u get it? fraser brings up the decisive topic of city income tax idea to keep the real issue with bloated union salaries and benefits off the media trail and public scrutiny...this keeps his job security not having to deal with in office politics with the union reps and public off his back as well.

sbbuilder

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 9:30 p.m.

Bugjuice wrote: "It's a myth perpetuated by the anti-tax-at-any opportunity bunch." How terribly wrong, and with no foundation. One example: The City of Cadillac instituted a city tax just a few years ago. Since then, just about every doctors' office, most lawyers, auto dealers, the Home Depot, Meijer, WallMart, and a host of other businesses have located, or re-located just outside of city limits. The downtown is painfully gutted. The net result is far less revenue to the city coffers. Also, if you ask any contractor who does business in the City, you will find them wholly behind the idea of the County doing all of the building/development the City currently does. Of all the municipalities in SE Michigan I've done work in, the City of AA is the worst to do business in. Needlessly snotty from top to bottom. The mayor is correct in pointing out that employee benefit packages are becoming increasingly unmanageable. We don't need a reduction in services to balance the budget. We need employee compensation to come in line with current reality.

Basic Bob

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 9:09 p.m.

@Tony Livingston, "People want Ann Arbor schools...." This is a separate argument, because it is a separate tax. AAPS district residents pay for the schools whether or not they pay A2 property tax or have the A2 zip code. Township residents also do not get the privilege of voting for mayor and council, or receiving city services such as police, fire, water, sewer, or trash pickup. When we drive into Ann Arbor, we pay the Ann Arbor businesses for their services, who in turn pay city taxes. In fact, we even pay for city park maintenance through Rec-Ed fees, and subsidize the U even though we do not directly benefit as you do.

Vivienne Armentrout

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 9:07 p.m.

Re Jay Thomas' remark: You are correct. According to information provided at today's budget retreat, the city General Operating Millage is currently at 6.1682 mils. (It was originally authorized at 7.5 mils but has been reduced each year because of the Headlee amendment.) If an income tax is enacted, that millage would no longer be levied, though the other special millages and taxes from other taxing jurisdictions would continue. Thanks, Ryan, for your prompt reporting. I'm always amazed.

stunhsif

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.

bugjuice said: "Taxes are not a primary reason where people or businesses choose to locate. It's a myth perpetuated by the anti-tax-at-any opportunity bunch." You could not be more wrong, taxes are a very important component in considering where to locate a company. The higher the taxes, the lower your margin and income. This is the most basic of considerations and your calling this a "myth" is ridiculous!

Macabre Sunset

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.

This would be a wonderful way to get businesses that haven't already left Ann Arbor to move outside the city line. We need more abandoned storefronts downtown.

bugjuice

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 8:15 p.m.

A city income tax is one way to get Roger Fraser to pay a few bucks for locating outside the city limits even tho council gave him $30,000 to find suitable living quarters in the city when he was hired. Instead he bought in the township.

bugjuice

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 8:04 p.m.

Altho he's probably not happy that I'm sayin', but I'm with Pete on this one. Taxes are not a primary reason where people or businesses choose to locate. It's a myth perpetuated by the anti-tax-at-any opportunity bunch. And Dave Cahill is really wrong and a bit shortsighted on this one. His lack of ardent opposition smacks of reverse psychology.

stunhsif

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.

Peter Baker said: " and you lose the people who decide where they live and work based on lifestyle (of which there are more than you know), and you only retain the miserly curmudgeons who think anything collective is a waste of money." There are many many thousands of ( you call them miserly curmudgeons) Michigander's who commute from lower tax communities ( ex: Jackson/Parma/Blissfield/Tecumseh/Whitmore Lake/Milan/Willis/Maybee/Clinton MI to Ann Arbor MI) to work in higher tax communites. The benefits for those living in those communities make it worthwhile to drive the extra miles ( 40 plus) to work in Ann Arbor. Not only that, many of those folks cannot afford the homes and high taxes in Ann Arbor. There is a glut of qualified college educated and blue collar workers willing to drive 50+ miles per day to have a decent job. Most folks that work from 8 to 5 don't much care about golf courses or parks with dog runs! Employers can locate darn near anywhere in southeast Michigan and find plenty of qualified workers!

Jay Thomas

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 7:29 p.m.

