City Council Passes FY 2015 Budget
The city of Ann Arbor fiscal year 2015 budget has been approved by the city council. The fiscal year starts on July 1, 2014. City council action came after 2 a.m. on May 20, 2014 at a meeting that started at 7 p.m. on May 19.
From left: Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Deliberations on the FY 2015 budget extended until 2:15 a.m.
The general fund component of the budget is roughly $98 million this year. In terms of staffing changes, city administrator Steve Powers’ proposed budget included one additional firefighter position, three additional police officers and one additional rental housing inspector. Those staffing levels remained the same at the conclusion of the May 19 deliberations.
When the general fund is added in with the rest of the city’s budget – the street fund, water fund, sewer fund, parking fund, and the like – the total expenses proposed for FY 2015 come to about $330 million.
The council’s deliberations on the budget resulted in several amendments, but none that had a dramatic impact on the budget. Neither of the amendments affecting the proposed police staffing levels succeeded – one that would have increased the number of polices officers by two officers instead of three, and another that would have increased the number of officers by five instead of three. A proposal to restore fall loose leaf collection failed, as did a proposal to extend compost collection to a year-round service.
Two amendments that would have affected Ann Arbor SPARK also failed. One would have required the local development finance authority (LDFA) to reserve more money for infrastructure improvements – like a high-speed communication network – and one of the likely reductions would have come from Ann Arbor SPARK. The other failed amendment would have eliminated the $75,000 annual contribution the city makes to SPARK from its general fund. Those two amendments alone took about 90 minutes of council deliberation.
Out of the 18 amendments that had been disseminated in advance of the meeting, the council approved just seven. Among the amendments getting at least a six-vote majority was a proposal to add funding for “community-facing” climate action programs, paid for in part with funds that would have otherwise been used for an Ellsworth Road corridor study.
Also getting approval were two amendments meant to generate funding to pay for animal control services. One of those amendments used money that would have otherwise funded a commercial sign inventory to pay for animal control services from the Humane Society of Huron Valley. The other encouraged increased compliance with the city’s dog licensing law, which would generate additional revenue. The city estimates current compliance with dog licensing requirements at only 7%.
The $300,000 in the proposed general fund budget allocated for the demolition of the city-owned 415 W. Washington building was eliminated for that purpose, without any other purpose identified for spending the money.
Two budget votes related to streets got approval – one directing the city administrator to explore alternative methods of street funding, and a second one allocating more money this year from Act 51 funds for alternative transportation. The council also requested more information that would allow it to set the amount of Act 51 funding for alternative transportation at the appropriate percentage level – 2.5% or 5%.
The council’s deliberations on the FY 2015 budget began around 9 p.m. and stretched more than five hours with a final vote of approval coming at 2:15 a.m. the following morning. Mayor John Hieftje, who missed the council’s May 12 work session due to illness, was not back to full strength at the May 19 meeting and departed the meeting around 1 a.m. Mayor pro tem Margie Teall (Ward 4) led the remainder of the meeting.
Outcomes on each amendment that was considered, in chronological order, are presented below, excerpted from The Chronicle’s live meeting updates. Each timestamp includes a link to council deliberations on that item, as reported in the live updates. In brackets are the names of councilmembers who sponsored the amendment.
9:01 p.m. Budget amendment: LDFA, Ann Arbor SPARK. This proposal identified some areas of increase in the budget of the local development finance authority (LDFA) – $30,000 in incubator operating expense, $20,000 in direct staffing expense, and a $75,000 increase to Ann Arbor SPARK’s marketing plan – providing potential for decrease in expenditures. The resolution would have decreased the total expenditures by $165,379 compared to the prior year’s level of $1,814,892. The unspent funds would instead be reserved for “future infrastructure improvements.” [Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5)]
9:33 p.m. Outcome: The council rejected this amendment on the LDFA by a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).
