A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

February 25, 2010

The Politics of Management: Paying More For Less

Filed under: Mayor Hieftje, city council, money — Tags: , , — A2 Politico @ 10:38 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

Most people who live in Ann Arbor don’t have the time or the inclination to get overly involved in the minutia of city government. People are busy spending their days getting done what they need to get done to get the bills paid. Politics isn’t a passion for many, and the thought of running for an elected office probably never crosses the minds of most folks. After all, there are about 10 million people in Michigan, but only about 1,500 mayors. There are just 40 Michigan state senators.  

I was at synagogue last Friday and overheard the spouse of a candidate for County Commissioner ask my partner why on earth I wanted to run for mayor. Good question. Why, indeed? Our roads are some of the worst in the entire state. The Stadium bridges are, literally, falling down. The budget is a constant source of heartburn to anyone with the time to read through the behemoth (a tip: you’ll get more information by studying the city’s audited financial statements). Who wants to work to clean up that kind of a mess? Me. Why? Because while there is a mess to clean up, I see that there is also incredible potential and opportunity to make Ann Arbor an even better place for all of us to call home. I am committed to living, working and raising a family here. What better reason to share my decades of management, marketing and finance experience, step up, and accept the challenge of public service? 

A police officer whom I spoke with recently made a point of telling me about the two surveys of staff morale that found our 750 city employees in desperate need of some serious pep talks, and maybe even a few anti-depressants. We have employees who feel under-appreciated, and are inclined to jump ship. They work under constant threat of layoff. Studies make clear that layoffs do not actually save money, because overall productivity decreases. The top performers who survive a layoff won’t necessarily feel obligated to soldier on. A 2000 study by Roderick Iverson and Jacqueline Pullman from the University of Melbourne, and a 2003 study by Sarah Moore, Leon Grunberg, and Edward Greenberg from the University of Colorado at Boulder, both confirmed that employees were far more likely to quit jobs in environments of repeated downsizing. The likelihood that an employee will quit actually increases the more layoffs he or she “survives,” the CU-Boulder study found.

The City Administrator Roger Fraser recently gave a presentation to Mayor and Council members in which he presented the following graph:

Layoffs

Between 2002 and 2010, Ann Arbor has reduced its work force through layoff, early retirement and attrition by about 30 people per year. This graph purports two facts.

First, that the overall reduction has resulted in $25 million dollars in “savings.”

The second fact is that the number of consultants (contracted services) and temps has remained “flat.”

No one on Council asked to have the terms “savings” and “flat” defined. Should they have? The City Administrator’s financial data should be presumed to be accurate. However, we have to remember that since 2003, Roger Fraser has inflated General Fund deficits in every budget. With the exception of 2009, when the actual numbers have come in, our General Fund has actually finished with modest surpluses. This is a very important fact that would give anyone with experience in budgeting and finance ample reason to question Mr. Fraser very closely when presented with financial data such as the data in the graph above.

How would one go about verifying Fraser’s data? The City files income tax returns just as you and I do. In those returns, are several bits of information that allow us to check Mr. Fraser’s work. 

Here’s a graph with information from the City’s income tax returns filed between 2000 and 2009:

 

Fiscal Year Number of FTE and Contract Employees Claimed Wages Claimed
2000 1,230 $49.6 million dollars
2001 # of employees not recorded on tax return $58.7 million dollars
2002 1,149 $55.9 million dollars
2003 1,102 $54.7 million dollars
2004 1,079 $54.2 million dollars
2005 1,128 $57.5 million dollars
2006 1,104 $60.3 million dollars
2007 1,069 $57.2 million dollars
2008 1,018 $55.3 million dollars
2009 1,029 $54.7 million dollars

You should, of course, have an immediate question: Where’s the purported $25 million dollar “savings” Mr. Fraser told Council has been realized by the “streamlining” of those 239 employees?  The next question is why the total number of employees declared to the IRS doesn’t match information presented to the public by Mayor Hieftje and Mr. Fraser. In December of 2009, Mr. Fraser, in a presentation to Council, told the group that as of December 2009 Ann Arbor employes 756 people.

According to the City’s IRS tax returns, Ann Arbor employs 201 fewer people than in 2000, but spending on wages has increased. In fact, in 2009 we paid about the same to employ 1,029 people as we did to employ 1,159 people in 2002.

We’re paying more for less. We’re getting less for more.

The City Administrator’s data raise many more questions than they answer, and the data are certainly not of the quality necessary to make informed decisions concerning closing projected budget gaps. Mayor and Council have a legal and fiduciary obligation to hold the City Administrator accountable in the performance of his job. Repeatedly presenting incomplete and contradicting financial data to bolster claims of savings that are suspect, at best, is cause for serious concern, close questioning and, potentially, some very frank discussions between Mayor, Council and the City Administrator.  

It is clear to me that, as any good manager knows, profitability is not achieved through a long-term strategy of layoffs. Why not?  Employee morale and productivity drop, as documented in many studies, including the two I referred to above. Over the last decade, Council members and Mayor have run for re-election based on their support of a fiscal strategy that encompassed the systematic decimation of Ann Arbor’s human capital—our police, firefighters, customer service workers, foresters, planners, even our dog catcher is gone. It’s clear from the IRS data that the cost of government has not been reduced by the layoffs, nor has there been any marked increase in the efficiency of city government; we’ve paid millions for consultants and contract workers to supplement the work of our remaining city staff.

It should be clear that further layoffs are not the answer to the fiscal problems facing our city. The answer is to reverse the damage done and rebuild our human capital.

The City’s department managers must be forced to cut out the junk food from the City’s fiscal diet. This means sharply reducing the amounts approved for contract labor and consultants. For instance, Ann Arbor employs both a landscape architect and a forester, yet Council recently approved several hundred thousand dollars worth of contracts for companies to do landscape architecture and forestry work for the City. Our City Attorney’s office has eight full-time attorneys (tip o’ the keyboard to Rick) on staff, yet that office has asked Council to approve close to $400,000 in contracts for outsourced legal work over the past 18 months. In 2009, Ann Arbor spent over $1 million dollars on consultants. 

There’s much more we can do to sort out the fiscal mess that has been created over the past half a dozen years.

