City finances are controlled by the 5 member Council Budget and Labor Committee (Hieftje, Greden, Higgins, Teall, Rapundalo). They have failed to effectively address the most significant financial issue facing the city, which is retiree health care. The eligibility age to receive retiree health care (currently age 50) should have been raised years ago for the 20% of the work force that is non union. Instead, these 5 members of council allowed continuation of the practice of giving management the same benefits as management negotiated with the unions.

The Budget and Labor committee also failed to follow through on the 2005 recommendations of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee. This committee recommended placing a charter amendment before voters that would change the membership of the retirement plan boards so that they would no longer be controlled by employees. Several months ago, this employee/retiree controlled board voted to give a benefit increase, despite the fact that the city pension plan had lost $100 million in the market. Now city taxpayers have to pay for the $100 million loss plus the benefit increase. And let’s not forget the cost of the early retirement program for police which will show up in the next actuarial calculation.

An lets not forget all those industries have stayed in Ann Arbor because we did not charge an Income Tax: King Seeley, Argus Camera, Pfeizer, and how many other former Ann Arbor employers?

I understand that the housing you desire is not now in Ann Arbor city limits. My point is that people in the townships, especially those inside the AA school district, do not want their current homes to be annexed by the city, because they do not view the city’s mix of services to be worth the taxes they would pay if they were taken into the city. This, I suggest, is the warning the city needs to take seriously. Instead of taking this warning seriously, and reconsidering both the services that are delivered, and the taxes residents have to pay for them, the city proposes to tax people outside its borders without granting them representation on council. I believe this to be a problem on practical, as well as philosophical grounds.

Mr. Johnson,

Thank you.

I do give them credit, they have come up with a political argument (blame it on those who party/work here but don’t live here) but I don’t think I will end up saving a dime in the long run. I certainly don’t think this city /government/administration has the fiscal discipline to truly reduce costs and effectively provide services.

I look at the new facilities being built and money spent on making them pretty and I am unimpressed with the results.

I look at the emails about our dim lights and I think we have personally ambitious people running scripted games for public view and something else going on behind the scenes. All this while I drag my city assigned trash can down the block over the snow the city plowed onto my side walk and then put the darn thing back in its spot that is patrolled by the city and I think wow – maybe this city “governs” too much and provides too little in actual results.

I thought of it recently when my sidewalk was torn up for the repair the city demanded but inspection didn’t happen on time because of “art fair?”.

So, I don’t think a new rubric for taxing me should start with a program that costs nearly 1/2 as much money as it raises and taxes my time and effort on top of some percentage of my income.

No, this is a bad idea that has found a good political argument and in the long term it is just an additional tendril in my pocketbook from the city. Another way to tax and raise taxes.

No thank you.