9:35 p.m. Budget amendment: Human Services, SPARK. This proposal would have eliminated the city general fund allocation of $75,000 to Ann Arbor SPARK and put that money toward human services. [Kailasapathy, Eaton, Anglin]
10:26 p.m. Outcome: The council rejected this amendment on SPARK funding by a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Eaton, Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Lumm, and Anglin.
10:27 p.m. Budget amendment: Police staffing – decrease. This proposal would have increased the number of sworn officers by two officers instead of three, with the savings allocated to human services for the purpose of drug treatment and prevention. [Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5)]
10:52 p.m. Outcome: The council rejected this amendment on a 2-9 vote. Voting for it were Warpehoski and Teall.
11:01 p.m. Budget amendment: Community-facing climate action programs. Money for “community-facing” climate action programs would come in part from $50,000 allocated for the Ellsworth Road corridor study. [Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Teall, Hieftje, Warpehoski]
11:19 p.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment on a 6-5 vote. Voting for it were Warpehoski, Teall, Taylor, Hieftje, Sally Petersen (Ward 2), and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).
11:21 p.m. Budget amendment: Police staffing – increase. This proposal would have increased the number of sworn police officers by five officers instead of an increase of three proposed by the city administrator. Funding would have come in part from a reduction in the 15th District Court budget. The resolution would also have reiterated a previous request made last year that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority fund three downtown beat cops. [Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin]
11:45 p.m. Outcome: The council rejected this amendment on a 4-7 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.
11:48 p.m. Budget amendment: Compost/leaf program – restore. This proposal would have restored loose leaf collection in the fall and holiday tree pickup in the winter. This would have required roughly $406,000 in capital investment and $319,500 in recurring expenses from the millage-supported solid waste fund. [Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin]
12:01 a.m. Outcome: The council rejected this amendment on a 4-7 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.
12:01 a.m. Budget amendment: Retirement plan. This proposal would have directed the city administrator to develop a revised retirement plan design for new hires that “includes a defined contribution element and results in lower costs to the city.” The new plan design would be presented to the council by Dec. 31, 2014, with the intent that the revised plan would be applied to all employees hired after Dec. 31, 2015. [Lumm, Kailasapathy]
12:13 a.m. Outcome: The council rejected this amendment on a 3-8 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, and Kailasapathy.
12:13 a.m. Street funding policy direction: This proposal would not alter the budget but asks the city administrator to “study alternatives to increase street funding and present to Council by Sept. 30, 2014 a report outlining options, their financial impact, and the pros and cons of each.” [Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin]
12:16 a.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment on a unanimous vote, with scant discussion. It prompted an “Oh, my god!” from Lumm, who’d seen everything she’d put forward to that point rejected.
12:16 a.m. Budget amendment: Animal control. The proposal eliminates funding for an inventory of commercial signs in favor of animal control for the Human Society of Huron Valley and for deer herd management costs. [Petersen, Kailasapathy, Eaton, Anglin]
12:30 a.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment on a unanimous vote.
12:31 a.m. Budget amendment: Warming center. This proposal would have allocated $100,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to provide assistance for a warming center. [Lumm, Briere]
12:48 a.m. Outcome: The council rejected this amendment on a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Kailasapathy, Briere, Petersen, Lumm, and Warpehoski.
12:56 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition – pedestrian safety. This proposal would have used some of the $300,000 in the general fund budget that’s designated for demolition of the city-owned 415 W. Washington property to fund the pedestrian safety and access task force. [Briere, Warpehoski]
1:19 a.m. Outcome: The council rejected this amendment. [We tentatively recorded this as a 5-5 vote. Hieftje had left the meeting by this point.]
1:20 a.m. Budget amendment: Compost/leaf program – extend. This proposal would have extended the curbside compostables pickup from seasonal to year-round so that food waste could be kept out of the garbage stream year-round, at an increased annual cost of $300,000. [Briere]
1:25 a.m. Outcome: The council rejected this amendment on a 3-7 vote. It got support from Taylor, Teall and Briere.
