OPINION: Time for Ann Arbor to ask -- What city services do we want, and what are we willing to pay for them?
The city of Ann Arbor begins a new fiscal year next week without knowing exactly how many positions it will cut from the police and fire departments, except that it will be a lot.
The budget that goes into effect on July 1 calls for the elimination of 20 positions in public safety, though that number could be reduced somewhat if police and fire unions make concessions on health care costs.
Either way, the cuts will be deep — deeper than the public or elected officials would ever accept if the city weren’t facing such harsh fiscal realities. And the worst is yet to come. The city can expect even more draconian cuts in future years, and we don’t see a way to avoid that without new revenue. Unpopular as this notion might be, it’s time to talk about a tax increase.
Matt Schroeder, president of the Ann Arbor firefighters union, addresses Ann Arbor City Council during a recent public hearing on the city budget.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
At the same time, cost-cutting cannot continue to be the only answer, unless residents want to see city services eviscerated in a way that jeopardizes the quality of life that makes Ann Arbor one of the best places to live in America.
Simply put, the time has come for the city and its residents to engage in a discussion about what level of service we want, and what we are willing to pay for it.
When you look at the budget for fiscal 2013, it’s alarming how deeply under water the city is. Even with harsh cuts in police and fire, it’s still only achieving a balanced budget by shifting just under $700,000 in current general fund expenses - such as forestry - into other funds, and by dipping into its fund balance for $1 million. These are not perennial solutions, and the more you shift out of the general fund, the more deeply you have to cut police and fire in the future to achieve the necessary savings.
Last year, talk arose about a possible city income tax - coupled with a property tax reduction — but that was quickly quelled and never became an issue in the mayoral or City Council elections. We were decidedly unenthused by the idea at the time, but an honest assessment of the city’s financial position has us reconsidering revenue options.
A city income tax proposal would be controversial. It would shift more of the tax burden on non-residents, while providing Ann Arbor residents with a major reduction in their property taxes. It is by no means the only revenue option. And as the city of Grand Rapids has found in the past two years, income tax revenue can be volatile, dipping suddenly when the economy worsens. Others possibilities could include a city sales tax - though that would require enabling legislation from the state, which isn’t likely - or a Headlee override.
While it would be premature to suggest one option over another, at the very least, we think the city should consider a Headlee override request. Over the years, the city millage rate has fallen from 7.5 mills to 6.17 mills, because of the 1978 Headlee Amendment, which limits property tax revenues to the rate of inflation. An override would raise the general fund millage back to 7.5 mills, generating nearly $6 million in additional revenue.
Overall, the city millage rate is 16.466 mills, when you factor in levies for services like solid waste and mass transit. Looking at eight other cities closest in population to Ann Arbor that don’t have an income tax, our total city millage rate is on the higher end, but not significantly out of line. The average millage rate for the eight is 13.975 mills, and three of the eight - Dearborn, Southfield and Warren - all levy more than 17 mills. A Headlee override would keep us a relatively high-tax city, but no more so than we are now.
Ann Arbor residents have chosen in the past to tax themselves for things other communities don’t - most notably the 2003 open space acquisition millage, which is used primarily to preserve agriculture land in surrounding townships. We wonder if the repeal of that millage, currently at 0.4779 mills, would make an increase in the general fund millage rate more palatable to taxpayers. That question, again, gets to what the community values.
Any proposal for new revenue would, of course, require a good deal of study and community input, and ultimately a vote of the people, if it got to that point. We are not prepared right now to debate the merits of different revenue options. But we do believe now is the time to begin a community conversation. Waiting until the next budget cycle would be too late. City Council should take the lead in framing this issue, and candidates in this year’s council races should be prepared to address it on the campaign trail.
Otherwise, all Ann Arbor has ahead of it is a gutting of city services year after year. Are we prepared to accept such long-term deterioration of services, and the decline in quality of life that inevitably would result? We need to start that discussion now.
This editorial was published in today's newspaper and represents the opinion of the Editorial Board at AnnArbor.com.
Comments
Patricia Lesko
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 6:50 p.m.
Lester88 is referring to these pieces written in response to FOIA requests: City Managers Push Service Cuts While Spending Over $1.1 Million On Cell Phones & Texting (<a href="http://www.a2politico.com/?p=8472)" rel='nofollow'>http://www.a2politico.com/?p=8472)</a> Ann Arbor Pays Thousands Monthly in Car Allowances and Mileage Reimbursements to City Employees With Desk Jobs (<a href="http://www.a2politico.com/?p=8253)" rel='nofollow'>http://www.a2politico.com/?p=8253)</a> As Budget Woes Mount, City Managers/Staff Spend On Extravagant Meals & Luxury Resorts At Taxpayer Expense (<a href="http://www.a2politico.com/?p=8211)" rel='nofollow'>http://www.a2politico.com/?p=8211)</a>
aes
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 3:22 p.m.
I thought this bit of news might be of interest to folks on this list: A phone call from a woman who is a wheelchair user just informed me that there will be a "march" to City Hall today, Monday, starting at the Real Seafood Restaurant on Main Street (meet-up at 5 pm with "march" to start at 6:15) to protest the layoffs of "first responders" in the Fire and Police Departments. She thinks that if people with disabilities arrive at the Council meeting together it could make a point about how important fire/police are, especially to those with mobility, visual, and hearing challenges. Everyone is welcome to join in, she said.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 11:18 a.m.
Stuart, LOL, your opening line is one of the funniest things I've ever read on AnnArbor.com, and thanks for the supportive comment! FYI, for those of you still paying attention to the discussion and the nearly 100 comments and wondering about the details, the General Fund levies $70.4 million in property taxes and the business entities owned by the city (including our DDA) levy another $11.7 million. My own comment about the property taxes was just referring to the general fund's property taxes only. Stuart is correct, the total amount of property taxes levied by all city entities was $82.1 million in 2010. FYI, the total revenue of the city, which includes fees from the entities owned by the city such as the parking system, sewer and water service was $184.2 million, so the city has another $102.1 million in revenue beyond the property taxes levied. These revenues have also increased rapidly over time. The city also recently voted to raise the utility rates across the board again (a/k/a a "tax increase") at a rate substantially above the inflation rate. The editorial failed to mention this tax increase.
