2011 Election: Ward 5 City Council

Two Ward 5 candidates were among those who participated in forums hosted on Oct. 5, 2011 by the local League of Women Voters (LWV). The candidate forums for Ann Arbor city council covered all four of the city’s five wards that have contested races.

This report focuses on the forum for Ward 5, where Republican Stuart Berry is challenging Democratic incumbent Mike Anglin. A replay of the forum is available via Community Television Network’s video on demand service. [Ward 5 CTN coverage]

The council is an 11-member body, with two representatives from each ward, plus the mayor. All members of the council, including the mayor, serve two-year terms. In a given year, one of the two council seats for each ward is up for election. In even-numbered years, the position of mayor is also up for election.

This year, the general election falls on Nov. 8. Readers who are unsure where to vote can type their address into the My Property page of the city of Ann Arbor’s website to get that information. A map of city ward boundaries is also online.

Although the election in Ward 1 is not contested – Democratic incumbent Sabra Briere is unopposed – voters in that ward will have a chance to vote on three ballot proposals along with other city residents. The first two ballot questions concern a sidewalk/street repair tax; the third question concerns the composition of the city’s retirement board of trustees.

Ballot questions were among the issues on which LWV members solicited responses from candidates. Other topics addressed by the two Ward 5 candidates, presented in chronological order below, included the proposed Fuller Road Station, high-rise buildings, human services, public art and finance.

Opening Statements

Each candidate had a minute to give an opening statement.

Opening: Berry

Berry began by thanking the LWV and introducing himself as a Ward 5 candidate. He first came to Ann Arbor in the late 1960s to help his father deliver milk on one of his routes. He described it as hard work – six days a week, 52 weeks a year, year after year. But he was glad to do it – his father had immigrated to the U.S. from Scotland, because he knew hard work paid off. He knew then Ann Arbor was a special place and it remains special today, he said.

Ann Arbor has great neighborhoods and schools, a terrific park system, and a competent, dedicated group of public employees, Berry said. But the world has changed and Ann Arbor has to face new realities, he said. When he returned to Ann Arbor in 1989 to work for the University of Michigan, the levels of services were very good. Declining revenue has forced tough choices, he said. The council has not always been wise about making those choices. The council has chosen to reduce basic services, he said.

Opening: Anglin

Anglin said that we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. He was honored to follow in the footsteps of local leaders who have left a legacy for Ann Arbor – a park system, a public safety system, a vibrant downtown and livable neighborhoods. Those are the things that make it a special city, he said. Ann Arbor’s greatest resources are its people and their personal commitments to the community, he said.

As an elected official, Anglin said he would continue to nurture and maintain the relationship between taxpayers and voters. Respect for constituents will result in a continued legacy of progress. He said he was honored to serve Ward 5 and would continue to lead, with voters’ help.

Street Repair Millage

Question: Proposal 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot requests up to 2.0 mills for street and bridge reconstruction. Proposal 2 allows an additional 0.125 mills for sidewalk repair outside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority TIF district. Please explain the mechanics of the two proposals’ interdependent passage. Tell voters in your ward how you plan to vote.

Street Repair Millage: Background

At its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved language for the Nov. 8 ballot that would renew the street and bridge reconstruction millage, at a rate of 2.0 mills. It was last approved by voters in November 2006 for five years beginning in 2007 and ending in 2011. A tax rate of 1 mill is equivalent to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

As a separate proposal on the ballot, voters will be asked if they support an additional 0.125 mill to pay for sidewalk repair. Up to now, sidewalk repair has been the responsibility of property owners.

The ballot language for the street repair millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax up to 2 mills for street and bridge reconstruction for 2012 through 2016 to replace the previously authorized tax up to 2 mills for street reconstruction for 2007 through 2011, which will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $9,091,000?

The ballot language for the sidewalk portion of the millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax increase of up to 0.125 mills for 2012 through 2016 in addition to the street and bridge resurfacing and reconstruction millage of 2 mills for 2012 through 2016, which 0.125 mills will raise in the first year of levy the estimated additional revenue of $563,000, to provide a total of up to 2.125 mills for sidewalk trip hazard repair in addition to street and bridge reconstruction and resurfacing? This Charter amendment shall not take effect unless the proposed Charter amendment to authorize the levy of a tax in 2012 through 2016 of up to 2 mills for the purpose of providing funds for the reconstruction and resurfacing of streets and bridges (Proposal 1) is approved.