The real work will start, and the real savings will be realized, when we reconfigure the City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Retirement System for future retirees—a crucial task put off for a decade, much like the reconstruction of the Stadium bridges, and a good part of the reason our city budget is crumbling, much like our streets.

So what’s it going to take to get our labor unions and non-unionized employees to buy into a complete restructuring of their retiree benefit programs? How are we going to get retirees to pay, for instance, 10 percent of their yearly $7 million dollar health insurance premiums, and to implement a change in benefits to those who retire before 65? How will we ask for an even larger contribution for health insurance premiums from early retired city employees who’re employed full-time elsewhere? How are we going to get employees to agree to accept a change to the age at which they may retire?

For starters, it’s going to new elected leadership at City Hall who is prepared to ask them to do it.

Popularity: 37% [?]

February 23, 2010

The Politics of Transportation: Getting Serious About Non-Motorized Transportation (With a Poll)

Filed under: transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 11:12 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)

I know. I know. We live 45 minutes (in light traffic) from the Motor City. Cartown. Cars as status symbols. Cars as sex symbols. Cars are King, and non-motorized transportation is perceived by some as the Court Jester. It’s perceived as the mooching in-laws by others. Money for bike lanes? Money to plow walking paths through parks? That’s money that could be spent, well, on making the commute just that much easier for those who travel by car. 

We’re a long way from the Netherlands in more ways than one. There, 27 percent of all trips are made by bike and walking. In the United States, just one percent of all trips are made by bike and on foot. 

We’re a one car family; maybe yours is, too. We have four bikes and those bikes act, in essence, as our second car between April and November. We take the bus regularly, and walk, as well. As a rule, we drive fewer than 6,000 miles per year. We’re not nearly as virtuous as, say, our friends Chris and Lori, who moved to New York and left their car behind in Ann Arbor. However, it has been six years since we sold our second car and decided to make do with one. 

I have been a commuter bicyclist since I was in my 20s and living in Rome, Italy. I saved up my money and bought myself a spiffy red Olmo touring bike, complete with the requisite bell to which tourists in Rome never seemed to pay any attention. There, from April through December, I biked all over the Eternal City. In winter, I resorted to the dreaded bus/subway system. Oh, the system worked just fine. I preferred to bike because it was faster. On the bus or subway, it took 40 minutes from, say, the Vatican, where I taught, to the nearest Metro stop near my apartment. On my bike, I could zip home in half the time. 

Anti-pollution politics rule in Rome now, in place of the Caesars, so the percentage of trips made by bike is on the rise. The city has about 100 miles of on road bike lanes, an additional 33 (20 miles) kilometers of bicycle lanes are designed, and 30 (18 miles) kilometers more are planned. In September of 2009, the Italian Ministry of the Environment allocated 7.6 million Euro ($10 million dollars) as incentive money for individuals to buy bikes. As a result of the program, 70,000 new bicycles are expected to be sold in Italy over the coming year. 

I was talking to a Sierra Club leader, and he described the relationship between the non-motorized community and the City as similar to the relationship between an abused spouse and her/his abuser. The Ann Arbor non-motorized transportation community is glad for the crumbs of attention and financial support it’s given. I’m not sure I agree completely, because I have read posts to the Washtenaw Walking and Biking Coalition listserv in which members have expressed frustration at what they consider the meager financial and political support of non-motorized transportation. Others take the tack that something is better than nothing. Meanwhile, elected officials boast about increases in on road bike lanes by talking percentages. They run campaigns on the awards Ann Arbor has won for being a “bike friendly” community. We’re a “bike friendly” community, but are we a community with a plan and a political commitment to non-motorized transportation? Yes and no.

Let’s start with awards: some such awards to cities are handed out just for filling in the paperwork, others are truly prestigious and represent a win in the face of stiff competition. Awards recognize the hard work of our city staff, not the genius of our local politicos. The real measure of success however, is the daily use of Ann Arbor’s non-motorized transportation system by the people who live and work in our city. Right now, Ann Arbor has 42 miles of bike lanes, and according to data from the City, 2.4  percent of all trips downtown are made by biking and 16.5 percent by walking. That puts us just ahead of Bloomington, Indiana (2.8 percent and 15 percent, respectively), but well behind Berkeley, Cambridge and Iowa City. Over the past decade, about 3 miles of bike lanes have been added per year. In Boulder, there are currently 300 miles of bike lanes. New York City’s Bicycle Master Plan includes 900 miles of bike lanes. 

In Ann Arbor we’ve had a “Build it and they will bike,” strategy. However, the percentage of trips made downtown by bike and on foot has remained relatively unchanged for several years. Why? Because merely charging staff to build bike lanes and walking paths up the sides of major roads leading to downtown doesn’t guarantee people will use them. It’s a strategy based on miles of lanes. Because of chronic underfunding and regressive political policies, those few miles of lanes often quickly become unusable thanks to faded guard lines, garbage cart placement, leaf collection politicies, and snow removal issues. We need to couple the investment in miles of bike lanes with a political commitment to non-motorized transportation policy. This means setting measurable goals that are, well, actually measured and followed up on by Mayor and Council.

In this video (go to mark 17:54) from the City’s web site, we can see the City’s Transportation Manager, Eli Cooper, being (for lack of a better term) raked over the coals by Fourth Ward Council member Marcia Higgns. Higgins, frustrated, at the lack of progress on implementing aspects of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, wants to know why little has been accomplished in four years. Good question.  

Our city has a plan. It’s had one since 2007. That year, a group of citizens and city staff formulated the 200 page City of Ann Arbor Non-Motorized Transportation Plan.

This comes from the “Vision” section of the Plan: “It is further envisioned that this environment will result in a greater number of individuals freely choosing alternative transportation modes (walking, bicycling, mass transit, etc.), which will lead to healthier lifestyles, improved air and water quality, and a safer, more sustainable transportation system.”

Walking. Bicycling. Mass Transit. 