YpsiLivin
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
"...The city also recently voted to raise the utility rates across the board again (a/k/a a "tax increase") at a rate substantially above the inflation rate...." With regard to utility rates, for how many years has the City held utility rates constant while inflation ticked upward? I ask for two reasons: one, because I don't know and two, because the City came under fire several years ago for its management and maintenance of sanitary sewers in certain residential neighborhoods in the City. It left me with the impression that someone at City Hall had an "Oh s---" moment after realizing that the City had been collecting utility revenues for years but had not used the funds to maintain the sanitary infrastructure in the City. Are the utility rates in the City now rising to deal with "deferred maintenance" issues on the sewers and the rest of the infrastructure?
sandy schopbach
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 10 a.m.
One problem Ann Arbor has - and which has contributed greatly to hurting its budget - is that more and more of the city has been bought up by the University of Michigan over the years. That takes it off the tax register. As U-M probably owns close to half the city now, that means that the taxes required to run 100% of the city come from only 50% of its territory. I love U-M. I have a bachelor's and a master's degree from there, and it was one of the main reasons I moved back to Ann Arbor. But it's not fair for the rest of us to pick up the tax slack that each additional expansion of the university's facilities causes. And buying the city a fire engine or some such from time to time doesn't make up for the loss in revenue. There should be some way for U-M to help the city in which it is such an integral part.
Stuart Brown
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 6:05 a.m.
It's interesting how Steven Ranzini's comments bounce off this news site as if the news had some magic force field that protects it from harmful doses of reality. What parallel universe does AnnArbor.com occupy? AnnArbor.com can't even draw coherent conclusions from the very facts it reports to its readers; roughly $55 million in property tax revenue in 2000 and roughly $80 million ten years later in 2010. The city's revenue has risen faster than inflation in the 2000-2010 period yet the Ann Arbor of 2000 can afford more than 120 FTE fire fighters while the Ann Arbor of 2011 can only afford around 80 FTE's. This is a sick game of chicken the current administration is playing with city employees and residents of Ann Arbor; the whining about the benefits the fire fighters get is really obnoxious given that these benefits were paid for by forgoing higher wages over the years. The city has been engineering a so called crises by draining General Fund revenue into unaccountable "buckets" for years and short changing residents in the process. Ann Arbor residents have been paying around $8 million per year into a Streets Fund that currently has a surplus of $28 million or about 3.5 years worth of tax revenue while letting a substantial number of streets in Ann Arbor drop to "poor" status (where they are more expensive to repair.) In short, this administration is not to be trusted to spend the people's money on the people; there are millions of dollars sitting in buckets that can and should be spent on the things residents care about without an income tax or any other increase in revenue through other means. The buckets need to be drained before any increases in revenue are considered!
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 4:30 a.m.
The city has chosen Cadillac benefits and comfy pensions for city employees over services. That's a choice the city has to live with.
lester88
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 12:53 a.m.
Maybe it's time for you, Mr. Dearing and AA.com to stop beating the Mayors drum and actually provide some unbiased reporting and at least once offer an opinion that does not follow the administration line. In fairness to the police union you should have posted a link to your Radon and Asbestos articles since this is the pivotal link to the healthcare argument. This issue went unreported, under reported and now, unreported again. Your own journalist admitted this has been under reported. The city has provided ZERO evidence to dispute this claim. The only person disputing the claim is the 3rd Ward Councilman who provides no evidence. He only makes the statement that he doesn't believe it so. The Mayor even claimed he didn't know despite the entire patrol division being relocated to Pittsfield Twp where they remain. How about AA.com examine the spending habits of the senior management of this city like another blog does, including the car allowances and fancy resorts on the taxpayer dime while on the payroll. Even if the police and fire union paid 20% or even 50% of the healthcare premium, it would be a drop in the bucket (pun intended) compared to what this city wastes annually yet your blog gives the impression this has bankrupted the city. Cut and paste is weak journalism Mr. Dearing. That's my opinion.
John B.
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.
... and thousands of us share it....
Cathie
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 9:34 p.m.
$700,000 and even $1 million are peanuts.
Mick52
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 8:07 p.m.
One question I have always had on city spending is how much is spent on housing. I have not been able to find the amount spent. The city owns several housing units for low income housing and the budget never seems to come up in any discussions on spending. I wonder if the housing commission is self supporting from rents and perhaps grants or is it funded by the general fund. Of course I have no issue if the housing commission and the services provided are not a drain on the budget, its just seems difficult to find out. The city has long held important the need for low income housing, I just wonder it if is an invisible elephant in the budget discussions. Where does the Housing Commission rank in regard to essential and non essential services? My curiosity in this began when an acquaintance, who works for the city, told me that when the old Y closed the costs of relocating and funding the residents cost a few million dollars. Can anyone offer some info on the affect of the Housing Commission on the budget?
Stephen Landes
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 6:33 p.m.
Tony Dearing: I suggest an article describing how much the U of M pays the city of Ann Arbor in lieu of taxes and then figure out what the equivalent would be in property taxes on the value of all U of M holding in the city. U of M benefits from city services, so they should be paying a "fair share" of city expenses. Let's see just what they are paying and then we can assess whether or not the amount is "fair".
macjont
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 5:09 p.m.
It absolutely boggles my mind how anyone can describe those who protect our homes and our public safety or who teach our children as people who are "sucking at the public trough." Quite frankly, I find the reference disgusting.
sbbuilder
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.
Unions aren't the root of all evil. The Love of unions comes close, though.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 12:06 a.m.
Ahhh, yes. Unions are the root of all evil. Wish I lived in such a simpleton world. Good Night and Good Luck
sbbuilder
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 12:02 a.m.
Ghost So long as you are non-union, you don't have to worry about the nuckle busters. Here's an anology for you: You purchase a first class ticket on an airline. You paid for, and expect all the best services. Midway through your flight, your plane crashes in the jungle, and now you are upset because you are no longer getting meal service. That is the position of the public sector unions of today. That is my position, so don't bother with thrust and parry diatribe.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.
Ah yes. Being a police officer, or a fireman, or a garbage collector, or a teacher . . . are all freighted in unethical behavior. Which brings us back to the original post--bizarre and ignorant posts about public sector employees. Personally, given the Mafia's involvement in the construction industry, I'd have to wonder about the ethics of anyone in that line of work. Good Night and Good Luck
sbbuilder
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 7:11 p.m.