The sidewalk repair portion of the millage would be levied only if the street repair millage were also approved by voters. But the levy of the street repair millage is not dependent on the authorization of the sidewalk repair millage.

If both millage proposals were to be approved by voters, the money would be collected under a single, combined millage – but accounting for reconstruction activity would be done separately for streets and sidewalks.

The separation of the question into two proposals can be explained in part by a summary of responses to the city’s online survey on the topic of slightly increasing the street repair millage to include sidewalk repairs. Sidewalk repairs have up to now been the responsibility of property owners. The survey reflects overwhelming sentiment from the 576 survey respondents (filtered for self-reported city residents) that it should be the city’s responsibility to repair the sidewalks.

The survey reflects some resistance to the idea that an increase in taxes is warranted, however. From the free-responses: “Stop wasting taxpayer money on parking structures, new city buildings, and public art. You are spending money like drunken sailors while we’re in the worst recession since the Great Depression.” Balanced against that are responses like this: “I strongly endorse the idea of the city taking responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks and am certainly willing to pay for it in the form of a millage in the amount cited in this survey.” [.pdf of survey response summary]

An amendment to the resolution approved by the council on Aug. 4 directs the city attorney to prepare a change to the city’s sidewalk ordinance relative to the obligation of property owners to maintain sidewalks adjacent to their property.

Street Repair Millage: Anglin

Anglin said he is in favor of the street repair millage. The streets need to be maintained better, he said. Periodically, every five years, the city requests support for that through a millage, he noted. On the second proposal, on sidewalk repair, he said he would only reluctantly urge people to vote for it. He wanted the accounting to be thorough – he wanted a “real good tabulation of those charges.” He was sorry so many people in the last five years had to pay to replace the sidewalks adjacent to their property. He described it as an inequitable system, and said he had no response to that, except to say he was sorry it happened that way.

Street Repair Millage: Berry

Berry said his concern is that we pay a lot of property tax already. He had to wonder why it is that we’re asked to pay for streets, when we already pay so much for general taxes. He said he’d have to study that proposal more.

As for the sidewalks, he would vote against it, Berry said. In his neighborhood, people had to pay to have their sidewalks replaced. To fund that from taxes is unfair to people who already had to pay for it themselves, he said.

Transportation

Question: The Fuller Road Station will require parkland for the purpose of providing a parking structure, which will be used primarily by the University of Michigan. For this, the city will pay 22% of the initial cost. Down the road, how will the parking revenue be split? Who will pay the maintenance? Who will provide safety measures and protection? How do you personally feel about the project? What is the long-term vision for this station and the probable timeline?

Transportation: Fuller Road Background

The introduction of the Fuller Road Station concept to the public can be traced at least as far back as January 2009, when the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, presented a concept drawing at a meeting of neighbors at Northside Grill. At the time, the city was trying to encourage the University of Michigan to reconsider its plans to build parking structures on Wall Street.

The city’s strategy was to get the university to consider building its planned parking structures on the city-owned parking lot, just south of Fuller Road, near the intersection with East Medical Center Drive. It would allow the university to participate in the city’s hoped-for transit station at that location. The university has leased that parking lot from the city since 1993.

The transit station is envisioned as directly serving east-west commuter rail passengers. A day-trip demonstration service that was to launch in October 2010 never materialized. But an announcement earlier this year, that some federal support for high-speed rail track improvements would be forthcoming, has shored up hopes by many people in the community that the east-west rail connection could become a reality. That hope has been further strengthened by the recent acquisition of the track between Dearborn and Kalamazoo from Norfolk Southern by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation.

The council has already approved some expenditures directly related to the Fuller Road Station project. It voted unanimously on Aug. 17, 2009 to approve $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund.

On Nov. 5, 2009, on separate votes, the council approved additional money for the environmental study and site assessment and to authorize a memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan.

Controversy on the project includes the status of the land where the proposed Fuller Road Station would be located. It’s designated as parkland, but formally zoned as public land (PL). In the summer of 2010, the possible uses for land zoned as PL were altered by the council, on recommendation from the city planning commission, explicitly to include transportation facilities. Any long-term use agreement with the university is seen by many as tantamount to a sale of parkland. A sale should, per the city charter, be put to a voter referendum.

Recent developments have included an indication from mayor John Hieftje that a work session would be scheduled to update the council. When the city council subsequently added a July 11, 2011 work session to its calendar, it left the expectation that the topic of that session would be Fuller Road Station. However, that session did not include the proposed transit station on its agenda.

