A2Politico – Ward 2 Interview Responses

(Submitted by Jane Lumm)

What are the two most pressing issues facing Ward 2 in your opinion?

Many of the most pressing issues in the 2^nd Ward are city-wide issues – enhancing public safety, adequately funding core infrastructure needs, and carefully balancing development and preservation --  although two transportation-related items are particularly important in the 2^nd Ward.  (1)  the City’s pedestrian ordinance given the prominent role and number of pedestrian crosswalks on Plymouth Road and other major streets/urban collectors (e.g., Washtenaw Avenue, Nixon Road) and minor arterials (e.g., Green Road) and (2) the “ReImagine Washtenaw” initiative. 

Regarding the pedestrian ordinance, the tragic pedestrian accident in early August has appropriately raised this issue again, and city staff is re-evaluating the current ordinance   I am concerned that Ann Arbor’s ordinance, which is different from other communities in Michigan and, therefore, supercedes the Uniform Traffic Code for Cities, Townships and Villages (UTC), is confusing and may be placing walkers, cyclists and drivers at risk.  The local law is also not consistent with MUTC crosswalk signage (signage instructs motorists to stop for pedestrians within crosswalks).  Repealing the local ordinance and enforcing the Michigan UTC will address inconsistencies and confusion in the law and signage and improve enforcement capabilities.  In terms of potential physical improvements, we need crosswalks that send very clear signals to all, and crosswalk design guidelines and improvements that are consistent with best engineering standards and practices.  I think we could also benefit from the advice of outside experts. 

The ReImagine Washtenaw Avenue Project is a multi-jurisdictional long-range transit and development planning effort.  The Washtenaw Avenue corridor has high traffic volumes and the proposed mass transportation oriented redevelopment strategies are intended to integrate transit and adjacent land uses.  Although “ReImagine Washtenaw” is obviously in the early stages of planning, it is important for the 2^nd Ward and for the City.  As we know, traffic is extremely heavy on Washtenaw.  And although we could all agree with the objectives of reducing traffic and increasing the use of other forms of transit along the corridor, we must be sure that any planning, zoning and redevelopment actions implemented (whether it’s dedicated bus lanes, transit signal priority for buses, buffered bike lanes or other road reconfigurations) are not done short-sightedly, prematurely (e.g., while vehicle traffic volumes remains so high), or without significant and meaningful public input going forward.  Otherwise, we’ll risk complete gridlock in the already very congested corridor. 

What are the three most pressing issues facing the City of Ann Arbor in your opinion?

We must also strike a more careful balance of development and preservation.  Ann Arbor remains an attractive place for development – we don’t need to settle for inappropriate, out-of-place projects like the massive 413 Huron student apartment project.  We can achieve the necessary economic growth and vitality without compromising the unique character and charm of Ann Arbor.

Do you support the expenditure of Ann Arbor tax dollars to subsidize the bus commutes of residents of Canton, Ypsilanti, Brighton and Chelsea?   

No, I do not support Ann Arbor taxpayers subsidizing the cost of bus transit for other communities.  I recognize the value to our region of expanded transit, but believe that there should be an equitable sharing of costs and benefits among all the participating communities in, and served by, the AAATA system, and that each community should pay the full cost of the services it receives.  Ypsilanti does have a dedicated transit millage which is allocated for AAATA services and, although it does not completely cover the full cost of the services it is provided, is an appropriate form of funding as are community specific purchase of service agreements. 

Do you support the zoning of our city’s parkland for transit uses? 

No, I do not support re-zoning of our parkland for transit uses.  In August 2012, I sponsored a resolution to place on the ballot a charter amendment requiring voter approval before parkland can be permanently re-purposed.  I plan to do that again.  This would have expanded the protection for our parks, as the charter amendment approved by voters in 2008 only requires a public vote when there is an outright sale of the parkland.   

Since 2005 Ann Arbor has added fewer than 70 units, net, of new affordable housing, despite promises from various elected officials.  Rent control is one way to make, literally, thousands of homes and apartments more affordable.  Would you favor a rent control ordinance as a way to make living in Ann Arbor more affordable?