Personal integrity. It may be lawful, but that doesn't mean it's ethical.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 6:25 p.m.
I always think it interesting that none of them would deign to "suck at the public trough" in order to get those "gold-plated Cadillac benefits". Wonder why? Good Night and Good Luck
ToddGack
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 5:09 p.m.
Tony you are a day short and a dollar late. The City of Ann Arbor already sent out questionaires to it's citizens and they said that Public Safety was their first priority. I agree with Gary Hann about cutting the gold plated benefits to public employees. The city then should pay the public employees the same pay they would make in the private in sector. I am sure the employees would love the pay raise they would then be entitled to. It's always the easiest to attack the unions like everyone is doing. Changing healthcare and pensions takes time and everyone wants immediate satisfaction. The city just fought for changes in the unions health care three years ago and were satisfied with their accomplishment as they got what they wished. Shouldn't the city have asked 3 years ago for what they are asking now? That would have made perfect sense and would have been reasonable. This shows that the city has no knowledge of what they are doing and are doing what they always do, always one step behind. What should really happen is a cost breakdown of what the city really spends and they should do what a private corporation would do during hard times. Cut out the charity work that they love to be involved in. Provide the basis services that they are required to do. Use the money they have to fix the crumbling infrastructures they allow to disintegrate . Stop having utopian visions of what they believe should happen in Ann Arbor and stop using their hearts when they think and use their heads.
Goober
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 7:12 p.m.
I believe the city has HR personnel on the payroll who should have been routinely supplying this information all along (benefit costs and types by sector, etc.). Negotiating without this critical information is quite risky and a poor practice.
say it plain
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 4:22 p.m.
I believe a city income tax would work *against* the kind of exciting possible new businesses locating in Ann Arbor that the Barracuda Networks expansion represents... Why discourage that? A city sales tax is likely a non-starter, as this piece states... Why not elect a mayor--unlike our current one--who will at least *try* and work out a way to get the UM to do work out some sort of 'in lieu of taxes' arrangement with the city? Other cities in similar circumstances have done this. This would serve to replace a city income tax that could affect the UM (and of course that is sometimes cited as the big reason we need one anyhow--to try and capture some of the base we lose and services we need to provide relevant to UM's presence here), *without* discouraging new/additional/tax-paying businesses from locating in Ann Arbor. UM is the one player in town who will not be moving out to the townships or out of state, and they are doing just fine, no? That, plus fixing the ridiculous city-employee legacy costs that our current mayor and his people have helped perpetuate in their fiscal irresponsibility...and perhaps we can maintain the city services and fix our hideous, horrible roads. I still can't believe that as per the city's website, we could be in the running for some great little city prize lol... We have over-EPA-limits of chromium in our water, a dioxane plume under our city, and streets that will destroy your car to drive on. Sure, we also have a couple cute streets and a couple interesting retailers/food-outlets left, and the entertainment is darn good for a small town, but the quality of life has deteriorated lately, imho.
Mick52
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 7:51 p.m.
Think of it this way: If the UM takes up property, the city is smaller and should be less expense to provide service since service to those properties are now provided by UM. In the 80s, the U was buying up property like crazy, then backed off. The most recent was Phizer which I suppose was just too much to pass up. But for many years, maybe still, the U was leasing property around the city rather than purchase. The Argus building was a UM building. The U sold and and now leases large portions of it. I think a city income tax would not help in attracting business.
timjbd
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 4:20 p.m.
Raise taxes BEFORE I have my $1800.00 travel dog bowl? <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/88550/june-12-2007/colbert-platinum---butler-shortage" rel='nofollow'>http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/88550/june-12-2007/colbert-platinum---butler-shortage</a>
Andy
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 3:54 p.m.
Repealing the greenways millage would only hurt Ann Arbor by permitting even more into the townships. Property values, both residential and commercial, would fall, further hurting the city's tax base and making the city's homeowners worse off than they were when paying the millage. The greenways millage is one of the things that makes Ann Arbor special. Allowing unchecked growth outside the city's boundaries is the best and fastest route to the land use disaster that is today's metro Detroit. Do we really want Washtenaw County looking like Wayne County,an overbuilt tangle of mile after mile of strip malls and big boxes, with an excess of homes that are worth little? I respectfully encourage AnnArbor.com's editorial staff to acquaint themselves with the original rationale of the millage, which holds as true today as it did when it was first passed.
YpsiLivin
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.
"...first you're saying Ann Arbor real estate is too expensive and in short supply..." I'm not arguing that real estate in Ann Arbor (or anywhere else for that matter) is in short supply. The greenbelt monopolizes development rights outside the city limits, and the City Council refuses to approve new developments inside the city. If you want to restrict development outside the city, you not only have to allow development in the city, you have to actively encourage it in the city. Otherwise, you end up with old, outdated, overpriced, tumble-down housing stock. Ann Arbor can't have it both ways. "The choice is not greenbelt millage versus police and fire protection " That's what the editorial suggested. In fact, it may come down to a choice between police and fire protection, and buying farms. "...not enough tax dollars to fund the level people want..." What you end up with is not enough tax dollars to fund the level that a declining number of people want, because other people who used to be willing to pay higher taxes decided that they wanted something different. You can't hold people hostage. How much better off would Ann Arbor be if it concentrated its efforts on making itself the most attractive and most viable place to live, rather than trying to frustrate development in the townships? Part of "attractive and viable" involves allowing development in the City, and the City Council has demonstrated over and over again that developers aren't welcome in Ann Arbor.
Andy
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.
Very fair point, YpsiLivin, and that's where the other reasons for the greenbelt come in. There are environmental ones, including preserving nearby natural areas and farmland, reducing carbon emissions from driving. Of course a lot of people couldn't care less about carbon emissions or natural preservation. Most importantly for those of you who feel your property taxes are too high, curbing sprawl helps us focus our road dollars on maintaining existing roads, bridges, sidewalks, and utilities in better shape, rather than building new roads when we already clearly aren't able to maintain our existing infrastructure. Roads, utilities etc are not cheap; they have to be maintained, and that costs money. For every new subdivision that gets built in Northfield Twp, taxpayers are committing to additional costs of maintaining those roads, etc for the lifetime. As a very new recent first time homebuyer, I agree that real estate in Ann Arbor is expensive compared with other markets in MI; the most cost-effective way to address that from an infrastructure standpoint is to enable denser development within the city. More tax dollars to maintain existing infrastructure and services, no need to build new schools/roads/sewer hookups/bridges/sidewalks. We have plenty of vacant or underused parcels to use to add to the supply of real estate. I'm also confused that you're making 2 contradictory points, though: first you're saying Ann Arbor real estate is too expensive and in short supply, then you are saying that the greenbelt hasn't helped maintained high property values. Which is it? The choice is not greenbelt millage versus police and fire protection -- and in fact, if everybody moved out to new developments in the townships, the city of Ann Arbor would have exactly the same problem, not enough tax dollars to fund the level people want.