Mass transit is, of course, motorized. So what’s it doing in the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan? Good question. The answer may help us understand why many of the goals relating to our non-motorized transportation plan have gone uunmet. A look at the percentage and amount of money devoted to non-motorized transportation should give us another clue. This comes from the 2007 City of Ann Arbor Non-Motorized Transportation Plan: 

“The City Council passed a Resolution –R-216-5-04, which includes the annual dedication of 5% of the City’s funds received under Public Act 51, Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) dollars, toward completing a system of non-motorized routes. This amounted to approximately $350,000 per year out of the total $7 million dollar earmark in 2004-2005. The funds allow for supporting maintenance activities, planning and design of capital improvements and as resources for direct investment in new facilities.”

Five percent is a token amount, not a serious commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. So what is the present state of the bicycling environment in Ann Arbor according to our own Non-motorized Transportation Plan? This comes from page 152 of the 2007 report:

“The approach to handling bicycles in the City is inconsistent and incomplete. In older areas of town there are some isolated bike lanes, in newer parts of town bicycles are expected to use sidewalk bikeways. Even together, the on-road and off-road facilities do not make for a complete system and transfers between on-road and off-road facilities are not logical or convenient. In short, there is no cohesive system.”

What to do? First, stop simply throwing money at non-motorized transportation just so that politicos can have bullet points on their résumés and photo ops. Page 167 of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan lists several strategies which would increase walking and biking downtown, and help Ann Arbor work toward some concrete, if you’ll pardon the pun, and very important environmental goals.

Mass transit should not be included in our non-motorized transportation plan. There is certainly synergy between mass transit and non-motorized transportation, but so long as mass transit is included as a part of our City’s Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, it will continue to be allocated exponentially more staff time and funding. Having a non-motorized plan since 2007, the bulk of the recommendations of which have been ignored, is playing politics with transportation policy and what ought to be a very clear commitment to the environment. I’d like to see us, as a community, work seriously to meet the goals set forth in the 2007 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan.  

Those who crafted the Plan write that they’re unsure why people ultimately refuse to bike in our downtown area. Researchers in the Netherlands have answered that question definitively: bikers of all ages have to feel safe, and both bikers and drivers must be educated about sharing the road. 

Ann Arbor may have won an award as a bike “friendly” community in 2006, but between 2007-2010, we’ve done little but coast on our two-wheel laurels. It’s time to get serious about non-motorized transportation. Let’s increase the funding, but tie the increase to benchmarks which must be met, measurable increases in trips made downtown by bike and walking. Let’s launch a sustained initiative that focuses on education and safety for bikers of all ages. Let’s challenge and inspire city staff to meet the goals set forth in the 2007 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan of increasing from 2.4 percent to 6 percent the total number of trips downtown made by bike.  

Let’s work to become a city of actual bikers and walkers, and not just a place where politicos brag about awards given by people who don’t ride our roads, but rather sift through piles of neatly written applications.

 

 

 

In Summer, what keeps you from biking downtown? This is a multiple choice poll. You may choose as many of the options as apply. If you do or don’t bike downtown, I’d be interested in hearing your opinions on non-motorized transportation in Ann Arbor. Is this a public policy we should fund and pursue more aggressively in your opinion? 

Popularity: 32% [?]

February 21, 2010

The Politics of Money: Capriccio Economico

Filed under: economic development, money, taxes — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 1:36 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)

*Capriccio

February 18th was Ann Arbor Public Schools’ Orchestra Night. All of the middle and high school orchestras came together for a music student-a-palooza that began at 7 p.m. and finished with the last note from the Pioneer High School orchestra at 9:30. My middle schooler’s orchestra played the first notes of the evening. The entire week before, he’d been coming home with tales from the practice room that the orchestra teacher was driving the kids like musical mules in a field of flats and sharps. Evidently, she was making them rehearse and practice—making them play the first measures of their opening piece, Capriccio Espagnol, something like 5,000,000 times. Pre-teens somehow suddenly lose the ability to count: they start at 1 and jump from there to 5,000,000.  

However, my bassist had not exaggerated a bit. He and his orchestra mates nailed the opening of the piece. In fact, they played the entire piece with a level of technical precision I never expected—there was no fuzzy fingering from the violinists, and nary a missed beat from the basses and cellos. Their orchestra teacher is a young woman who, in my opinion, is one of those teachers. You know the ones. They inspire, push and take a genuine interest in their students. Every school district needs more teachers like her, and to compensate them generously for their devotion to their students, teaching, and the results they get.

Unless you just got back to Ann Arbor from your isolated private island in the Pacific, you know that the AAPS is facing a multi-million dollar deficit. There is a passionate and wide-ranging debate as to why there is a deficit. There is a passionate and wide-ranging debate about how to close the budget gap. District officials floated the idea of privatizing several hundred union jobs. According to a piece posted to AnnArbor.com on February 17th, there are several companies “vying to replace the district’s custodians, maintenance workers and bus drivers, it could save nearly $2.4 million a year.”

I’m going to switch classrooms now. Walk with me.

I was going through the City’s checkbook register, which is now online, and saw a $75,000 withdrawl from the General Fund for Ann Arbor SPARK. I have written about Ann Arbor SPARK several times over the course of the past months. Click here to read my most recent entry about SPARK. Ann Arbor SPARK was created to “incubate” start-up businesses in the Ann Arbor area. It was headed by Republican Gubernatorial candidate Rick Snyder for several years. Our tax dollars don’t fund SPARK directly. That’s what the (Local Development Finance Authority) LDFA is for. Here’s a good description of the LDFA from a January 2009 piece in the now defunct Ann Arbor News, written by  Stefanie Murray, “The LDFA is an Ann Arbor City Council-appointed committee that oversees the capture of part of the property taxes from Ann Arbor’s downtown development district. It gives some of that revenue to Spark and is responsible for overseeing how Spark spends it.”

Sounds pretty innocuous, huh? “The capture of part of the property taxes from Ann Arbor’s downtown development district.” No harm. No foul.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The LDFA was formed to divert taxes from a single sector: public education. It contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to “provide services.” In fact, the bulk of the money the LDFA diverts from our public schools goes to Ann Arbor SPARK. Second Ward Council member Stephen Rapundalo sits on the LDFA Board. Fifth Ward Council member Carsten Hohnke sits on the SPARK Board. In November 2009, I wrote about the resolution which Rapundalo brought to Council: “Resolution to Amend the Fiscal Year 2010 SmartZone LDFA Budget for Increased Business Accelerator Services.” In my November 2009 post I wrote:

“Ann Arbor SPARK is the public-private boondoggle supported by Mayor and Council with your tax dollars that has created no new jobs that would not otherwise have been created, according to an April 2009 statement before City Council by the Chair of the LDFA, Richard King.  And SPARK has done it all for you since July 2006 for a mere $3+ million dollars. Who could want less for more? It’s a Bernie Madoff Special—no actual job creation in return for millions in public money. How long will it take the public to realize that they’re being robbed?”

