Ypsilanti seeks resident input on altered streetlight fee plan
Ypsilanti residents will have a chance to voice their opinion on a modified plan to pay for the conversion of city lights to LED.
Previously the city council was considering a fee through a special assessment district that would cover the capital costs and require residents to pay the electric bill through 2031.
LED streetlights in downtown Ann Arbor.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
But at the last meeting at which City Council took up the issue, it changed that plan and is now only considering having residents pay for the cost of the conversion - approximately $555,000.
That means property owners would only pay around $58 each of the next two years instead of a fee that started out $100 and decreased over time to $67 annually.
City Council will hold a public hearing on the new proposal at its Aug. 20 meeting.
The switch to LED lighting is expected to reduce Ypsilanti's streetlight bill by approximately $115,000 annually, from $515,000 to $400,000.
The first plan had property owners paying that $400,000 and it would have bought the city another year of solvency.
The new proposal leaves the city to continue paying its streetlight bill, but it will still save over $100,000 annually.
Mayor Paul Schreiber previously said he was uncomfortable with the flat fee. The proposal had costs for conversion to LED along with operation and maintenance divided equally and assessed among 4,812 of the city’s 4,951 parcels.
He also said at the time he wasn’t sure residents should pay for their operation once the LED lights are installed.
Since the proposed plan has changed, he said he is interested in hearing residents’ feedback, but is leaning toward voting for the new proposal.
“I think it’s much better to be just covering capital costs and not operations,” he said. “It is still going to affect the budget, but I think a lot of people didn’t like it on principle rather than anything else as far as operations go.”
At the Aug. 20 meeting, the council will take residents’ remarks during a public input session. It will then vote on ordering the district and directing the assessor to create a special assessment roll for it.
There will be one more public hearing before final approval. If the proposal is approved, it would show up on the winter tax bill.
Comments
Ypsi Tax Payer
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:38 p.m.
In the Public Notices that were mailed to property owners (had to be re-sent due to a "glitch" so they would be in compliance with law - wonder what this "glitch" from the Clerk's office cost the City's taxpayers?) . . . In the Public Notice announcing tonight's meeting has the proposal reading: ...proposed special assessment district and the proposed improvement to upgrade 1,189 streetlight fixtures to LED over two fiscal years, beginning FY 2013-2014 and ending in FY 2014-2015, and to pay for the annual operation and maintenance of the streetlight fixtures for eighteen years ..." Why does the proposal still have the "maintenance and operation for 18 years" written into it???
YpsiLivin
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 3:53 p.m.
According to Ralph Lange, that's when the Water Street debt obligation will be paid. This isn't about street lights; it's about the Water Street debt - which the voters already declined to pick up the tab for last November.
Aaron Bookvich
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:04 p.m.
I can get behind this version of the project. Saves energy and saves money and only on the hook for 2 years of higher taxes. i can live with this.
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:10 p.m.
The fee should either be proportional to the assessed value or the amount of electricity used. The current proposal robs the poor and working class to subsidize the rich.
TK2013
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:05 p.m.
The city can't afford street lights, but it CAN afford a new assistant for the city manager, extremely costly consultants to prepare the budget and other basic financial plans that our highly compensated staff should easily be able to complete, vehicles that are taken home by non-police and fire department personnel, etc. Councilwoman Richardson has also allegedly spent an extremely inordinate amount of public funds for "official" conference, travel, hotel, and meal expenses during the past several years. We're still waiting for that accounting of Richardson's expenses associated with her "official conference" boondoggles. Why the continued lack of transparency? And, the city council keeps in its employ a very highly compensated city clerk that can't even effectively and efficiently administer a simple election. Your tax dollars at work in Ypsi!
YpsiLivin
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:11 p.m.
Ralph Lange has been the main proponent of this Water Street money grab, yet suddenly, the mayor and council are doing all the talking. Where's Waldo?
Murf
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:39 a.m.
It's a much better idea then their first one. Heck, I'd throw in an extra few bucks on top of the $58 for people to trim the trees while they are up there so I can see these new LED lights.
RFD
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:26 a.m.
"some other pet project"......police and fire.............really????????
MathGeek
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
Really. I'm not saying the police and fire departments don't deserve more money, but the city always has something that is underfunded. Residents had a chance to give more money to the police and fire, and it failed, because nobody has any confidence the money won't be spent to offset the Water St. debt. In my view, the call for more money for police and fire, or to pay for the electricity bill, or whatever the next hot topic is, is viewed as a tax increase to pay for a bad decision that will never go away. So, yeah, really.
MathGeek
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:04 a.m.
One way or another, residents are footing the bill. If the assessment for operation doesn't move forward and 'Ypsi' pays for the operating costs out of 'the budget' who's money is that? I think the only advantage to paying that way is residents don't have to fear that the money from th extra assessment is going to pay for some other pet project (Water Street, police and fire, or whatever the next budget shortfall is in the next 5-10 years).