YpsiLivin
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 4:13 a.m.
I don't know, Andy. Is it really up to Ann Arbor to police growth and development in the surrounding townships? What the greenbelt looks like to me is a knee-jerk reaction to the tendency of people to seek out cost-effective alternatives to the expensive, aging housing stock and high property taxes inside the city limits. By limiting or eliminating competitive options, people are stuck with the old-yet-painfully-expensive housing inside the city limits. Ann Arbor used to have a policy that limited the construction of apartments inside the city. For years, no new apartments were built. The end result was that people paid exorbitant rental rates for lousy, run-down, ramshackle apartments that wouldn't pass a basic inspection in any other town. But people paid those rents because that was the only rental housing available. The greenbelt sets up the exact same thing for housing stock inside the city limits by taking away development options elsewhere. Is that really what you want? In the end, I don't think the green belt will have the effect you're hoping for, and ultimately, people will see it for the pig-in-a-poke that it is. The current economy provides ample proof that the greenbelt hasn't preserved property values inside Ann Arbor. Property values will fall, greenbelt or no greenbelt, when the economy is soft. And when push comes right down to shove, all the greenbelt purchases in the world won't overcome the loss of basic city services like police and fire protection.
Andy
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 1:42 a.m.
lester88, all I can say is a majority of voters seemed able to follow my logic back when the millage passed. I'm pretty sure it didn't have anything to do with painting roads.
lester88
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 1:02 a.m.
Pittsfield should float a millage to paint their streets green then sell the Township to Ann Arbor at an inflated price. Are you listening Ypsilanti? What a joke Andy. Maybe your green ring will extend to Toledo someday.
Andy
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 12:31 a.m.
YpsiLivin, no, the greenbelt millage has a number of primary purposes. Maintaining strong property values is just one of several beneficial side effects of a greenbelt. Especially considering how much property values have crashed in most of the country since the collapse of the housing market, I think most home owners would benefit from a stabilizing factor. Are you saying it's better for your home to depreciate in value because you then pay lower property taxes??!?
YpsiLivin
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 11 p.m.
"Property values, both residential and commercial, would fall, further hurting the city's tax base and making the city's homeowners worse off than they were when paying the millage. " So essentially what you're arguing is that the greenbelt millage is designed to increase property values in Ann Arbor. This, in turn, will increase the amount of property tax that Ann Arbor residents pay, not only for city services, but also for the County, the Library, the Community College, WISD, and the greenbelt itself. By approving the greenbelt millage, the resident of Ann Arbor have funded a mechanism whose primary objective is to raise their taxes. Only in Ann Arbor...
Arboriginal
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 6:18 p.m.
baker437 - name a single college town like Ann Arbor. Ever been to East Lansing? Bloomington? Nothing like here.
John B.
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.
Within the other choices around SE Michigan, the Ann Arbor area is apparently quite special, otherwise people wouldn't pay a significant premium to live here. Where else in this area would you prefer to live?
baker437
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 4:09 p.m.
Ann Arbor is not special. It is just like any other college town in the Midwest and I have been or lived in many of them. The sooner we all realize this the sooner we can make the cuts to live within our means.
Andy
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 3:59 p.m.
*even more sprawl
Vivienne Armentrout
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 3:41 p.m.
I'm glad that you have raised this issue. Earlier this year I did a series of blog posts advocating an income tax: <a href="http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/ann-arbors-budget-the-case-for-a-city-income-tax/" rel='nofollow'>http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/ann-arbors-budget-the-case-for-a-city-income-tax/</a> <a href="http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/ann-arbor%E2%80%99s-budget-the-case-for-a-city-income-tax-ii/" rel='nofollow'>http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/ann-arbor%E2%80%99s-budget-the-case-for-a-city-income-tax-ii/</a> <a href="http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/ann-arbor%E2%80%99s-budget-the-case-for-a-city-income-tax-iii/" rel='nofollow'>http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/ann-arbor%E2%80%99s-budget-the-case-for-a-city-income-tax-iii/</a> I've been waiting to see the state budget and new tax policy resolved to get back to this question, so I guess it is about time. One thing that has changed is that a credit against city income tax is no longer possible on the state tax (correct me if I am mistaken, please). Another is that since pensions are now taxable for state purposes, I assume that they are also taxable for city purposes. I haven't seen that stated anywhere, but the city income tax exclusions have in the past followed state tax exclusions. In both cases, Social Security payments would still not be taxable. Why do I believe the city income tax is still the best option? Because of the UM. It is growing in numbers of employees at the same time that it is acquiriing ever more taxable property from the city and removing it from the tax rolls. The Pfizer property was an immense loss to our city tax base. And the UM increases our costs in police and fire protection. A Headlee override would only throw the support of the city back onto the shrinking tax base. In other words, it might improve the cash flow but would not correct the structural imbalance. Some businesses might choose not to locate in Ann Arbor because of the income tax. On the other hand, those that own property (or who can negotiate effectively with a landlord) would see a savings in property tax or rent. That would include the general operating millage as it applies to personal property tax (a tax on equipment used in business that is a real expense for some businesses).
Heardoc
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 1:32 p.m.
This argument is false and really lacking any tyoe of foundation. This was developed by a leftist that believes more money for government i the best solution to any problems. The writer fails to realize that the beliefs he espouses have failed at every turn in the road. Liberalism has failed every time it is employed. Why do people keep trying to get a different outcome while at the same time not changing what they are doing? This is how democrats and the leftists have conducted themselves. Keep blaming others (George Bush) keep screaming the sky is falling (more taxes) and create class warfare and thereby pitting american against american -- this is the democratic party.