Both Carsten Hohnke and Stephen Rapundalo voted in favor of giving the LDFA $205,000 additional dollars to pass on the Ann Arbor SPARK. Those were dollars taken from the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Here is a link to a video from the City Council meeting at which Council voted 11-0 to give the LDFA and Spark more tax money. You’ll see Skip Simms from SPARK tell Council that all of SPARK’s “incubator” money comes from the LDFA. All of the LDFA’s money is diverted directly from the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Do you understand the connection now?

According to the city’s budget, in fiscal year 2009, the LDFA SmartZone diverted $1.1 million dollars in property taxes from new development downtown. In fiscal year 2010, that amount increased to a projected $1.27 million dollars, and in 2011, the LDFA expects to divert $1.4 million in property tax dollars from our public schools to give to SPARK. 

In this piece, I wrote about the $753,000 in salaries paid to just five employees of SPARK. 

Now, we have the Ann Arbor Public Schools poised to cut over 200 union jobs to save $2.4 million dollars. If the Mayor and City Council dissolve the LDFA immediately, and Ann Arbor SPARK is spun off, in 2010-2011 the AAPS will collect an additional projected $2.67 million dollars in tax revenues. That money, along with some good faith bargaining for concessions from the unions involved could save the jobs of hundreds of long-time employees—custodians, maintenance workers and bus drivers in our community.

Public schools, or so said my son’s orchestra teacher, reflect the soul of a community. I agree with her. Right now, our soul is troubled. Business investment is important, but it can’t come at the expense of our own public schools. It’s time to stop diverting property tax dollars away from the public schools, and realize that owners of established small and medium-sized businesses choose to relocate to communities with exceptional schools, and residents choose to stay in communities with exceptional public schools.

Either our public schools can be given back the LDFA’s $2.67 million dollars and retain hundreds of jobs for custodians, bus drivers and maintenance workers, or Mayor and Council can continue to support a failed economic development system under the auspices of which no jobs have been created that wouldn’t have otherwise been created. Mayor and Council can continue to give public school tax dollars to the LDFA to dole out to Ann Arbor SPARK—an organization that paid five of its employees over $753,000 in salaries in 2008.  

To me, the choice is clear. The time has come to shape new economic development programs that will give taxpayers objectively verifiable and carefully tracked returns on all tax dollar investments—something that has not been done over the past five years. It’s time to get back to the basics, and for our local politicos to face the music: they’ve diverted millions from our public schools to fund the LDFA and, in turn, Ann Arbor SPARK. Dissolving the LDFA and spinning off Ann Arbor SPARK could, actually, save hundreds of existing jobs in our community, and benefit our public schools.

Popularity: 43% [?]

February 18, 2010

The Politics of Parks: Spin, Subsidies and Mulligans

Filed under: money, parks — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 8:21 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

One of the jobs I had as I worked my way through college was at a very exclusive country club that shall remain anonymous. I worked in the kitchen, and the tots love to hear me tell stories about the members, kitchen staff, and preparing and serving meals to some of the richest people in metro-Detroit. They love the story about the world-famous architect who got so loaded at his daughter’s wedding that, while swinging a Samurai sword around over his head (don’t ask why he brought one to his daughter’s wedding), lost his grip, and the sword ended up piercing the bass drum of a very surprised band drummer. There was the fellow who made millions in the auto industry who almost decapitated a foursome of club members when he landed his helicopter on the 1st green. He’d dropped in for a cool drink, a pack of cigarettes and to schedule his Saturday tee time. I met Jack Nicklaus, Lee Trevino and Ben Crenshaw when they were in town to play in a major tournament at another country club. 

One of the perks of working at the club was that on Tuesdays, when the club shut down, staff had the opportunity to golf free of charge. When my papers were written, and math problems finished, I golfed in the nice weather. Lefty. My handicap was, well, my inability to get out of the sand traps without taking way too many mulligans. 

Yesterday morning, I attended a meeting of the city’s Golf Advisory Task Force. Tee time was 8 a.m. on the 6th floor of City Hall. On the agenda was Huron Hills Golf course. The course, open to the public since the 20s, is in deficit. Again. It was in deficit in 2008, and as a result elected officials and city staff tried to shop the land to developers. When Ward 2 residents and golfers descended on City Council meetings, putters hefted, Mayor and Council promptly claimed no one was shopping anything to anyone (insert innocent looks here). Then the paperwork authorizing the shopping around of said golf course surfaced and, as you can imagine, there were several elected officials with egg on their faces and lots of lost credibility.

Yesterday morning, Second Ward Council member Stephen Rapundalo, was questioned by members of the Ann Arbor Golf Association concerning Huron Hills’ projected $380,000 deficit. As a result of the projected deficit, the Golf Advisory Task Force has been charged with turning a double bogey into a birdie. According to Rapundalo, Council members believe that we can keep Huron Hills open with no “subsidies” from the General Fund. One way to do this would be to make it a “public-private” course. City staff will prepare the requisite RFP, and a vendor will ride into town in an electric golf cart with a plan to balance the course’s budget. This way, no further “subsidies” would need be given to the Huron Hills facility.

Let me state quite clearly that Council’s notion that that city’s recreational facilities are “subsidized” with money from the General Fund is absurd. We don’t “subsidize” recreational facilities; we support them with our taxes. Ann Arbor citizens pay some of the highest per capita property taxes in Michigan. 

As it turns out, the last time Huron Hills was profitable was at least a decade ago, so said the city staff member whom I spoke with. For those who feel up to a little morning challenge, here ’s a puzzle for you. The problem? “Why is Huron Hills golf course losing money?” Here are some facts shared by the city staff members in charge of the course who attended the meeting:

1.  Huron Hills is projected to have a 3 percent increase in overall revenues.

2.  The numbers of golfers using the facility is increasing.

3.  There are plans for an education program for kids and teens at the course.

4.  There are funds earmarked for radio/billboard marketing 

5.  Huron Hills was given a liquor license.

So, why is the course losing money? Please choose one answer from below.