The number of people who make their living in the city but reside outside of it has grown exponentially. You can get a bigger house for the money and pay less taxes. Most city government workers and U of M employees don't live in Ann Arbor; it's the rest of us who are stuck paying the bills. All the near six figure income city workers, Doctors and Ora Pescowitz's will have to pay something. The nice thing about this income tax is that it can only happen with a reduction in mills (6 mils I think) for Ann Arbor property tax payers. That mitigates the negative impact somewhat. Other towns that have done this did not collapse as a result.

AAJoker

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 7:09 p.m.

Balancing the budget is quite simple: 1. Reign in the mayor and the city council pet projects, anything over $500K requires a vote (OK maybe $1M). 2. Find a way to collect property tax on the many properties the UM owns that are not directly associated with education. This includes the stadium, chrysler arena, golf courses etc. UM has a massive amount of land in Ann Arbor that doesn't house students or provide classrooms. 3. Tax all property that churches own, you would be surprised the amount of land and buildings that fall under this category.

Peter Baker

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 7 p.m.

"If you want to see a migration of businesses from Ann Arbor to Pittsfield Towship, Lodi, Dexter and Chelsea... pass a city income tax." Not every business bases it's location on how little taxes they can pay. I located my business, and home, in Ann Arbor because I wanted to live here precisely BECAUSE of the amenities you now demand be cut, just to save a buck. Lose the parks, good schools (no, I don't have a kid either, but I know it's a draw for enough people to make it worth it to us all), the decent roads and other city services that make this place so nice to live in, and you lose the people who decide where they live and work based on lifestyle (of which there are more than you know), and you only retain the miserly curmudgeons who think anything collective is a waste of money. Good luck getting them to share for the good of anybody but themselves.

JPLewis

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 6:40 p.m.

Bad idea. The answer: Stop spending on non-essential crap. Sell both golf courses. Stop killing high rise projects. As Ann Arbor prospers, property values go up and so will tax revenue.

braggslaw

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.

If you want to see a migration of businesses from Ann Arbor to Pittsfield Towship, Lodi, Dexter and Chelsea... pass a city income tax. It doesn't work... see Detroit, Hamtramck, Pontiac etc.

stunhsif

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.

Stephen Landes said: "Better idea: reduce benefits being paid to city employees to what the private sector is able to get now. Reduce salaries and hourly pay to private sector levels. Then see where you are BEOFRE suggesting to all of us that somehow we aren't paying enough." Totally agree Stephen, this must happen before they ask the taxpayers for more money. But a city tax is truly the only way to get the University of Michigan to start paying taxes. A 1% tax on the bloated U of M salaries would bring in a boatload of money. But if that happens you can bet your bottom dollar that the public union employees will all be screaming for a raise and better benefits!

American Family

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 5:42 p.m.

Well. Before the people of Washtenaw County lets the Ann Arbor city council talk them in to paying for a bunch of Ann Arbor city entitlements and amenities, we will need a county wide vote. Same thing goes for the people that live in Ann Arbor. Demand a city wide vote. The city of Ann Arbor is in dire striates because of reckless spending on many frivolous entitlements and amenities. I'd bet the whole caboodle that if fiscally minded citizens audited the financial books of Ann Arbor, they could keep ALL of the necessary services such as Police and Fire Departments running at full strength by purging all of the frivolous entitlements and amenities liberals love to spend money on. Road upkeep and waste management also. Trim the bloated entitlements and amenities of the liberals Ann Arbor, before you ask the rest of the county to pitch in and help you dig yourselves out of the hole you have created being the nanny & sanctuary city model of the left here in Michigan.

Mr. Ed

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.

Mr. Livingston may I suggest all the Ann Arbor people that drive in our townships and use our police and fire pay a tax to us. The fact is all the people that work and drive in Ann Arbor City do spend dollars in the City. A city tax is a good way to fund a City but a shift needs to take place away from property taxes. Tax breaks to business need to happen so businesses don't move out of the city. With U of M taking so much taxable property off the rolls taxing the workers from U of M needs to happen with a City tax.

David Cahill

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 5:26 p.m.

I wish Fraser would give up on the city income tax. It is a divisive tax, pitting interest groups against each other. A vote of the citizens is required, and if the polls of the politically active here on AnnArbor.com are any indication, it would fail overwhelmingly.

SpamBot1

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 5:19 p.m.