Mick52
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.
I have never bought the argument that the presence of the UM is a reason for a city tax. It would be blatantly unfair. Unless the city agreed to provide all services to the U that it does around the city. Currently, the UM collects its own trash and removes snow and ice from the streets. Is the city going to do that? Would the city provide free police assistance when requested like at football games? Would the city maintain the sidewalk lights around campus? Would the city pay the money the U gives to AATA? And would AATA replace the UM buses and let people ride for free? What about the UM employees that work on UM property outside the city? Would they have to pay an AA city tax? Peach mountain, the East Campus Medical Center, the employees at Domino Farms, Health centers in Dexter, Brighton, etc.? Should they all have to pay AA city tax even though they may never set foot in A2. Why should UM employees pay a tax that will support the AAPD when they have their own police department? Garbage disposal etc.? I might reconsider if the city agreed to take over all services they provide to the UM and agree to rent station number five on North Campus. It's easy to blame the UM and take from its pockets but it would be taxing employees who get uneven or no services for the tax. The city just does not provide to UM employees and residents everything they offer to non UM folks. Not to mention many of them would have no vote, no representation.
outdoor6709
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.
Being an Annarborite that thinks others should pay for our wants, I think there should be a 10% income tax on income over $250,000.
Arboriginal
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
We need a physical wall to match our socio-economic one. How come West Willow has a wall and Ann Arbor doesn't? The measure of quality of life should include our massive noise pollution. I'm serious.
Tony Dearing
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
We appreciate the discussion here. Keep it coming. I'm listening to the questions you're asking, and the information you want about the city budget and city spending. We've done reporting recently on the level of benefits for city employees, and levels of fire service. Based on your question, we'll continue to do analysis and do our best to answer these questions for you. In the meantime, here are a couple of Ryan Stanton's recent stories that offer information on health-care costs and levels of fire protection: <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/records-show-glaring-disparities-between-different-ann-arbor-labor-groups-benefit-packages/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/records-show-glaring-disparities-between-different-ann-arbor-labor-groups-benefit-packages/</a> <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/playing-with-fire-on-the-eve-of-major-budget-cuts-ann-arbor-firefighters-say-city-is-play-russian-ro/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/playing-with-fire-on-the-eve-of-major-budget-cuts-ann-arbor-firefighters-say-city-is-play-russian-ro/</a>
Tony Dearing
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 9:35 p.m.
We've written a great deal on city budget issues. I chose these two particular links because of the depth of research that went into them, and because they address two issues that commenters have seemed particularly interested in, those being employee benefit costs and fire response levels.
CincoDeMayo
Wed, Jun 22, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.
Tony, thanks for the article. I think this is an extremely important issue that needs discussion. I am confused, though, by your choice of links here, considering the multitude and variety. Can you explain the choice? Thanks.
David Paris
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:55 p.m.
Wages & Benefits are not the problem. People need to stop worrying about what other people make, because people deserve to make a decent living. If you don't have "gold-plated" benefits, then you need to look at your employer as the bad guy, not the person that is covered by decent insurance. Have you ever heard the one about sour grapes...
Basic Bob
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:35 p.m.
I prefer to blame the doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and ambulance chasers. The people that allow that to continue are the government workers who are insulated from the crime and corruption that is perpetrated on Real Working People.
sbbuilder
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
Mr Paris What planet do you hail from? If i am paying a portion of what someone else makes, then I am totally entitled to 'worry' how much they make.
David Paris
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.
I know that the residents of the city of Ann Arbor pay taxes for the education of non-Ann Arbor residents, but are there any other services provided to Ann Arbor Twp, or Pittsfield Twp (are there others?) residents that we need to look at?
David Paris
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 2:31 p.m.
Thanks for clearing up my misconception, Brad & Bob.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.
"Ann Arbor property taxes ARE redistributed statewide through the school aid fund to places with lower property values. That is matter of fairness more than mooching, which is what you insinuate." Let me see if I have this right: BB is saying that the redistribution of wealth is "fair"???? Is that right? Is that really what you are saying? Not very RepubliKan of you. Good Night and Good Luck
Basic Bob
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.
Incorrect! Residents of the parts of townships within AAPS pay equally for schools, library, ISD, sinking fund, and various county millages. We also pay our own police, fire, water, sewer, and garbage taxes or fees. However we must travel to Ann Arbor and pay to park to admire your new hole in the ground and public water fountain. Ann Arbor property taxes ARE redistributed statewide through the school aid fund to places with lower property values. That is matter of fairness more than mooching, which is what you insinuate.
Brad
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
The people who live outside the city and attend AA schools are still in the AA school district, and are taxed accordingly. What exactly are you talking about?
braggslaw
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:32 p.m.
The "costs" that are out of line are pensions and healthcare I do not want to be taxed to pay for gold plated pensions and health care
johnnya2
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 6:17 p.m.
I dont want to be taxed for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you dont get to make that call. These are LEGALLY binding contracts signed by the people who have them. I guess you dont honor your commitments, but I want city government to honor theirs.
blahblahblah
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.
Tony, please provide the following information if possible: 1.) A timeline (both forward and backward looking) of the previous millage votes and upcoming expiring/renewal votes. 2.) A pie chart breakdown of where the 16.5 mills is spent today versus a pie chart from 10 years ago. 3.) Instead of comparing millage rates, we should be looking at the median dollar amount paid per houshold. Since Ann Arbor's real estate is more expensive than Detroit, Warren and Southfield, our average resident is still paying thousands of dollars more per year versus higher millage communities. I for one am not happy with Ann Arbor becoming a "barbell community" made up of only young students and retired people. Young families with children are struggling to afford the current tax burden, let alone a higher one. Much more work should be done on the spending side such as repealing "nice to have" services such as the greenbelt and art bucket before making Ann Arbor an even more expensive/elitist community. Ahoutsomething like $,Our city leaders remain in denial of the long term fiscal realities and as politicians still can't seem to say "no" on the spending side. Just look at the last minute budget deals for human services and the parks dept. as such an examples.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
I love the people pulling out their tax bills as "proof" that the City of Ann Arbor is receiving more than enough revenue. Of course, their total tax bill includes levies by the AADL, WISD, AAPS, WCC, and Washtenaw County, at a minimum. So, yes, your tax bills have gone up (though, as one poster above points out, not as substantially as it would appear if one accounts for inflation). But the question here is: what has happened to the portion of your tax bill paid to the City of Ann Arbor? Good Night and Good Luck
johnnya2
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.