A.  It’s a complete mystery that will never be solved. 

B.  The cost of golfballs has skyrocketed.

C.  There is a $380,000 municipal service charge levied on the course’s operations.

 

If you chose “C”, please bring your irons to the club house for a free cleaning. What is a municipal service charge? It’s the total cost of running City Hall divided by every single department in the city. For instance, the golf staff member explained quite cogently that the city’s IT department sets its budget (at $7.2 million dollars, currently twice the budget of IT departments in similarly-sized cities across the country) and then “charges” departments for its services, network, etc… In fact, in some departments it costs $4,000 per computer per month to support IT. That’s just the beginning. Huron Hills golf course is also charged for $14,000 of the funds budgeted to support the Mayor’s office.

To make a long, and very simple story complicated, Huron Hills golf course is being smothered in municipal service charges. The cost of running City Hall in Ann Arbor has increased by 35 percent since 2006 ($34 million dollars), according to audited statements from the city’s web page. Virtually the course’s entire $380,000 “deficit” is the result of being forced to carry around part of the city’s bloated operating expenses.

So what should be done? If you replied “cut operating costs,” please report immediately to the aversion therapy office in City Hall.

The “correct” answer is for City Council to form a citizen task force, hold monthly 90 minute meetings that use up precious staff time, and charge the poor citizens who actually care about the city’s recreational facilities with performing a religious miracle, to make Huron Hills “profitable.” The next part of the plan is to have Council members tell citizens that City Council members have no further interest in “subsidizing” golf. Well, that should actually come as no surprise, they have no further interest in “subsidizing” police and fire services, either.

The city staff member repeated one “fact” several times during the 90 minute meeting at which just two agenda items were discussed: there is nothing that can be done about the municipal service charge. Is it any wonder, then, that funding recreational facilities and senior centers is referred to by those on Council as “subsidizing?” By jingo, we’re “subsidizing” the retirees. We’re “subsidizing” swimmers. We’re “subsidizing” numerous services for all of the freeloading taxpayers in this city. 

Most of us know there are numerous strategies that can be employed to cut “municipal service charges.” Our family, for instance, eats out less often. City Council could put moratoria on consultant contracts and direct the City Administrator, CFO and IT Director to bring the cost of IT services into line with that of other similarly-sized cities. The mantra that nothing that can be done about the heft of the municipal service charges levied is wrong-headed, and a symptom of wide-spread and systematic fiscal dysfunction on City Council and at City Hall.

Reining in the cost of operating City Hall and, as a result, significantly reducing the service charges levied on Huron Hills is, in fact, is the answer to the problem, instead of the “inevitable” solution that the city needs to craft the requisite RFP, and hire a private contractor to run the course.

As for the Golf Advisory Task Force, coincidentally, there is a member of the group who has had informal discussions with city officials to have his company take over Huron Hills. The representative from the Ann Arbor Golf Association took exception to this situation, and was roundly thrashed (in Midwestern “nice-ese”) for implying that there might be a conflict of interest involved in having someone making decisions about the fate of Huron Hills whose company has had “informal” discussions with staff member Jayne Miller about taking over operations of the course.

I won’t imply it. I’ll say it. The practice of awarding city contracts to those who serve on boards and commissions must be examined closely to rule out conflicts of interest. At the moment, this issue is ignored completely by Council. This practice needs to end.

Eighteen months ago, Council authorized a $300,000 contract for capital improvement projects with Bona & Kolb, as well as Mitchell & Mouat, and two other firms. Bona Chairs the City Planning Commission, and Mouat sits on the board of the Downtown Development Authority. On February 16, 2010, City Council recently amended the original contract to add $100,000 to the contract.  The names of the firms appeared nowhere on the Council agenda.

Mitchell & Mouat were contracted to design the FITS, as well. Are we hiring the most competent contractors, and negotiating the contracts in the best interests of taxpayers, or are we giving city works to the political donors, friends and work colleagues of our elected officials? It’s a question that needs to be asked and answered definitively every single time a contract is awarded to the business of someone who serves on a city board or commission.

To whit, that member of the Golf Advisory Task Force should, indeed, resign. He has tremendous expertise to share, and one hopes he would attend all of the meetings as a citizen. Furthermore, as a citizen, he would be free to meet with city staff to pitch his company and his business plan for a public-private development for Huron Hills golf course. As a member of the Task Force, he has no business pitching his company’s services, and city staff have no business listening to his pitches “informally.” 

In the meantime, it’s time to start the heavy lifting of questioning the City Administrator, IT Director Dan Rainey and CFO Tom Crawford and have them explain why it costs $4,000 per month per computer supplied by the IT Department, and why a city golf course should be charged $14,000 of the cost of running Mayor Hieftje’s office.

Popularity: 40% [?]

February 16, 2010

The Politics of Governing: Should City Council Draft Resolutions That Address International Political Issues?

Filed under: city council, politics, weekend poll — Tags: , , , — A2 Politico @ 5:01 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)

I was walking Flash (the family’s new Jack Russell pooch) in the woods this afternoon, and ran into a neighbor who’s quite an active local politico. During the course of our conversation about my run for office, she wanted to know where I stand on City Council drafting resolutions at the prompting of citizen groups that comment on international policy issues. We ended our conversation with a promise to get together to discuss the topic further. She’s not the first person to have asked me this question, or to have expressed an opinion about Ann Arbor City Council responding to international policy via Council resolution. Thus far, opinion among those whom I discussed the issue with has been pretty evenly split between those opposed and those in favor of the practice. 

Those opposed object to local political issues taking a back seat to international politics. City Council and Mayor, so say those on this side of the debate, have an obligation to tend to local issues, concerns and challenges. They see devoting time to international politics as a form of political grandstanding. “People in Ann Arbor,” one politico snapped, “may think the town is the center of the universe, but it’s not.” Local people who want to impact foreign policy, so say these politicos, need to write to their congressional leaders. On the other side of the aisle are Ann Arbor politicos who see city government as a way to move federal foreign policy issues one way or the other. They see City Council as a “voice of the people” who bring the issues to the forefront. 

