Ypsilanti approves first reading of street light fee ordinance
The Ypsilanti City Council has approved the first reading of an ordinance that will require property owners to cover the cost of switching the city’s street lights to LED lighting.
Property owners would pay $58 per parcel each of the next two fiscal years, which would cover the cost of converting around 1,189 streetlights from mercury vapor to LED. That breaks down to under $5 a month, though the fee would be assessed once annually.
The switch is expected to save the city around $115,000 annually by reducing the cost of running street lights from $515,000 to $400,000.
At its Sept. 3 meeting, council approved the ordinance by a 6-0 vote. Council Member Ricky Jefferson was absent. Council will vote on a second reading at its next meeting, and City Manager Ralph Lange stressed the urgency to get the language approved if the city wants to remain on schedule to have the levy on the winter tax bill.
“It’s a good program, saves a lot of carbon and it’s efficient,” Lange said.
The proposal has costs for conversion to LED divided equally and assessed among 4,812 of the city’s 4,951 parcels. Eastern Michigan University is exempt because of legal precedence that says universities aren’t subject to special assessment districts, and the city’s properties are also exempt.
An LED Streetlight in Ypsilanti.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
Under the previous proposal, a parcel owner would have paid an estimated $98 in fiscal year 2014 and $92 in fiscal year 2015. That figure would have dropped to $84 through fiscal year 2020 and $67.51 through fiscal year 2031. However, that plan was scrapped after strong opposition from residents.
Ypsilanti Mayor Paul Schreiber highlighted that the switch to LED will save the city around $100,000 annually in its general fund, half of which goes to police and fire. The city is struggling to balance its budget saw revenues of around $500,000 less than its expenditures this year.
"We have to keep working at this bite by bite," Schreiber said. "I think Ypsilanti is going to continue to do that. We're still deficit spending so we have to keep working."
During a public hearing on the ordinance, Ypsilanti resident Ernest Terry said he didn’t believe the new lights would improve his property value as he said it's supposed to under Michigan law.
“We respect council moving in this direction, but we don’t believe in calling this an assessment. Changing the light bulb doesn’t improve my property value,” he said. “Much has been said about that it improves the general fund. Unfortunately assessments aren’t allowed for improving the general fund.”
EMU professor Bill Welsh told Council that he owns a single-family house on a double lot and doesn’t believe he should have to pay a fee for both parcels.
“I fully support the city moving to better street lighting,” he said. “The thing I don’t like is that I happen to live on a double lot. I don’t mind paying this assessment … no problem, what I do resent is you charging me twice. I would like you guys to only charge me for my single-family residence.”
City Attorney John Barr responded and noted that he also lived in a single-family home on a double lot.
“We decided that we were going to levy the assessment on each parcel instead of by housing,” Barr said. “A double parcel has a taxable value for both parcels, and the taxable value is tied to the light. If you have a double parcel, then you pay more taxes. That’s the way it works.”
Council Member Brian Robb questioned whether residents can opt out of the fee.
If property owners representing more than 50 percent of the expected cost of the assessment filed objections at the meeting, the project couldn't have proceeded without the affirmative vote of four-fifths of all of the council members.
But Barr said that residents who did file an objection with Council on or before Sept. 3 could appeal the assessment to the Michigan Tax Tribunal.
Robb said he was disappointed only four residents showed up to file objections and the fee was so low that most residents don’t seem outraged over what the city is doing.
“The unfortunate thing is that no one will take the effort to sue us, so whether or not it’s right we’re going to get away with it,” he said.
Tom Perkins is a freelance reporter. Contact the AnnArbor.com news desk at news@annarbor.com.
Comments
Ypsi Tax Payer
Fri, Sep 6, 2013 : 3:44 a.m.
Robb and council members laughed when he said: "And we're going to get away with it!"
Knoc-out Rose
Fri, Sep 6, 2013 : 2:14 a.m.
"A special assessment is not a tax. Rather, a special assessment 'is a specific levy designed to recover the costs of improvements that confer local and peculiar benefits upon property within a defined area.'" Kadzban v City of Grandville, 442 Mich 495, 502; 502 NW2d 299 (1993). Special assessments are 'sustained upon the theory that the value of property in the special assessment district is enhanced by the improvement for which the assessment is made." How does this benefit your property, especially if the streetlights in your area were changed within the past two years when it was paid with our property tax dollars? Of course you're now going to pay the city back for them having to use your tax dollars the past two years.
Knoc-out Rose
Fri, Sep 6, 2013 : 2:07 a.m.
I believe Council member Robb used the word "LEGAL". Whether or not it is legal, no one is going to take us to court and sue us because of the low cost. And after he made the comment some council members laughed, as did he. It was very disheartening that no one, not even the mayor called him on his 'humorous comment.' But there was a great deal of truth in what he was saying; members know they will get away with it due to the lowered cost. Not one council member has the integrity to stand up and say we are misusing this special assessment. They may be pleased they can talk about the environment, but no mention of how this BENEFITS property owners - just lots of talk about how they are improving the general fund - - - in fact the money from this was built into the budget they approved months ago. Michigan's Supreme Court ruled in 1986, and then later affirmed in subsequent rulings, that the only justification for a special assessment levy is an increase in a property's market value. What a shame that our council has the lack of integrity to joke about getting around the law, and despite having voters turn down tax initiatives or increases 3 times - they found a way around voters. No one has questioned the City Manager on this not being within the letter of the law; only applauding that a way was found to generate revenue. After all, it's only a small amount.
Ypsi Eastsider
Thu, Sep 5, 2013 : 5:09 p.m.
It sounds like this new tax may be illegal, but the city has made the assessment small, it is unlikely, like Robb said, for anyone to protest the assessment to the state.
sesomai
Thu, Sep 5, 2013 : 2:50 p.m.
As to Robb's comment - I am angry about this. I just have given up on Ypsi City Council. When I read they'd already contracted with DTE to install the lights I gave up. It's a miracle that Council listened to the objections over the initial, higher fee.
Knoc-out Rose
Fri, Sep 6, 2013 : 2:12 a.m.
I agree. It is hard to continue to believe the "come give public input" when they've already entered into contracts, built funds to be received into their budget, etc. No wonder people don't come to speak - and heaven help you if you do; a couple of council members take differing view points personally, get offended and look to their co-members so they can make faces and roll their eyes - that is if they're not playing on their computer or on their phones.
TK2013
Thu, Sep 5, 2013 : 1:18 p.m.
This is just the beginning of "special" assessments, fees, charges, etc., to come for routine municipal programs and services that should be paid with general fund dollars (primarily, your property tax dollars). The sad part is that the city council's "plan" to nickel and dime taxpaying citizens doesn't begin to solve the real problem facing the city – the overwhelming Water Street annual debt service payments due and owing until at least 2030 (or thereabouts). Where's the plan to tackle this real problem?
OLDTIMER3
Thu, Sep 5, 2013 : 12:12 p.m.
It just doesn't sound right to charge the parcel owners more on their taxes t save he city money. How many parcels are their? It seems as though the city council wants the parcel owner to fix their past mistakes on budgeting. Do council members get a salary ? f so how much?
sttc
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 10:16 p.m.
doesn't really seem right, does it? the city should at least pass the savings along to taxpayers, instead of using it to fix up their general fund. still waiting to close on my house so i can't help fight this, i'm just going to inherit it.
Ypsi Tax Payer
Fri, Sep 6, 2013 : 3:41 a.m.
Know that you will pay the highest property tax mileage in the county, and one of the highest rates in the State . . . And this council keeps looking for ways to charge property owners more