Mike, what has been the property value INCREASE since 1993? That is the only number that matters. If you can make a compelling case that your property value has decreased substantially, then take it to the city's assessors office. The RATE that the city gets has been stable, in fact since 1993 it has gone DOWN because somehow the people of this state bought into the fact that the state would actually honor its commitment to municipalities, instead of saying a LOCAL community can not vote for what THEY want, but instead it is controlled by the state. A typical republican power grab.
Mike K
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 5:51 p.m.
"So the question remains: What city services do you want, and what are you willing to pay for them. And I think we have your answer: as little as is humanly possible." Supposition.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.
. . . and you proceeded to dismiss that statement with: "the check is still written to the City of Ann Arbor, and it goes up every year." As for "opportunity costs," yes, if you spend that money, it might support the local economy. And then again, it might not. But that tax money hires people who work for the City of A2 whose spending is just as likely to support the local economy as yours is. So the question remains: What city services do you want, and what are you willing to pay for them. And I think we have your answer: as little as is humanly possible. Good Night and Good Luck
Mike K
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.
"Mike K: The check might be written to the City of A2, but it does not receive all of that money. it collects money and distributes it to other taxing authorities, something your tax bill makes very clear. If you don't want to recognize that fact, fine, but you are then drawing conclusions based upon an apparent willful misconstruing of reality." You do realize that I quoted you, "Of course, their total tax bill includes levies by the AADL, WISD, AAPS, WCC, and Washtenaw County, at a minimum."
Mike K
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.
Good point Basic Bob. Like I have noted, the CAGR of the property tax is 3.9%. Has inflation been at that rate for the period 2000 - 2010? Regardless of where it is going, it is coming out of someones pocket. As noted above, the dollars earned at this household and paid in taxes have an opportunity cost to them. We could also spend them on local goods and services which promote commerce, and we all know the key to a strong tax base is robust commerce. Anyway, enough for now.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:58 p.m.
"When the property changes ownership . . . " Which means that the property owners have not seen an increase in their taxes. Yes, the tax bill for that property will have gone up from what the previous owners paid. But the new owners, knowing what they paid for the property, can do some quick math and know what their tax bill will be. The wise home buyer will take that into account when they purchase the house. And once they buy the house, their tax increase is limited by Prop A, while the Headlee Amendment has the impact of reducing the millage they pay. So, once again, your factual trivia has nothing to do with someone who has owned their home for more than one year, which was the point of the two posts to which my original was responding. Mike K: The check might be written to the City of A2, but it does not receive all of that money. it collects money and distributes it to other taxing authorities, something your tax bill makes very clear. If you don't want to recognize that fact, fine, but you are then drawing conclusions based upon an apparent willful misconstruing of reality. Good Night and Good Luck
Mike K
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.
I understand your point - "Of course, their total tax bill includes levies by the AADL, WISD, AAPS, WCC, and Washtenaw County, at a minimum." I don't want to argue with you Ed, the check is still written to the City of Ann Arbor, and it goes up every year. OK? Yes, I know "it's complicated", but what I am reporting is a simple observation. It can be rationalized any number of ways - "yes, but......................".
Basic Bob
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.
"Prop A limits the amount one's property tax can go up" When the property changes ownership, the increase is unlimited. Even when the property is kept, the limit generally exceeds inflation, making a real increase. Do a little research and you may indeed find reality.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:41 p.m.
"It has gone up steadily and will likely continue on the same trajectory. Isn't that clear?" Really. Go pull out your tax bill and tell us what you paid in A2 city taxes in 2000 and then in 2010. Not total taxes. Just to the city of A2. And then let's adjust for inflation and let's see what happened. Go ahead. We'll trust you to tell the truth. Good Night and Good Luck
Mike K
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:30 p.m.
"Mike K: Again, you are comparing apples to rocks. What has happened to your City of A2 tax bill? It has gone up steadily and will likely continue on the same trajectory. Isn't that clear?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
BB: Prop A limits the amount one's property tax can go up, no matter the appraisal. The Headlee Amendment requires that millages actually decrease over their life. So your "facts" are beside the point, though they are a nice diversion from reality. Mike K: Again, you are comparing apples to rocks. What has happened to your City of A2 tax bill? That is what this article is about. Good Night and Good Luck
Basic Bob
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:23 p.m.
@Ghost, you have not provided an argument, just contradiction. It is easy to demonstrate that the proportion of property tax paid to the city has not changed. Then the only other issue would be appraisal, which is performed by - wait for it - the City!
Mike K
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:17 p.m.
You can follow the link yourself - it breaks it down individually. Property taxes are based on property value, correct? My property is down 20% from the all time high according to the latest assessment. Have property taxes decreased 20%? No. At some point, I will become old, and my income will decrease dramatically, and I will still be stuck with an increasing tax bill. It will never stop.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:53 p.m.
It was the only inference that could be drawn as a comment on an article about the finances of the City of A2. And, if that's not the conclusion you wanted us to draw, what WAS the point of your little piece of trivia? Good Night and Good Luck
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:45 p.m.
"I love the people pulling out their tax bills as "proof" that the City of Ann Arbor is receiving more than enough revenue." Neither of us who referenced our tax bills offered it as "proof" that the City of Ann Arbor is receiving more than enough revenue."
average joe
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:03 p.m.
Concerning the comparison to other cities, it is important to not only use cities close to the population of A2, but also cities that have a huge percentage of real property not subject to tax. Cities like Southfield, Warren, etc. don't have a large "tax-idle" property base like A2, & are not really good examples to compare to. "Over the years, the city millage rate has fallen from 7.5 mills to 6.17 mills, because of the 1978 Headlee ammendment." It would be interesting to note how much property has been purchased by the U of M ( and other tax exempt entities, such as land purchases by the city itself) since 1978 & removed from the city tax rolls, instead of just focusing on the general millage rate alone. I wouldn't think that the loss of real property from the tax rolls would make up the tax shortfall since 1978, but one needs to look at all of the inputs that affects city property tax income, such as millage rate, real proprty value, tax abatements, exempt property, etc, and not just the millage rate alone.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:57 p.m.