I’ve decided to put up a poll. As always, one vote per customer. If you’re inclined to leave comments, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the subject in more detail. What do you think? Should Ann Arbor City Council draft resolutions that address international political issues, or should Council keep its nose our of other people’s political business and tend to its local political issues?

Popularity: 33% [?]

February 15, 2010

The Politics of Grandstanding: The Three Percent Solution Resolution

Filed under: city council, money, politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 3:30 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)

Between 2004 and 2009, Fourth Ward Council member Marcia Higgins, Mayor Hieftje,  Fourth Ward Council member Margie Teall, and Second Ward’s Stephen Rapundalo voted, as Chair and members, respectively, of the City Council’s Budget and Labor Committee to give City Administrator Roger Fraser the following salary increases, lump sum payments and cash-outs:

In December 2004, Fraser received a 3 percent raise of his $133,000 salary retroactive to July 2004. ($3,990)

In December 2005, he received a 3 percent raise retroactive to July 2005 and 10 extra vacation days, which can be exchanged for cash. ($4,109)

In February 2007, he received a one-time payment of $8,479, plus a life insurance policy worth twice his salary.

In November 2007, the City Council approved a lump sum payment of $4,361 and five extra vacation days.

In October 2008, the council approved giving Fraser another lump sum payment of $3,634 and the ability to cash out 150 hours of vacation, sick or personal time.

This past November 2009, Fraser’s contract was revised again to include a clause that allows him to cash out an additional 120 hours of paid time off before June 30, 2010.

Since 2004, Council members Higgins and Rapundalo have voted to raise Mr. Fraser’s salary by $8,099 dollars, and given him lump sum payments equal to $16,744 dollars. That’s a total of $24,843 in cash. They then added the option for Mr. Fraser to cash-out 275 hours (6.8 weeks) of paid vacation, sick and personal time, worth over $18,800. In total, then, Mayor Hieftje and Council members Teall, Higgins and Rapundalo voted to give our City Administrator raises, lump sum payments and cash-outs equal to $43,643. This amounts to a 35 percent increase in his initial $133,000 salary. Ironically, this is exactly the same percentage that overhead has grown in our city’s budget since 2006. In my experience, outside of Wall Street, an employee under whose management overhead costs increase by 35 percent ($34 million dollars) does not get rewarded with a pay package increase equal to 35 percent of her/his starting base salary.

Council members Rapundalo and Higgins  are now co-sponsoring a resolution that, according to a piece posted to AnnArbor.com, “…asks that the base salary of both Fraser and City Attorney Stephen Postema be reduced by 3 percent, starting July 1. It also asks that the base salaries of all other non-union employees be reduced by 3 percent.” A draft of the resolution also asks that the remaining two council members who did not voluntarily reduce their own pay by three percent this year do so—Fifth Ward’s Mike Anglin, and third Ward’s Stephen Kunselman.

On the surface, their resolution appears sensible and equitable, even responsible. However, upon closer scrutiny it is quite the opposite. It is neither a resolution worth supporting, nor a resolution that treats the city’s 765 employees equitably. The proposed three percent reduction in Mr. Fraser’s salary leaves him with a net 32 percent increase in his pay since 2004. Further the Higgins-Rapundalo resolution links their proposed three percent reduction to the proposal that all of the city’s non-unionized employees to accept a lifetime three percent pay reduction. The Higgins-Rapundalo resolution penalizes the lowest paid city employees and protects pay gains given to the highest paid city employees over the course of the past five years.

Council members Higgins and Rapundalo agreed to a voluntary three percent pay reduction. However, Council members Higgins and Rapundalo would do well to remember that they were caught via FOIAed emails published in a piece in the Ann Arbor News rigging the vote for the three percent pay raise they voted to accept in 2007. Mayor Hieftje and Council would do well to remember that their voluntary pay cut is, in essence, a one-time give back. The give back being asked of current unionized, as well as non-unionized employees is for the rest of their tenure as employees of the City of Ann Arbor. 

It’s time to stop political grandstanding that accomplishes little than further angering already demoralized city staff and union members. It’s time to get down to the hard work of rolling back the $34 million dollars in overhead increases that Council members Higgins and Rapundalo allowed to slip past them unquestioned, over the past four years. Council needs to direct the City Administrator and CFO to devise a plan to reduce staffing costs that is truly equitable and reflects a commitment to tie compensation directly to performance and the fiscal health of the City. 

The current Higgins-Rapundalo proposed resolution reflects precious little understanding of pay equity, and sends the message that our City Council cares little about the lowest paid city employees, and instead intends to protect tens of thousands of dollars in raises they’ve awarded to those highest paid city managers.

It’s good politics and terribly regressive leadership. In short, once again, it’s business as usual.

Popularity: 29% [?]

February 14, 2010

The Politics of Assumptions: Maybe Money Does Grow On Trees

Filed under: city services, developers, money, police — Tags: , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 6:11 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 4.8/5 (4 votes cast)

I was never a fan of the new Police/Court facility. I thought it unwise to spend $47 million dollars in the midst of an economic meltdown rather than to renovate the old facility, and find new leased facilities for the 15th District Court (who, it was claimed, had to move from their space leased from the County). I toured the police facilities in 2008, and was appalled at the condition of the space in which the police were expected to work. Why hadn’t their space been renovated years ago? Why couldn’t city officials just find another rented space for the judges? For that matter, why couldn’t they re-up the lease on the current space occupied by the 15th District Court?

There is ongoing debate about whether County officials were willing to allow the 15th District Court to remain in its rented digs. There are Council members who swear that there was an opportunity to extend the $750,000 per year lease. There are others who swear that the lease simply could not be extended and that to have done so would have been a waste of money.

All of that is moot now. 

The bottom line is that we are building a new 103,000 square foot Police-Court facility.

Now we’ll take a commercial break for a short review: 

June 2008: Council approves bonds to build 103,000 square foot Police-Court facility. Public is assured by Mayor, staff, and Council members that the construction project will not impact city budget or services. Project is presented as fully funded.

