Comments on: Column: Limited Edition

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:21:34 +0000

Picking up from Del’s comments about overspending on infrastructure, maybe it’s not too late for some city-county cooperation on court space. Why does Ann Arbor press ahead with the city hall expansion in these difficult economic times, using up a noticeable fraction of our fund balance in the process, while the county is in a severe slide (most services not mandated by state law have already been cut or compromised) and yet is losing the lease payments at the courthouse?

Of course, if the city hall is not built, another location will have to be found for the joint county-city IT operation. That space was already programmed into the city hall as it was being touted to be a lean solution to a courts security and police offices problem.

Our city administrator has posted a blog comment (http://www.mml.org/guestblogs/archive/oct08/fraser.html) that indicates he expects a continuing budget crunch and loss of services in years to come. Why does he also continue to insist that we can afford a new city hall? Let’s continue what was a successful regional cooperation by keeping the 15th District in the county courthouse.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:13:50 +0000

Another interesting perspective in your first sentence of #27. I’d say that the private sector contributions to the current economic mess are far more of a problem than “excess” public sector spending.

Beyond that, I think the federal government has a much larger role to play in turning things around.

“Governments spend more than they take in.” I’ll assume that you ‘misspoke’ and were just referring to bonding. I’ll also note that local government spending has a positive impact on the local economy, which hasn’t been mentioned yet.

The party was over for Michigan governmental units years ago. It’s been steady work since then, and that work continues. (Anyone else making the “party”/”partisan” connection wrt who does the partying and who cleans up the messes?)

By: Del Dunbar

Del Dunbar — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:55:10 +0000

Steve,
The spend and borrow addiction of the private sector accompanied by institutionalized greed from Wall Street is just as much a problem as excess spending in the public sector. As you well know the private sector is now taking its hits, with significant contractions in the workplace, business and personal bankruptcies, housing foreclosures, etc. The public sector impact is the next shoe to fall. Governments spend more than they take in. These excess expenditures often for infrastructure improvements are deficit financed by issuing bonds. Many state and municipal governments (not Ann Arbor) have actually added employees over the last few years as the private sector has been contracting. Currently, pension funds are demanding higher interest rates on municipal bonds before they will buy them. With shrinking tax bases that have not as yet been factored into a reduced property tax levy, and with increasing interest costs on their debt, governments will have to quickly find consolidations in the public sector and joint venture partnerships with the private sector (the only people with the money) in order to survive.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:41:22 +0000

I thought it was interesting how Del made the leap from the “party” of consumption, our “spend-and-borrow addiction”, to concluding that government needs to be reduced in size and made more efficient, as if that were the cure.

By: Mary Morgan

Mary Morgan — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:58:44 +0000

Bob, perhaps The Chronicle can, too!

By: Bob Martel

Bob Martel — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:53:04 +0000

Mary,
We’ve had some pretty scrappy and vivid discussion on this point. It seems that Del Dunbar and Paul Dimond may have found a subject with surprisingly broad interest. I hope that the Observer will keep this subject moving along with follow up pieces.
Keep up the good work!
Bob

By: Mary Morgan

Mary Morgan — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:01:07 +0000

Oops – that county commission meeting I mentioned happened on Jan. 21.

By: Mary Morgan

Mary Morgan — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:59:37 +0000

A couple of links for this discussion: 1) The Jan.. 18 Other Voices essay by Paul Dimond, mentioned in Stew Nelson's #8 comment: link 2) At its Jan. 14 meeting, the county board of commissioners heard a report from deputy administrator David Behen, outlining shared-services projects between the county and local cities/townships. This report also reflects some of the concerns that commissioners have over pursuing these strategies: link

By: Sue Lackey

Sue Lackey — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:19:16 +0000

In the spirit of even/odd, I may need to wait for someone else to post.

It’s clear that we can’t continue to do things the way we have since the NW Territory, or even since the ‘new’ constitution of the 1960′s. The worst approach we can take is the position that either countywide services OR township based services are THE right delivery method. If we were to study this closely, we’d probably find that some things are more effective the closer they are to home, while others might be even better handed back to the state to provide. We might also find that effective and cheap aren’t necessarily the same, which would raise a whole lot more questions. Moreover, what works in the UP may not work in Southeast Michigan. The challenge will be to free up governments to work together, study these issues, and come to logical conclusions. To a large degree, the tools are there to allow for these experiments, if only the political will exists. That means that both elected officials and citizens need to breath deeply and be willing to give up their preconceived ideas. As my mother says: ” A pre conception is the most efficient form of decision making – you don’t need to spend all that time thinking.”

By: anonymous observer

anonymous observer — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:18:10 +0000

Regarding post 18, your assumption that property taxes decline at the rate of value decline is faulty. The assessors are ‘forced’ (by budgetary requirements) to reduce assessed value slower than true market value.

Also, it seems that Pittsfield may be taking a baby step towards Del’s goal…

link

Pittsfield Township considers contracting for human resources services
by John Mulcahy | The Ann Arbor News
Monday January 26, 2009, 7:39 PM
Pittsfield Township trustees will consider whether to contract the township’s human resources functions to Washtenaw County when the board meets Tuesday.

Supervisor Mandy Grewal said the step would save money because of “economies of scale.”

A proposed resolution would set the cost at not more than $25,000 per year.

The township’s last human resources director, whose job was terminated when Grewal and a new board of trustees took office in November, cost the township a little more than $98,000 in salary and benefits in the last year of her employment.

The township would retain control over who is hired and fired, but the county would handle labor relations, retirement issues, worker’s compensation and other tasks, Grewal said.

Last year, the Washtenaw County Road Commission contracted its human resources to the county. Pittsfield Township would become the first township in the county to do so.