I think that it is amazing that people think we need to raise property taxes in Ann Arbor when the property taxes pull in about $70 million per year and we have cash reserves over $250 million. What is also amazing is that with over $250 million in cash reserves, the general fund has only about $12 million available to it and the city "needs" to raise taxes. The problem is that the money is trapped in these buckets and can't be moved to where it is needed. Rube Goldberg would be proud. Drain the buckets and reorganize. Change the city charter or vote to repurpose the millages if necessary. The city has more than enough money. It just can't properly use all the money it has. Run the city in a fiscally prudent way and these "problems" all go away!
Brad
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
Yes, the city will have to "dip in" to its rainy-day fund for $1M to make the budget work this year. So if they keep that up we'll go broke ... in about 100 years. I guess that definitely means we should increase taxes immediately! If this isn't the time to use some rainy-day money, what is?
Tom Smith
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.
I don't know whether to be amused or appalled at the notion that people who literally, physically put their lives in danger to protect us from crime or save our lives, houses and belongings from fires and other emergencies are "sucking at the public trough". That their pay and pensions are "gold-plated", "unconscionable", and "mind-boggling". Has it never occurred to any of you that public safety is one of the primary purposes of government? Or that, the less you're willing to pay people to risk their own health for the sake of others, the fewer people you will have willing to do so? The oh-my-god-we-must-rein-in-spending mentality is uncalled for, indeed unseemly, when applied to public safety. The entire point of government is to do collectively what we cannot do individually, and in this case that means getting police and firefighters who will help us when we need help. Reducing their numbers like this is madness, and it WILL lead to people getting killed for lack of available help. The City Council is being foolish here. Making police and firefighters pay their health care, when they specifically put themselves in danger for us, is cruel and cheap.
Mick52
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 7:25 p.m.
I would not describe the pay and benefits as you note, Tom. But I would agree they became overly generous and need to be altered.
Tom Smith
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 6:03 p.m.
I'm saying nothing precluding reexamining the costs, nor making those service exempt from cuts. But the cuts we've already had have reduced A2 services to a point where we don't have full coverage of fire and police protection. And now we have to cut more? If the determination is that fire and police are optional, that services reduced below the recommended safe level will be enough, we are literally playing with fire. Again, I can't believe this is even a consideration.
sbbuilder
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
Mr Smith There is a cost associated with everything. We are simply reexamining the costs of public services. Is that a bad thing? Who knows, we may determine that the pay and benefits are appropriate. But then again, we may not. Are you saying that we should not, as a community, constantly ask those questions?
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
I don't buy in to the argument that because their jobs are relatively dangerous that exempts them from todays fiscal realities. As dangerous jobs go they are certainly up there but they aren't at the top by any means.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:47 p.m.
Referencing Mike K's 4th post, I have been in my house since 1994. I can put my hands on my tax bills since 1997. Only in 1998 and 2003 did they ever go down. The 2003 reduction was followed in 2004 by my single largest increase. So at least 2 of us have been chipping in at an increased level for years.
KJMClark
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 11:45 a.m.
OK, Craig, adjust it for inflation. Math-literate people should *always* adjust things like this for inflation - otherwise wages and the price of everything are always rising. So what? Inflation's always increasing prices a bit.
Mike K
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:10 p.m.
There was no "high end" Ben and Jerry's back in the 70's lol.
Tintin Milou
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.
And when I was young I got ice cream for 40 cents a quart!
Greg Gunner
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:34 p.m.
"The city of Ann Arbor begins a new fiscal year next week without knowing exactly how many positions it will cut from the police and fire departments, except that it will be a lot." The reality of the Republican agenda is starting to come to light. You get what you pay for, and if you aren't willing to pay for something you aren't going to get it. The draconian cuts in funding for public sector jobs leaves no other choice. Lay-offs are inevitable. Once again Slick Rick and his cohorts at the local level are responsible for further job losses in our state. At least when Jennifer Granholm was governor, she was making an effort to preserve jobs, not consciously trying to reduce our state workforce to a few wealthy CEO's and minimum wage workers. Without the middle class, who will be buying anything in Michigan?
KJMClark
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 11:42 a.m.
Sbbuilder - I'll bite, how about tax preparation services for people with income over $200k per year or $1 million in assets? I will grant you that most industries and average private worker compensation took a hit a few years ago. But state GDP has been rising for several years now, and there are plenty of private workers at the top that neither took a pay cut nor lost their jobs.
sbbuilder
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 11:55 p.m.
Still waiting on that list..... And if you are unable to come up with anything, what does that say about the total lack of parity re public vs private compensation?
Mick52
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 7:22 p.m.
When Jennifer Granholm was governor, so many people left Michigan the state lost a US Congress seat. We also lost a VW plant (2000) jobs to Tennessee where the workers reject the union. Some preservation of jobs. Gov Granholm should have done years ago what Gov Snyder is doing now. Trying to attract business by lowering the business tax.
Stephen Landes
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 6:24 p.m.
What Republican agenda? We are dealing with an entire city government made up of Democrats. It has been Democrats only for years. They are the ones responsible for the current public employee contracts with their out-of-bounds benefits. The reality is we are seeing the result of Democrat policies in Ann Arbor and they don't bode well for our future.
Mike K
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.
If the repubican agenda is to spend only what you have, then I'd have to agree with it. If we place our well being on "public sector jobs", we most definitely are going to lose as nothing is produced, sold or taxed.
sbbuilder
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:07 p.m.
Mr Gunner Name one private industry in Michigan that hasn't had 'draconian cuts'. You seem to think that public sector jobs have been singled out. Perhaps you are right, but the private sector jobs have plowed that field already, and so the public sector jobs MUST follow suit. I'm waiting with bated breath for your list of private industries with no cuts....
Doug Gross
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.
There are no draconian spending cuts in Ann Arbor, tax revenues and spending are up significantly since 2000. More and more money is simply going to fewer employees. The employee count has shrunk by 30% in ten years because the current employees are getting amazing benefits. Who's agenda is that? There is not a job for the middle class or your child because we are paying people to retire at 50 years of age!
SonnyDog09
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:33 p.m.
The city has a spending problem. It does not have a revenue problem. The city has no trouble finding money from special buckets for whatever pet program hizzoner and his minions desire. Get control of spending, first. Then, and only then, will it be time to discuss revenue.
prankstur
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:30 p.m.