May 2009: City Administrator, City CFO and City Council Budget and Labor Committee (Greden, Teall, Higgins, Hieftje, Rapundalo) present 2009 budget to Council for its approval. Budget projects a structural deficit, and 1-3 percent declines in revenues “for the foreseeable future.”

July 2009: As a necessity to balance the budget, 25 police officers retire early at a cost of $6 million dollars to taxpayers.

February 2010: CFO Tom Crawford tells AnnArbor.com that, “The premise of this thing [the Police-Court building] was we needed to build this within the resources we had. Now we’ve got less resources coming to the city than we had then, but we didn’t know that.”

In a February 14, 2010 piece about the Police-Court building project by AnnArbor.com’s Ryan Stanton, the City Administrator is quoted thusly:

“Fraser acknowledged the project budget is dependent on $3 million from the sale of city property at First and Washington – a deal that has stalled because the developer, Village Green, has had trouble coming up with financing. Fraser said the city continues to operate under the assumption that the sale eventually will happen.”

Then, we have the City’s CFO who, in June of 2008, allegedly had no idea the economy was tanking. In his February 2010 piece, Stanton quotes CFO Tom Crawford as explaining that, “The premise of this thing was we needed to build this within the resources we had. Now we’ve got less resources coming to the city than we had then, but we didn’t know that.”

To the extent that his explanation can be understood, I find it incredible that he would fall back on “We didn’t know that.” The 2009 budget had a statement on page 2 of the Administrator’s Budget Message that says, “Despite efforts to contain and reduce expenses, the city is still facing a structural deficit. For the foreseeable future, we will continue to experience 1-3% revenue shortfalls.” That Budget Message is dated July 2, 2008. Of course our City’s CFO and Administrator knew the city would have less money coming in. The two of them projected decreased revenues in the budget they worked to prepare months before Council voted to issue the bonds to build the Police-Court facility. 

In February of 2009, according to a piece posted to the AnnArborChronicle.com, during a City Council meeting, Fifth Ward Council member Carsten Hohnke asked CFO Crawford this question: “Will the funding of the building come from a reduction in services? Crawford’s Answer: Over the last five years, the city has become more efficient and the building’s funding comes from savings through efficiency, and through debt services with existing cash flow.”

Audited financial statements from the City’s web site show that between 2006 and 2009, the cost of running city government increased by 35 percent, or $34 million dollars. The city had not become “more efficient,” as Crawford claimed, and the Police-Court building’s funding was coming from savings accumulated from service cuts and hikes in fees rather than efficiency. Between 2004-2009, for example, funding for culture and recreation fell from $10 million per year to $5 million per year. The cost to provide solid waste services rose 40 percent.

The construction project remains, in essence, $3 million dollars short until that First and Washington parcel sells. That’s about 6.5 percent of the $47.4 million dollar total price tag. So what’s the plan to replace the $3 million should the sale not ”eventually happen?” ”Value engineering” is a slick term for cutting construction expenses on the fly. Is there a plan to replace the $3 million that really has no impact on the city budget or services? If there’s not, there should be.

In addition, there are some hard questions that need to be asked about how financial information about this project was presented to Council and taxpayers. Why? First of all, Mayor and Council are legally obligated by the City Charter to hold the City Administrator accountable in the performance of his job. In addition, the next time we undertake a large capital project, and city staff make assurances to Council and taxpayers that the project won’t impact services, those assurances need to be absolutely true and backed up by accurate financial data. Lastly, to have the city’s CFO claim in the Press in 2010 that, in essence, he didn’t know the City would be bringing in less revenue is simply shocking. He presented a budget in July of 2009 that projected reduced revenues. His 2010 comment brings up some disturbing questions about the quality of the financial data prepared and presented by the CFO to Council and the public.

What our city staff need to focus on is a $3.3 million dollar “value engineering” plan that has a drop dead date by which the plan will be implemented. To simply plow ahead and spend money that we don’t have under the “assumption” that a parcel of land appraised for $3 million dollars 18 months ago will sell, is yet another emergency “budget shortfall” waiting to happen. Furthermore, it’s folly to imagine that the parcel is still worth $3 million dollars.

While we can’t get back the $47 million dollars budgeted for this project. We can “value engineer” the project down by $3.3 million dollars, so that if the First and Washington parcel doesn’t sell, or doesn’t sell for $3 million dollars, our city services won’t be impacted by any shortfall. We can also take away from this experience the clear understanding that city staff must be held to much higher standards, and be expected to present financial data that are absolutely accurate. Otherwise, Council members and taxpayers can’t make informed decisions about how best to spend the money we have, or the money we borrow.

Popularity: 31% [?]

February 13, 2010

The Politics of Temper: Making Ann Arbor Stronger and More Resilient

Filed under: politics — Tags: , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 7:35 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

I turned 49 this year. I am the Publisher and CEO of a national higher education publishing group headquartered here in Ann Arbor. No other academic publisher in the country publishes the kinds of books or serves the audience we do. Half of the country’s 5,000 colleges and universities are our customers. About four years ago, I brought all of our book printing work back to Michigan, because I wanted to support the state economy. As luck would have it, I was able to hammer out a great contract with Joe Upton at Malloy Printing, on Jackson and Zeeb.  Malloy, is a family business owned by the Uptons. Joe Upton, VP of Sales and Marketing, served on Ann Arbor City Council in 2000, and I was pleased to work with him on the YMCA’s Strong Kids fundraising campaign last year. 

If there is one personality trait of which I am proudest, it’s my ability to be be forward-thinking. Our company has had a web page since 1992. I worked with our programmer to design our own online micro-payment system to sell individual magazine articles to readers before PayPal was a common noun, and “leverage content” became a publishing industry catch-phrase. I moved our print magazine online five years ago, well before The Christian Science Monitor and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer did so. It’s sometimes difficult to be forward-thinking. I often spend lots of time convincing my colleagues and employees that change is just a synonym for success. Someone posted in a comment to AnnArbor.com (an overall positive comment) that I seem to lack temper. I found this interesting, particularly because the word “temper” has a several meanings. I’ll list them:

1 : to dilute, qualify, or soften by the addition or influence of something else : moderate <temper justice with mercy>
2 archaic a : to exercise control over : govern, restrain b : to cause to be well disposed : mollify<tempered and reconciled them both — Richard Steele>
3 : to bring to a suitable state by mixing in or adding a usually liquid ingredient: as a : to mix (clay) with water or a modifier (as grog) and knead to a uniform texture b : to mix oil with (colors) in making paint ready for use 
4 a (1) : to soften (as hardened steel or cast iron) by reheating at a lower temperature (2) : to harden (as steel) by reheating and cooling in oil b : to anneal or toughen (glass) by a process of gradually heating and cooling
5 : to make stronger and more resilient

So which did the writer mean? I suspect it was the first, “to moderate,” as in tempering justice with mercy. I find it interesting that number 4 a & b present opposite meanings of the word. One can temper something to make it harder or softer.