A letter from Hieftje sent to constituents in late July 2011 reviewed much of the information that was previously known, but appeared to introduce the possibility that the University of Michigan would provide construction costs for the city’s share of the parking structure up front, with the city’s portion of 22% to be repaid later.

Transportation: Berry

Berry said he was opposed to the Fuller Road project, and was opposed to turning parkland into a parking structure. The city charter says you can’t take parkland out of the system without a vote of the people, he said, and the project amounted to an “end run” around the city charter. The University of Michigan is going to get a benefit, he said, so it’s important that the university should pay its fair share of maintenance and upkeep.

Transportation: Anglin

Anglin described the Fuller Road project as a complicated problem. It was presented to the city council as a two-phase project. The second phase includes a train station. But the first phase is simply a parking structure, Anglin said. The city is really good at building parking structures, he said, but he has no interest in doing that. The university has enough land and they it can figure out the solution to the parking problem itself, Anglin said.

In the second phase, Anglin said, there would be fast trains between Ann Arbor and Detroit and Kalamazoo. He was glad that the federal government is pumping money into the rail line, but he felt the city should use the train station it has.

High-Rise Buildings

Question: What is the current acceptable standard for building height in the central city? Do you know if the student enrollment has substantially increased or is there simply an appetite for luxury apartment living? Please speak to the occupancy rate in university dormitories, older housing and new units coming on the market. Do you think the numbers are working to fill the buildings?

High-Rise Buildings: Background

By way of background, the D-1 zoning for core downtown allows for buildings as tall as 180 feet. That was enacted as part of the city’s A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) rezoning initiative. That resulted in final approval by the city council in November 2009. [For Chronicle coverage, see "Downtown Planning Process Forges Ahead." For a timeline of the process, see also "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

High-Rise Buildings: Berry

Berry said he sees it as a question of building up or out. The university is the largest employer in Ann Arbor, Berry said, and Ann Arbor needs to accommodate the university’s growth if the city wants to grow with the university. He described Buenos Aires as a city with a lot of variety – tall buildings next to short ones. At first it appears disjoint, because you don’t see a lot of conformity, but it works very well, he said. Berry said he’s in favor of allowing people to develop, as long as they adhere to the local zoning ordinances.

High-Rise Buildings: Anglin

Anglin said further discussions are necessary to develop a healthy relationship between the city and the university. The city is essentially powerless, he said, with respect to the university’s nibbling away of the tax base by acquiring land within the city. Anglin said that 50% of the houses are rental properties. He would like to see more student housing put up. He noted that the university is starting to do more renovation of student dorms.

Human Services

Question: The proposed Washtenaw County budget includes major cuts in human services. The Delonis Center homeless shelter will suffer from this. Is the city prepared and able to make up the shortfall? If not, it would seem to exacerbate the problem of homelessness in the city, particularly downtown.

Human Services: Background

For background on the recently proposed budget for Washtenaw County, see “Proposed County Budget Brings Cuts.”

The city’s support for human services is allocated in coordination with other entities: the United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County and the Washtenaw Urban County. For background on the coordinated funding approach, back when it was still in the planning stages: “Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned.”

Human Services: Anglin

Anglin said it’s a difficult problem, because services are combined with the city and county, and collaboration is being requested. The fundamental problem is that when someone volunteeers with an organization, they’re supporting the mission of that organization specifically – people who volunteer for the Family Learning Institute or Kiwanis are volunteering to support those specific organizations, he said. He worried that collaboration might threaten the volunteer base. We need the private sector to come in and help, he said, because the city’s funds were not adequate.

Human Services: Berry

Berry said he spends time down at the shelter periodically and knows that many people down there are not from Ann Arbor. They come from all over the county and all over the state or outside the state. He sees the solution in providing jobs to people who are down at the shelter. Many of them are looking for work, but can’t find work, he said. If the city fosters an environment that helps job creation, then people who happen to be unfortunate at this time can get off that system, so that they don’t have to rely on the goodwill of taxpayers.

Public Art

Question: The city council is reconsidering the previously approved Percent for Art program, which sets aside 1% of each capital improvement project to be used for public art in the city. The process appears to be slow in producing art. Should it be reconsidered? Do you have suggestions for improvement?

Public Art: Background

At the city council’s Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, councilmembers voted to place ballot language before voters for a street repair and sidewalk repair millage. Before the meeting, some councilmembers had indicated they were prepared to modify the ballot language to make explicit that millage funds would not be subject to the public art ordinance. The ordinance, which establishes the Percent for Art program, stipulates that 1% of all capital improvement projects must be set aside to be spent on public art.