The person above me asked if the city is still giving $1,000,000 a year to the homeless shelter. this is a great question. Lets see, cut needed police fire and hva services that take care of the tax payers or spend the tax payers money on people who refuse to work and would rather take handouts sucking up the tax payers money. I'm quite certain there are many more non mandated projects the city is funding that should be eliminated before the first three that always take the hit.
John B.
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 5:34 p.m.
Refuse to work? Are you kidding me?
SFK
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
According to their budget figures, the city of A2 spends $273,560 on the Delonis center. I wonder what that figure rises to when all the medical runs to the center and for runs related to its passed out/ O D-ing clientele are added in.
tom richardson
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:30 p.m.
It really is time to do a wholesale reexamination of what we actually should be spending money on at the City. I would start with Planning-is it planning or nitpicking? Do we really need regulations that block an artisnal sausage factory/retail outlet on State Street next to Produce Station. Take a look at the City Zoning ordinance one day-especially the setback/spacing formula's that require a Cray supercomputer to calculate. Is this complexity needed, or is it job security for staff? Remenber-Planning brought us Blanderwood shopping center and its' environs. Fire is also a money pit- Do they still have the unlimited comp/vacation/sick time accumulation that allows them to take a lump sum 5-6 figure payout in their final year, thus increasing their pensions by ten thousand per year or more? Do they still get two hours of comp time because they have to report to work at Vet's Park ( a 4 minute drive) rather than Downtown due to a staffing shortage caused by coordinated vacation time? Do they still only arrive at a burning structure only once every 6 months? Granted, in a City of Ann Arbor's size we need professional firefighters. But couldn't they be supplemented by volunteers? Just a few thoughts to get the ball rolling....
Mike K
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:27 p.m.
I can offer this certifiable fact. In 2000 I paid roughly $2800 in property taxes. In 2010 I paid roughly $3900. You can find out how much you have paid right here: <a href="https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/TaxServices/ServiceTaxSearch.aspx?i=3&appid=1&unit=283" rel='nofollow'>https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/TaxServices/ServiceTaxSearch.aspx?i=3&appid=1&unit=283</a>.
Mike K
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 5:48 p.m.
Yes, I am lucky John B as I've lived here since 93. Thankfully we didn't get sucked in to the bigger house bubble. On the flip side though, move now and we are facing > 2.5x more. I'm with you on the time value of money. I understand. But if I calucalted correctly, CPI had a CAGR of 2.4% during the same period versus 3.9% on propery taxes. Admittedly, I have been in the "wrong financial instruments". Good for you on the decreases; go buy something lol.
John B.
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 5:31 p.m.
... and my Property Taxes have declined the past three years in a row.
John B.
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 5:29 p.m.
I wish my property taxes were as low as yours.... BTW, if you didn't get a 3.9% (or better) compounded annual growth rate on your 401K from 2000 to 2010, you were in the wrong financial instruments! Comparing 2000 Dollars straight across to 2010 Dollars completely ignores the Time Value of Money, which is silly. Inflation matters.
Mike K
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:02 p.m.
I only wish I could get a 3.9% compounded annual growth rate on my 401k lol. The checks I write are still 39% more than they were. Mathematical fudge factor or not. Many fail to recognize that there is an opportunity cost to these tax dollars. They could also be used by me to purchase local goods and services for the betterment of this household. I'm actually kind of lucky in that I've been at this property since 1993. Some friends of ours are paying double.
YpsiLivin
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:44 p.m.
Your taxes haven't gone up as much as you think they have when you account for inflation. In 2000 dollars, your 2010 tax bill would have been $3,112. In 2010 dollars, your 2000 tax bill would have been $3,509.
Doug Gross
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 12:08 p.m.
The headline is exactly right but what are we willing to pay for the services does not come up in the article. The news has done a nice job of covering the costs of pensions and benefits but I don't think the citizens still really have the appropriate anger over the outrageous benefits. How do two police officers retire in 2009 and get away with spiking ther pensions so they will get about another $250,000 of pension benefits over their lifetimes? Can we afford to pay for wonderful health benefits for a retirees life that most in private industry no longer receive? Pension and benefit costs have gone up by a factor of 8x over the last decade. No normal business would put up with this. The cities hands are tied by labor agreements, they may have to point out to the unions the option of letting the state take over and have the unions deal with an emergency financial manager. Want to understand the issues better? Go to PEBRC.org and look at Expensive Plans. The city has to balance it's budget. We can have more employees with reasonable benefits or we can have a small elite group really taking everyone to the cleaners. It's surprising to see a Democratic city council apparently going with the small elite group concept.
johnnya2
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 6:03 p.m.
Absolutely ridiculous statement. Tell us what a "private" pension plan SHOULD be? Every company and employer is different. Some (like police) take LOWER pay checks to have a pension when they retire. They held their end of the bargain, and now you want to change the playing field. Let's ask Rick Snyder how much he got from his private employer when he left Gateway. So I guess SOME people in private employment get great golden parachutes, while city workers just get golden showers.
Mick52
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 5:42 p.m.
Good post. I would add that early retirement agreements are an issue too. When the pension plans "seemed like a good idea," early retirements were not considered. And with advances in health care, people are living much longer and thus become more expensive. The issue of emergency managers is a hot one but it may be the only way to resolve the problems. What unions and councils have to agree on is that if you cannot solve your issues yourself - someone else will.
pseudo
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 11:11 a.m.
Tony - I think you are right on but I also call for real data driven discussion. Especially when it comes to fire fighting and/or medical runs and what we are really paying for. So can you help us? I still haven't seen an honest presentation of historical data showing - number of total runs in a year since the 40s (and some per capita numbers to go with it). - number of actual fire runs for those years - number of medical runs for those years - number of car accidents - number of car accidents with medical associated to it - when did HVA enter the picture can serve for medical runs - response times and while we're at it lets compare to other communities across the nation. I believe that we all need to have a transparent discussion based on that kind of data because clearly the Firefighters Union is doing a great job of fear mongering. The City hasn't put out much for its position that is helpful...and the voters are shooting in the dark given all the spin and baloney being tossed around. Here is why I am asking for help: from what I can see we are paying for several layers of redundant services - HVA, Firefighters, police all showing up for medical emergencies. There has to be a better way.