1:25 a.m. Budget amendment: Art administration, traffic calming efforts. The proposal would have reduced the amount allocated in the recommended budget for transitional costs associated with the public art program from $80,000 to $40,000. The $40,000 in savings would be used for traffic calming projects in neighborhoods, including but not limited to speed bumps. [Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin]
1:35 a.m. Outcome: The council rejected this amendment on a 4-6 vote. It got support from Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, and Anglin.
1:35 a.m. Budget amendment: Streets – Alt Transportation. The proposal will, for this year, bump the Act 51 allocation for alternative transportation from 2.5% to 5% – which translates to $180,000. The amendment would ask the city administrator to provide information that would help the council determine the appropriate percentage to allocate to alternative transportation in future years. [Briere]
1:39 a.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman.
1:40 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition. This proposal will simply eliminate general fund support for demolition of the city-owned buildings at 415 W. Washington. [Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin]
1:54 a.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman, Taylor and Warpehoski.
1:55 a.m. Budget amendment: Dog licenses. This proposal encourages educational and enforcement efforts to increase the 7% compliance rate for dog licenses, which currently generates $15,000 in revenue. The resolution states that Ann Arbor is home to 30,000 dogs and that a 50% license compliance rate would result in $105,000 in revenue. But the resolution targets a 30% compliance rate for the shorter term, which would bring in a total of about $63,000. The resolution alters the revenue budget to reflect that amount. The resolution indicates that at least a portion of the additional $48,000 would go toward payment for animal services provided to the city by the Humane Society of Huron Valley. [Lumm]
2:12 a.m. Outcome: The council unanimously approved this amendment.
2:12 a.m. Budget amendment: Parks fairness. This is a standard amendment every year to ensure that the parks budget is increased to match any increase in general fund expenditures in other areas. This year, the parks budget needs to be increased by $23,577 as a result of the budget amendments that were previously approved.
2:15 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment over the sole dissent of Teall.
2:16 a.m. Main FY 2015 budget, as amended.
2:17 a.m. Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the FY 2015 budget as amended.
The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!
It’s interesting that no proposed reductions were designated for maintaining a higher level of reserve funds, considering that the level is getting quite low relative to what the CFO has recommended.
I look forward to the administrator’s list of the pros and (mostly) cons of increasing street funding. I invite anyone with an interest in the matter to make a similar list for a JPod-type system for comparative purposes.
JPod-type system?
@2: http://www.jpods.com
Safer, more energy efficient, more amenable to solar electric power, less environmental impact, and cheaper in the long run than the car/road status quo.
Re (1), “It’s interesting that no proposed reductions were designated for maintaining a higher level of reserve funds…”
The article reports “The $300,000 in the proposed general fund budget allocated for the demolition of the city-owned 415 W. Washington building was eliminated for that purpose, without any other purpose identified for spending the money.”
A reason some of us opposed the use of that $300,000 was the impact it would have on the reserve account. If I recall correctly, CM Kailasapathy made that point during the discussion of that budget amendment.
Re: [4] and the rationale for the 415 W. Washington demolition amendment.
In support of Jack’s recollection of the meeting, from the live updates coverage:
The council’s actions generally supported safe streets, although the balance of the council suggests some points might be at risk if the council continues to tip in composition.
Corrections and comments welcome if I misunderstood or mischaracterized the actions of the council. Apologies in advance for any mistakes.
On the positive side (with caveats):
1) Funding for sidewalks and bike lanes on Pontiac Trail are going forward (although the sidewalks are unfortunately only on the east side).
2) Funding for sidewalks on Barton Drive and Scio Church Road are going forward (although somehow the short sidewalk gap on the north side of Scio Church seems to have been dropped inexplicably).
3) The public hearing on funding the Newport Road sidewalk (a short, but important, segment on the west side of the road north of M14) was continued and concluded.
4) The Act 51 allocation for alternative transportation is returning to prior levels, going up from 2.5% to 5% – which translates to $180,000. I don’t believe the use of this money has been determined yet, but there are clearly many needs. This is a great development.