Google "myth of public employee benefits and pay" and read one of the many research-based articles. Some of the news articles are from liberal news sources. The research though is from respected institutions. I wonder why Fox News is not reporting this.

DonBee

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.

I hope the city council realizes that the cost of removing the dam is the smallest cost typically. Reconstruction of river bed, removal of hazardous soils, planting and maintain the newly dry land and dealing with unwanted species of plants that rapidly grow in the muck are all costs that the Federal Grants DO NOT pay for. Permits, lawsuits and other legal costs are also NOT covered in a Federal Grant. I am neither in favor of or against the dam, but people should walk into a dam removal with a clear idea of how they are going to pay for ALL the costs. Our office was inside the city limits of Detroit, we moved out, since almost none of our staff lived in Detroit. A city income tax will cause some offices to move. What will not move is the University of Michigan and their staff (including TA's) will end up paying the income tax. I don't know if this is considered a good or bad thing. Ann Arbor pushed the issue of not funding the Sheriff's department for the whole county from the safety millage, rather it should be used for the jail. Now they want to have regional policing? It would have been better to combine the departments when this first came up. Oh, well, hindsight is 20/20 for some folks.

bruno_uno

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 5:04 p.m.

A2K is a minimalist and maybe should move to jungles if they want to pay into no societal benefits perhaps.

A2K

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 5:01 p.m.

You forgot the biggest chunk of property taxes: Schools. Which on our tax bill is around $1,700/year (we don't have, and don't want kids)...far larger than any of the other city costs combined.

bruno_uno

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 4:55 p.m.

i wish i had frasers job, every year its the same story at budget time...same information, same rhetoric, same results..oh wait, not same salary, he gets a raise every year.

bruno_uno

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 4:54 p.m.

bring on the clowns....a comprehensive plan approved to removal all dams before discussing argo removal??? re-hashing again time and effort on discussing reinventing city tax base,....minor discussion on union pay and benefits??? what a bunch of clowns.

Tony Livingston

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 4:53 p.m.

Ann Arbor absolutely needs a city income tax. The problem is that "living in Ann Arbor" no longer means living in the city limits like it once did. We need to start collecting from the people that actually use the city instead of just the people that own property in the city. So many people have relocated to the nearby townships where the taxes are considerably lower. But, they work in Ann Arbor, drive on the roads, park for free on the old west side, use all of the city parks for free, have access to police, fire, rescue services for free if anything happens to them while they are in the city. Meanwhile, the property owners are going broke financing all of this. Many, many, many city of Ann Arbor employees live outside the city. I am guessing the majority of the U of M employees live outside the city. Personally, I resent funding all of these great ammenities so that everyone can come and use them while contributing nothing. Things need to change with the situation. People want Ann Arbor schools and an Ann Arbor address but do not want Ann Arbor taxes so they move to the townships where taxes are as much as 15 mils lower.

Ryan J. Stanton

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 4:52 p.m.

City budget docs can be found here: http://www.a2gov.org/government/financeadminservices/Pages/Home.aspx I'm out of the office right now, but I'll scan the reports handed out at today's retreat and post links to them here when I get a chance.

Stephen Landes

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.

Better idea: reduce benefits being paid to city employees to what the private sector is able to get now. Reduce salaries and hourly pay to private sector levels. Then see where you are BEOFRE suggesting to all of us that somehow we aren't paying enough.

DagnyJ

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 4:45 p.m.

Time to get out of the golf business.

MjC

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 4:44 p.m.

Council Member Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward... "I don't see how we're going to avoid layoffs, whether that's in public safety or anywhere else," he said. "What other choice do we have?" Please do not go down the road of cutbacks and layoffs when it comes to maintaining public safety. Adjust health/retirement benefits (as the UM has done), close a few parks, end those per diem payouts, anything else - this is not the time to cutback on public safety. Ryan - is there a link where citizens can review detailed budget line items?

Bob Martel

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.

I'd be careful with a city-only income tax that essentially provides incentives for businesses to locate outside the tax jurisdiction and for individuals to live outside the city limits. Not sure if a county-wide income tax is feasible, but at least that would not be as easy to bypass. Several MI cities (in addition to Detroit) have city income taxes. I wonder what impact they've had on business and individual migration outside their respective borders?

GoBlue1984

Sat, Jan 8, 2011 : 3:59 p.m.

This would be a very smart way to go. It's about time Ann Arbor did something like this.