Comments on: Extra City Revenue Based on Optimism

By: Jack F.

Jack F. — Tue, 18 May 2010 18:21:34 +0000

Or better yet, check out people who own property in town where their property taxes drop 6% while their neighbors hold steady or rise, while property value drop…

By: Jack F.

Jack F. — Tue, 18 May 2010 18:20:01 +0000

Mr. Rosencrans, yep let’s raise user fees and while we’re at it, let’s add a city income tax to the ballot. How about the date of the August Democratic primary…? Let’s start with the local ‘arts’ community–let’s see them raise the million plus for the new Court-Police building ‘art’. And give me back my portion of the money wasted so far. Or use my share to fix a couple of potholes.

By: Cedric Richner

Cedric Richner — Tue, 18 May 2010 16:51:24 +0000

Costs associated with maintaining Argo Dam have no business being funded through the Drinking Water Fund. Move it to Parks and Rec. where it rightfully belongs.

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Tue, 18 May 2010 01:25:09 +0000

Yes, the schools are “strapped” but they receive the other 70% of property tax dollars that the city government doesn’t get. So, the city might pay a little less and the schools a little more but it all comes out of the same taxpayer pocket. To suggest that users pay more for something that the majority of them are already taxed for seems just a little disingenuous and a bit of a financial shell game

Why not just raise taxes, be it property or a local income tax and be done with it?

By: Scott Rosencrans

Scott Rosencrans — Mon, 17 May 2010 21:59:18 +0000

Mr. Munzel is correct. The problem, of course, is that all of Parks funding sources are maximized. Maintaining a system with 157 parks, great facilities and programs carries a substantial cost. Perhaps user fees are in order ala the Fuller soccer fields. The High Schools carry a substantial cost for their football, basketball, baseball, and hockey teams which are very successful on the regional and, even, state levels. Certainly, they should be expected to provide some funding for their rowing programs (they do not, at least in any substantive way) which are successful on the national, and even, international level. Were the dam to be removed it is only the rowing community that would not appreciate a benefit. The school system needs to develop a funding mechanism to support these programs if they are not willing to work with the alternatives that have been presented. Yes, as I know intimately, the schools are also strapped. They will have to be creative. If keeping the rowing programs (and the dam maintenance costs) at Argo is a community priority then we members of the community should do everything we can to attend fundraisers and events to make it happen. Just like the skate park, which will serve an even larger constituency.

By: Riverman

Riverman — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:49:35 +0000

I pay a large City of Ann Arbor water bill, I didn’t realize my dollars are going towards the maintenance of something I don’t really need (or want) like Argo Dam.

By: Annmarie

Annmarie — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:41:52 +0000

The proposal to remove the fees for maintaining the Argo and Geddes dams should indeed be moved out of the drinking water fund! Thanks to our council members and the mayor who are supporting this effort to correct this error.

By: Marco Lannan

Marco Lannan — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:35:09 +0000

The city’s water infrastructure is in bad shape, too. But part of my water bill, which could and should be going to fix it, is instead paying for Argo and Geddes Dams. It’s time to get the fiscal priorities in order. Fix the essentials I’m paying for, like maintaining the water pipes and pumps, or quit taxing me.

By: Alice Ralph

Alice Ralph — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:08:36 +0000

@Vivienne You picked up on something that probably needs a separate follow up. As author of a low-environmental-impact public space proposal for the Library Lot, I realize that the DDA is chartered, in part, to plan, support and manage *economic* development in the legally defined district from which it captures tax increments. “Development” is its middle name. I do question the interchangeability of the legally defined DDA Tax Increment Finance “District” with the DDA’s first name, “Downtown”. The District isn’t the same thing as our Downtown, at least not the way we experience it.
Again, the *physical* development of the Library Lot is probably something for a separate follow up. However, the proposal I wrote recognized the difference between *building* development on publicly-owned property from that on privately-owned parcels. For one thing, the city (I include the DDA here) is technically exempt from local building development ordinances. City Council, on the other hand, is expected to be responsible to electors, and the city *should* set examples for compliance. As capable as staff or appointed DDA members might be, when it comes to a public resource land, is the public trust sufficiently safeguarded? (Does the $2million assure?) From the concerns expressed by residents, that’s a question for the whole budget. What gets us to ‘yes’?

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Mon, 17 May 2010 17:16:27 +0000

Hieftje should be crossing his fingers, his toes and his eyes if that’s the way he regards city finances because he’ll need all the luck he can muster to get re-elected.