5) The proposal to allow the piling of leaves in the street (including bike lanes) was again rejected.
On the negative side:
6) While funding for 415 W. Washington’s demolition was withdrawn, it was *not* allocated to support the pedestrian safety task force. At this point in time, there is no money designated to support the task force, suggesting it is unlikely to be effective.
7) Additional funding for traffic calming was rejected. (It would have come at the cost of reduced support for the transition of the public art program, which some would consider a poor trade-off.) There was no proposal for straight funding of additional traffic calming.
I would also make the general comment that it has been many years since the city of Ann Arbor built a new non-motorized path that didn’t run along a road. Compared to Dexter / Scio Township, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, and Pittlsfield Township, if feels like the city is really, really lagging behind.
There are some very obvious candidates in the PROS plan or from looking at a map (in no particular order):
1) Allen Creek Greenway from B2B trail, under tracks, to State Street (and beyond to Ellsworth).
2) Fix the B2B trail “around” Maiden Lane / Fuller intersection.
3) Extend the B2B trail west from Bandemere Park through Barton Nature Area to Foster Road.
4) Connect Whitmore Lake Road to Pontiac Trail along the unused Huron Parkway right-of-way extension.
5) Connect South Maple to Eisenhower along I-94 (when the Mallets Creek Study is implemented).
6) Connect Concordia University to Gallup Park along the south side of Geddes Road (completing the Gallup Park / Park Mill loop).
7) Connect Scio Church Road to South State Street along the southern edge of the U of M golf course.
8) Connect Nichols Arboretum to the Gallup Park path.
I’m starting to despair that the city will ever find the funds or the motivation to build more trails, despite the desire for more trails consistently ranking highly in parks-related surveys.
Re (6) Regarding the pedestrian safety task force, you said: “At this point in time, there is no money designated to support the task force, suggesting it is unlikely to be effective.”
Staff has identified $75,000 in the Fiscal Year 2014 (current year) budget that is available for the consultant who will facilitate the task force. Staff has repeatedly sought additional funding to support activities that arguably are not within the task force’s scope of work.
It is my understanding that the task force will soon meet to discuss their own view of the proper scope of their duties. I would like to hear from them before allocating funds.
Regarding the Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force, please note that there is now a page on the city website for it.
[link]
The page links to a Google group that volunteers from the Task Force have set up. It is accessible to the public.
Eric #7: Can you point me to any documentation about the unused Huron Parkway right-of-way extension? I’ve been trying to find out more about this for a while now.
Rod,
The easiest way to understand it is to ride it or walk it. There’s a very challenging (at least for me) mountain bike trail through the area that passes through the tunnel under M14. To get to it, exit north out of Bandemeer Park onto Whitmore Lake Road. Head north on the right side of Whitmore Lake Road past the freeway exit. After a little while, you’ll see a foot trail heading northeast. Follow that narrow trail until you reach the tunnel. If you keep going, it will eventually exit onto Pontiac Trail.
This is part of what mountain bikers call the “Local Loop”, mapped here: [link]
If you zoom in, you can see the route.
This website seems to have a lot of historical detail about the Huron Parkway in the western part of town, but not really cover the proposed northwest extension bending over to M14. [link]
According to this earlier version of the NE Area Plan: [link]
“Huron Parkway/Inner Belt System During the 1950′s, state and
federal agencies developed the concept of a circumferential highway
skirting the east side of Ann Arbor and proceeded to acquire right-of-way
for its construction. City officials subsequently convinced these
agencies to relocate the highway path further east and north in the
present US-23/M-14 configuration. The concept of Huron Parkway was
originally proposed in the 1959 Thoroughfare Plan as an “inner belt” for
the northeast area, utilizing the right-of-way acquired for the original
US-23 route. This parkway was to act as an intermediate route, providing
access to major routes in the area.”
That suggests to me that it would be useful to look at the 1959 Thoroughfare Plan, but I can’t find it online.
Hope that helps.
–Eric