Mayor John Hieftje effectively preempted that conversation by nominating Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as a replacement for Jeff Meyers on the public art commission and assuring the council that the question of public art could be taken up at the council’s Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

However, at the Sept. 19 meeting a proposed revision to the public art ordinance, brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), was postponed until after a working session to be held on Nov. 14, after the election on Nov. 8.

The proposed revision would change the Percent for Art program by explicitly excluding sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art.

Some councilmembers had previously understood the public art ordinance already to exclude replacement of sidewalk slabs from its definition of capital improvement projects. But based on additional information from the city attorney’s office, the proposed ordinance revision was meant to spell that out explicitly.

On two previous occasions in the last two years (Dec. 21, 2009 and May 31, 2011), the council has considered but rejected a change to the public art ordinance that would have lowered the public art earmark from 1% to 0.5%. The city’s Percent for Art program was authorized by the council on Nov. 5, 2007. It is overseen by the city’s public art commission, with members nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council.

The most recent regular Chronicle coverage of the city’s public art commission is “Art Commission Preps for Dreiseitl Dedication.”

Public Art: Berry

Berry said that public art is always an issue for discussion. For the sake of clarity, he said, it should be called “taxpayer-funded art,” not public art. He noted that throughout the city there are people who have lost their jobs, and have houses that have been put into foreclosure. At this time, he said, he did not think that the city can afford the expenditure on taxpayer-funded art. The city should spend that money on people, not on producing taxpayer-funded art.

Public Art: Anglin

Anglin noted that the Percent for Art program has been voted on in the last year by the city council. On any given project, there’s a cap of $250,000, he said. He thought that the council should take a look at it by first getting a legal opinion from the city attorney about whether the program is legal. After that, we should figure out what projects we might want to have as art projects, he said. The University of Michigan should be involved, he said. He was glad for the opportunity to discuss the public art program to ease the irritation that many people have about the program.

Finance

Question: Is there a deficit in the city budget and how large is it? If cuts were to be made, how would they be made? Is citizen safety being jeopardized? Is a city income tax being considered?

Finance: Background on Budget, Income Tax

The Ann Arbor city budget for fiscal year 2012 was approved by the city council with $77,987,857 in revenues and $79,105,945 in expenditures, and drew down the fund reserves by $1,118,088 to balance the budget.

In Michigan, local municipalities have four sources of possible revenue: (1) property taxes; (2) fees for services; (3) state shared revenue – apportioned from the state sales tax; and (4) a city income tax.

The city of Ann Arbor does not levy just one kind of property tax. Ann Arbor tax bills include separate taxes to support: general operations, employee benefits, the solid waste system, debt, street repair, city parks, open space acquisition, and mass transit.

An example of fees for service is the drinking water utility – residents pay for the amount of water they use.

It’s not an option for a city to levy any kind of sales tax in addition to the state sales tax. For example, the city of Ann Arbor is not legally empowered to apply an entertainment tax that could be added to University of Michigan football tickets. Part of the rationale behind the state shared revenue system is for local municipalities to have their inability to levy extra taxes balanced out by revenue that is shared with them by the state. However, the future of state shared revenues is unclear, and local municipalities aren’t sure if they’ll continue to receive those revenues in coming years.

A feature of the Ann Arbor city charter that distinguishes Ann Arbor from other Michigan cities is the relationship between the general operations property tax and a city income tax. Per the city charter, Ann Arbor can enact one, but not both kinds of tax:

City Tax Limit SECTION 8.7. (a) … In any calendar year in which the Uniform City Income Tax Ordinance is in effect on the day when the budget is adopted, the City may not levy any part of the three-fourths of one percent property tax previously mentioned …

But if the city of Ann Arbor were to enact a city income tax, it’s only the general operations property tax that would disappear – the other city property taxes would remain.

Cities can enact a city income tax under the state statute Uniform City Income Tax, which allows an income tax of up to 1% to be levied on residents of a city, and on non-residents up to 1/2 of the percentage levied on residents. For example, if a city enacted a .5% income tax on residents, then non-residents would pay no more than .25%.

Supporters of a city income tax for Ann Arbor typically defend against tax burden arguments by pointing to the fact that the city charter stipulates that a city income tax replaces, rather than supplements, the roughly 6 mill general operations property tax for residents. [For readers who wonder how much property tax they would save, the line item, on summer tax bills, is labeled CITY OPER].

Supporters also typically point out that 40% of the real estate in Ann Arbor is not subject to property tax – due to the large city park system and the presence of the University of Michigan, whose land is not subject to property tax. So funding operations from property taxes is more challenging than in cities where a greater percentage of the property is subject to a tax.