I agree that Ann Arbor has not been effective in addressing the need for affordable housing and have sponsored and supported initiatives to increase funding for affordable housing and for the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.  I do not believe, however, that a rent control ordinance would be an effective mechanism to address the challenge and I would not support.  It would be counter-productive and costly to administer.

Do you favor term limits for members of city boards and commissions, and specifically for the members of the Downtown Development Authority Board?

The Mayor of Boston was recently quoted in the New York Times as saying about Detroit, “If it takes 90 minutes for the police to respond, there’s a big problem.”  In Ann Arbor, it can take police hours to respond to non-emergency calls.  Is this a problem in your opinion, and if so, how can City Council help Chief Seto solve it?

Yes, I do believe that inadequate public safety staffing is a problem in Ann Arbor.  For two years, I have sponsored amendments to the City budget to allocate a larger portion of existing spending to public safety.  I believe public safety is the #1 priority for any local government.  City Council also identified public safety as a top priority, but has been unwilling to act in any meaningful way on that priority.  I will continue to advocate for additional public safety staffing and will also work to elevate the community dialog on this important issue. 

In Ann Arbor, property crime, burglary, arson and forcible rape are all on the rise, according to FBI Uniform Crime statistics.  Chief Seto has told Council he doesn’t have enough officers to police our city proactively.  Do you support proactive policing, and if so, where will you find the money to fund the officers necessary to do the job?

I strongly support proactive policing and fully agree with Chief Seto that if we are to improve public safety as well as the perception of safety, moving from our present state (“reactive” policing) to proactive policing is a natural step.  To accomplish that objective, I introduced the resolution approved by council calling on the DDA to fund “beat cops” downtown. 

As mentioned above, I sponsored budget amendments the last two years to fund additional police staffing where the budget offsets were identified (no net spending increase was proposed).  Consider that council approved a $550,000 allocation from General Fund reserves in October 2012 to pay for the local match required in the train station feasibility study (the second time the City funded the same local match as the City’s initial spending did not qualify).  It is not a question of finding the money, but rather a question of priorities. 

After spending $8 million dollars to switch to single-stream recycling, the City’s overall diversion rate has worsened and more tons of garbage are going to our landfill, according to the recently released 5 Year Solid Waste Plan.  The MRF, which processes about 30 percent of its total materials from Ann Arbor, is facing competition from MRF’s built in Western Washtenaw County and elsewhere that are charging less per ton.  Should garbage and recycling be “branded” as a “profit center,” or should Ann Arbor’s facilities process only the garbage and recycling the City produces and a corresponding reduction in the solid waste millage be made?

Ann Arbor residents pay $12 million annually in a dedicated solid waste millage, which is more than adequate to fund high quality refuse and recycling programs, including weekly curbside pick-up.  I also believe there is adequate solid waste millage funding to restore Fall leaf and holiday tree pick-up. 

Ann Arbor’s city employee pension and health care liabilities are underfunded.  The city of Detroit was recently found to have been making flawed assumptions concerning the annual rate of return their pension portfolio would earn (7 percent per annum).  A billion dollar additional pension liability was revealed.  The City of Ann Arbor’s pension board recently released a report which shows the assumption of an annual rate of return through 2024 of 7 percent per annum, but an average actual rate of return of between 1.5-3.0 percent per annum.  What’s your plan for the City to begin to aggressively pay down its growing pension and healthcare liabilities to avoid having to levy additional taxes and/or the sale of assets to meet the obligation? 

Addressing unsustainable legacy costs as well as a substantial unfunded pension and retiree health care liability are significant challenges for our city. 

At June 30, 2012 the combined unfunded pension and health care liability was $250 million.  Although the City has begun to address the retiree health care component (by eliminating the retiree health care benefit for new employees), it has not addressed the pension component.

I have led the discussion at city hall regarding transitioning the City from a defined benefit retirement plan for employees to a less costly and more predictable and sustainable defined contribution plan.  We should not break our retirement promise to retirees or long-term city employees, but we should offer newly hired city employees a defined contribution plan just as most other employers (public and private) are now doing. 

