Annual Retreat Reveals Council Members’ Priorities for Ann Arbor Out of Step With Residents’ Priorities
by P.D. Lesko
At their annual retreat last week, Ann Arbor Council members shared what they want Ann Arbor city government to focus on, and how the members, who are politically divided, can work together to get the job done in the coming year.
THERE IS A clear divide between Ann Arbor’s mayor and City Council members when it comes to the future of the city. The differing opinions were on display at last week’s Ann Arbor City Council Annual Retreat.
There are the Council members who favor the use of public money for economic development and downtown growth, dubbed the “Maximum Growth Coalition” by critics. There are the Council members who favor funding citizen services and who question the use of public money to fund private development. They have been dubbed “Panderers” by Downtown Development Authority Board member Joan Lowenstein.
The members of that group jokingly refer to themselves as “Pandas for the People.”
Slings and arrows aside, Ann Arbor’s part-time politicians can debate, talk, plan, bicker and even go on political vision quests, as they did at their Annual Retreat. However, it is the City Administrator Steve Powers, and city staff who shape the future of Ann Arbor. Because Powers serves at the pleasure of Council, his “vision” has reflected that of the members of the Maximum Growth Coalition who form a majority, albeit a slim one, on City Council.
At the Annual Retreat, Council member Jane Lumm (I-Ward 2) discussed the disconnect between citizens’ priorities and the priorities of local government.
Lumm, prior to her 2011 run to rejoin City Council said she heard “dissatisfaction and frustration from residents” who told her that their priorities were not listened to by local elected officials or city staff.
Lumm’s anecdotal evidence is confirmed by recent citizen surveys and an analysis of capital projects prioritized in the city’s Capital Improvements Plan.
The most recent Capital Improvements Plan Customer Survey collected responses from slightly more than 200 individuals via an online survey. Despite the small sample (0.0019 percent of the city’s 114,000 residents), like the 2013 Citizen Satisfaction Survey which gathered responses from over 700 residents, the results reveal that citizens surveyed want city officials to focus on road repair and maintenance, reducing high property taxes and on providing excellent services rather than climate change, affordable housing, alternative transit and downtown development.
In the two surveys, frequently fewer than a third of respondents rated city services as “excellent.” In the CIP survey, more than one-third of residents were hard-pressed to rate many city services “satisfactory.” Resident comments focus on what is perceived as a neglected urban forest, underfunded parks, poorly maintained or dangerous bike paths and the city’s roads. MITA has repeatedly ranked Ann Arbor’s roads the third worst in the state, though the rating has improved slightly since 2012.
Julie Grand (D-Ward 3) said she is looking forward to “continuing to support parks.” On the surface, it was a priority in step with citizens’ concerns. Grand, however, was the Chair of the Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) before running twice for City Council and winning the second time around.
It was during Grand’s leadership of PAC that the amount allocated from the city’s General Fund to the city’s parks budget was steadily decreased. An additional millage approved and paid by residents, raised $5.1 million in 2013. It is this additional tax that has been principally relied to pay for the city’s parks. The city spent a total of $5.9 million on its 2,000 acres of parkland in 2013. All of that money came from the additional parks millage and its fund balance.
In Boulder, Colo., its 2015 parks budget is $25.5 million, including funding from that city’s General Fund, a dedicated Parks Fund and other funding sources, including a dedicated tax. Like Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Ca. has a $350 million total annual budget, but has budgeted $24 million for its parks, recreation and waterfront department in 2015. Unlike Ann Arbor, Berkeley has no DDA. That city has 279 police officers to Ann Arbor’s 118, 139 firefighters to Ann Arbor’s 81 and 154 parks employees to Ann Arbor’s 30.
When he left office, former mayor John Hieftje told the media he was “most proud of the cuts” made to Ann Arbor city staff. Since 2001 the number of full-time city staff has been reduced from 1,100 to 686. Services have been outsourced, such as parking, and private contractors have been hired to tend trees, mow parks and do other necessary park maintenance.
As a result, some expenses have risen dramatically. In response, in 2012 Council members voted to increase the number of days between mowings in parks. The city’s public services administrator Craig Hupy recently told Council member a special tax assessment for tree maintenance would be necessary.
The results of a shrinking parks budget which is funded entirely by a special millage is reflected in the comments of the Citizen Satisfaction Survey and the CIP Customer Survey:
“Sad to see less maintenance at parks this year, difficulty getting things fixed, no restoration of trails in ravines, etc.”
“Better Maintaince of existing parks, mow at least once a week during heavy grass growth so parks don’t look shaggy.”
“The grass should be mowed more often.”
The same is true of the city’s roads. The 2014-2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) reveals that only a handful of street resurfacing projects were undertaken in 2013 (5) and 2014 (6). The city’s 2013 budget reveals that just 6.6 miles of the city’s roads were resurfaced. That was up from 4.92 miles resurfaced in 2009. Yet, dozens of comments from citizens in the CIP Citizen Survey indicate they want road resurfacing to be a priority:
“Almost every town I travel to has better road surface conditions than Ann Arbor.”
“Please do not divert tax revenues to corridor studies. The City needs to do a better job of maintaining, repairing and replacing its streets.”
“Why do all the streets in Ann Arbor have to go to rack and ruin before they are fixed?”
“Can’t believe we accept the condition of our roads. We need to do more on these. Not just resurfacing/construction, but enforcing good quality repairs when contractors cut/dig (e.g. for connection of utilities to buildings) and then patch. The norm for these seem to be a very low quality patch job that quickly breaks down. Why do we accept this?”
At the Annual Retreat, several Council members did not mention road repair as among their priorities. Council member Warpehoski (D-Ward 5) indicated his priorities for the coming year were “quality-of-life issues.” He is planning to focus on affordable housing, the Allen Creek Greenway, and Climate Action Plan goals. Likewise, Council member Westphal (D-Ward 2) did not mention parks or roads among his priorities. Instead, he suggested the city’s focus should be on “economic growth as a tool to grow the city’s tax base.”
While Council member Grand expressed her desire to see Ann Arbor lead the state, her Ward 3 counterpart Stephen Kunselman (D-Ward 3) proposed a different vision. He said he sees Ann Arbor as “a small Midwest college town.” He went on to say that “there has been a disinvestment in the community over the years.” Kunselman said he wants to focus on the needs of families, health, safety and welfare of the city’s residents.
Like Kunselman, Mike Anglin (D-Ward 5) had a focus that differed significantly from his Council counterpart, Warpehoski. Anglin said “We are a small Midwest town, and people live here for that reason.” Anglin said that is always factored in his decision-making as a Council member.
Council members Sumi Kailasapathy (D-Ward 1), Jack Eaton (D-Ward 4), along with Jane Lumm, put road maintenance, the care of city trees and tending of city parks among their priorities for the upcoming year.