Supporters also typically point to the large number of workers who have jobs in the city of Ann Arbor – many of them at UM – who live outside the city. That translates into larger potential revenue from an income tax than in cities that have a smaller number of commuters.

Detractors of a city income tax typically point to the potential barrier such a tax might represent to businesses choosing to locate in Ann Arbor, or to the inequity of the income tax with respect to resident renters – who may not see the reduction in their landlord’s property tax passed along to them in lower rents. Some oppose the idea on philosophical grounds, arguing that applying the tax to non-resident workers amounts to taxation without representation. Income taxes as a source of revenue are also somewhat less stable than property taxes.

Finance: Income Tax – Previous Discussions

Two years ago, at the Ann Arbor city council’s January 2009 budget retreat, then-councilmember Leigh Greden advocated for an exploration of replacing the general operating millage with an 1% city income tax. The budget retreat discussion resulted in the dissemination of a previous, 2004 city income tax study. The 2004 study had been preceded by a 1997 city income tax study.

In July 2009, the city released a more current study. But in August of that year, it became clear at a city council work session that there was no enthusiasm on the part of councilmembers to place the issue on the ballot in the fall.

Yet at that year’s budget retreat on Dec. 5, 2009, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) again raised the issue of exploring a city income tax. And at a Feb. 16, 2010 meeting of the city council’s budget committee, which included [and still includes] Taylor, members gave then-city administrator Roger Fraser the green light to conduct a survey of voter attitudes on the city income tax.

Finance: City Income Tax – More Recent Discussions

Through the city council and mayoral election season in 2010, the idea of a city income tax received some discussion as an issue. During his campaign, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) in particular expressed support for the idea. He’s now part of a working group on the council, which also includes Taylor and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), that is taking a closer look at revenue questions. At the Dec. 4, 2010 budget retreat, former city administrator Roger Fraser had expressed the same sentiment he’d conveyed to members of the budget committee back in February 2010: He thought he had an obligation to ask the citizens to consider the income tax question before cutting services.

Finance: Anglin

Anglin said he would not want to consider a city income tax. He said it sends a negative message and has a negative impact on the lower end of the work force. When we talk about the budget, he said, it’s the general fund we’re talking about – that funds safety services. We need to step up funding for police and fire, he said. We should look at administrative costs as an area to cut. We should also look for concessions from unions, he said.

Finance: Berry

Berry said that city finances is always a hard topic. The majority of funding comes from taxes and fees, he said. That brings up the question of what the priorities are of government. He believed the role of government was to provide basic servies that people can’t reasonably provide for themselves individually. When times are tough, the council has to cut programs that aren’t a part of basic services. He said hoped that cuts made to police and fire have not jeopardized safety. He said he was opposed to a city income tax.

Closing Statements

Each candidate had two minutes to give a closing statement.

Closing: Anglin

Anglin thanked the LWV and its continued efforts to educate the public about the candidates. In 2007 when he first ran, Anglin said, he was determined to reflect the desires of his constituents. As he went door-to-door, he said he developed a sense of what voters valued. They support parks and active recreation. When Huron Hills was threatened, he said, he worked hard to make sure that Huron Hills remained a golf course. He said he believed in a healthy community through recreation, for all ages and ability levels.

As a city council representative to the city’s park advisory commission, Anglin said he worked to save Ann Arbor’s parks, which make the city a destination. It’s taken 150 years to create the park system, he said. Another issue he’s heard from voters is the need for the city of Ann Arbor to be more fiscally responsible. The city has limited resources, and even though others felt they wanted to build more buildings, he felt the city could not afford it, without reducing services. He said he did not vote for either the new municipal center to house the police and courts building, or the new underground parking garage currently under construction downtown. He said he encouraged more communication with residents.

Closing: Berry

Berry thanked the LWV for the invitation to come. He said the good people of Ann Arbor deserve more than what they’ve been getting. If elected, he would work for more police and fire protection, good roads, timely snow removal, maintenance of city parks and other basic services. He said he’d work for change in the business climate that promotes business growth.

Berry’s vision of Ann Arbor is one that leads the nation as a safe, affordable city, known for efficient, responsive government. He wants a government that lets entrepreneurs know they can do business in Ann Arbor without arbitrary intervention. He said he supports liberty and freedom. He would work on returning Ann Arbor to its core greatness and letting Ann Arbor be what it can be, not what somebody thinks it should be.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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!