Council members have discussed rolling back fees which have been raised over the past decade, obviously, as a way to increase revenues without raising taxes.  The $40,000 sewer connection fee was one recently discussed.  What are some other fees you would favor rolling back, i.e., fees to use park facilities, parking fines, etc….? 

This is an important question as fees residents pay are a significant portion of the cost of living in Ann Arbor.  It is also something that doesn’t receive a lot of council discussion and should.  Essentially, there are four types of fees and charges over and above the taxes folks pay (1) fees for basic services everyone uses like water/sewer fees (2) fees charged for a specific, discretionary service like development or construction-related fees (3) parks-related fees and (4) fines. 

Water, sewer and storm water fees are by far the largest (about $50M total annually) and impact the most residents.  Over the last two years, the rates have been increased by about 3-4% each year.  Unfortunately, given the need to fund a significant amount of repairs and capital improvements in these systems, this is not an area where it is likely fees can be rolled back in the near term. 

For the second type – fees charged to residents for specific services performed by the City on their behalf – the principle should be that the beneficiary pays the full cost of that service.  General taxpayers should not be subsidizing these activities.  Examples include planning and development-related fees, permits, inspections, project management-related fees, and customer service-related fees, and, over the last several years, the City has been trying to adjust its fee structure to reflect the City’s cost of providing the service.  It has been a multi-year process, is ongoing, and is appropriate with one caveat – a cost recovery approach in fees for services makes sense and is appropriate IF the City is delivering that service efficiently, but if the City’s costs are not competitive, the fee should not be based on the City’s cost, but rather on the competitive rate – and that’s where benchmarking can be a helpful guide. 

The cost recovery approach has resulted in some decreases in fees, but primarily increases and some of the changes have been significant.  For example, for FY14, site plan review and annexation review fees increased by 30% and 40% respectively, while the fee for a land division review decreased by 15%.  Some of the fees for services, however, like the sewer connection fee you mentioned (and liquor license fees are another example) are situations where the fee had not been revisited in years, and needed to be adjusted.  When it was brought to our attention, council all agreed that some of the sewer connection fees just did not make sense, were a disincentive to re-investment, and were reduced. 

For parks and recreation fees, the City bases its fees and rental rates on market and competitive rates.  I agree that’s appropriate, and in FY14 on that basis, there were increases to the rental rates at Gallup Park and Cobblestone Farm.

Benchmarking is also helpful in establishing fines and rates for parking/traffic tickets, but under any circumstances, these rates should certainly be sufficient to cover the costs incurred and to discourage the behavior.  They should not be punitive though or be treated as a revenue opportunity for the City. 

One particular process and fee that has been discussed recently is a good example of the balance that needs to be achieved with fees.  It’s fire inspections and the related fees.  The City has increased the number and frequency of inspections (and the resulting costs to property owners).  While fire inspections are certainly necessary, the frequency and associated cost must be based on cost benefit and the value-added of additional inspections.  If excessive, the requirements become an unnecessary, unfair cost burden for property owners and could be reasonably interpreted as just a revenue generator for the City, and for those reasons, would not be appropriate.

City staff hired at 50 years of age vest in the City’s pension plan after 5 years of employment.  Others vest after 10 years.  Would you favor raising the vesting period to 20 years for all employees, and ending city provided health care for current and future retirees, relying instead on the Affordable Healthcare Act system, as many cities are doing? 

As mentioned above, I agree that addressing unsustainable legacy costs must be a priority for the City and have advocated for transitioning the City from the current defined benefit pension plan structure to a defined contribution structure for new employees.  While all aspects of the retirement plan should be evaluated including the vesting period, I would not support fundamentally changing the rules or breaking promises made to current retirees or long-term city employees.  The City should, however, act quickly to adopt a new define contribution retirement plan for its new employees.

In terms of retiree health care, the City stopped offering retiree health care to its new employees a couple of years ago.   I am far from an expert on the Affordable Healthcare Act, but do agree that the City should evaluate its options for retirees both pre and post-Medicare eligibility.  Although I would not support eliminating or fundamentally changing the healthcare commitment made to current retirees or long-term city employees, the Affordable Care Act may provide options for the same/similar coverage the City provides retirees now at a lower net cost to the City and should be carefully considered.