Does Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lack temper? Did Democratic Texas Governor Ann Richards? How about Mother Jones? It’s an interesting question, particularly given that Ann Arbor has only had two women mayors over the past 160 years. Is temper really the question?

You tell me.

Part of my job for the past two decades has been to comment on higher education policy for a variety of national magazines and newspapers. Getting Americans to care about higher education policy on a level that is both fundamental and immediate is a challenge. Several years ago, I was a guest on Terry Gross’s NPR program Fresh Air, and the host, after the show, actually complimented my lack of temper. Evidently, higher education policy wonks can be a stultifying and tweedy lot. I was not. If anything, I’ve been willing, for the sake of my work, to write and speak in ways that can clash with what we might call “Midwest nice.” I have no problem dealing with conflict, if a situation demands it. Part of this was born through 16 years of officiating high school and recreational sports.

When I began officiating in the mid-70s, in high school, only about 10 percent of all sports officials in the country were women. More than a few times I walked onto the field or court, and was the first and only woman official the players had ever seen. Officiating sports tempered me (as in definition number 5, above). There is nothing so disconcerting as knowing that the minute you open your mouth, half of the people are going to be irked. “The ball was fair. The catch was inbounds. The home team was the last to touch the basketball. The blocker was in the net.” There is nothing so powerful as being able to live with the fact that people will be irked, because you are confident that you made the right call. There is nothing so powerful as being able to admit a mistake, because you know your job is to make the right call, not to simply be right, but to be just, fair and impartial.

I am choleric, for those who ascribe to the Four Temperaments theory, a doer. I am very ambitious, energetic and passionate, and I like nothing better than to try to instill those things in others. 

This is part of why I believe that local politics is so important, too important to be excluded from the day-to-day conversations about politics that we have. It was the great Tip O’Neill, long-time Speaker of the House, whose father told him that “All politics is local.” O’Neill had lost a city council race, and his father had explained that though O’Neill had worked hard in other sections of the city, he’d neglected his own backyard, his own neighborhood.

Ann Arbor’s own backyard has been neglected for a decade. We’re the fifth largest city in Michigan, but our growth has stagnated, our tax base is overburdened. Ann Arbor can’t possibly hope to grow, lead or build on the natural advantages we have unless we stop neglecting our own backyard, our roads, our infrastructure, and our neighborhoods, and start spending the tax dollars we have responsibly. Do I lack temper?

That’s depends on how you define the word.

Popularity: 28% [?]

February 11, 2010

The Politics of Blame: The Root of Our City’s Financial Woes? Why George W. Bush, Naturally.

Filed under: city council, money — Tags: , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 1:48 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

Let’s just make something perfectly clear. George W. Bush is not the current City Administrator in Ann Arbor. Neither is Ronald Reagan. Now that we got that fact established, we can move right along. This will come up later, so don’t doze.

It’s a pretty straightforward relationship between the taxpayer and her/his city government. You pays your taxes and you gets you services. Well, except in Ann Arbor, according to a recent lecture by our City Administrator. According to Rog-a-nomics: You pays your money, and if you write, call, email and appear before Mayor, Council and the City Administrator wearing a hair shirt, on your knees, and beg them not to cut a particular service, you maybe gets your services. 

According to the City Charter, our City Administrator serves at the pleasure of Mayor and City Council. From the Charter:

“The City Administrator shall be the administrative agent of the Council, shall perform the duties of office under its authority, and shall be accountable to the Council for the performance of those duties.” 

It’s an incredible disservice to the taxpayers that few on City Council understand the dynamics of that relationship as it is defined by the City Charter, and the very important responsibility they have to actively hold the City Administrator accountable for the performance of his duties. This ongoing dilemma was never made so clear as it was during City Administrator Roger Fraser’s unchallenged lecture on Monday February 8th during a working session of Council.

At that meeting, Fraser stood before a mute Mayor and Council and pontificated thusly: “I’ve noticed something about Ann Arbor residents: They seem to care more about parks than they do public safety.”

Mr. Fraser went on to elaborate on the basis of his broad and somewhat disturbing generalization:

“It’s amazing to me, for example, that other than a few thinly disguised firefighters on the blogs, there was not a whole lot of conversation in the community about our potential layoff of firefighters. And we took 20-some police officers out of the organization last spring and—except for Main Street expressing their concern about bike patrols—we’ve had very little other input into what happened in terms of safety services.”

May I point out that Mr. Fraser announced his intention to lay-off those firefighters on a Friday evening (no newspapers published on that day, other than the Michigan Daily) and told Council they had two days to respond? I would submit that one weekend is not sufficient time to inform the public, and elicit feedback about how they might feel about the proposed cuts. One weekend is not enough time to inform Council about such a serious public safety issue and for Council members to formulate informed responses.

Roger Fraser’s announcement was a double dog dare, and no one on Council was willing to go toe-to-toe in public with the City Administrator over the issue of public safety. It’s time to stop our City Administrator from bullying and badmouthing the women and men who are charged with the safety of 112,000 citizens and billions of dollars worth of public property. According to audited financial statements on the city web site, it costs $13 million dollars more today to fund public safety services than it did in 2006. That is a $13 million dollar pay gap that needs to be negotiated. Goading the unions is not the way to get this done.

Is the management tactic of our City Administrator to berate the people who pay his generous salary and benefits, and cut services until people “care” enough to write, call and email? Do citizens have to let Mr. Fraser, Mayor and Council know that we “care” enough to have public safety services funded at levels deemed safe? By that logic, there must be a pile of emails somewhere in IT that have poured in over the past few years begging, nay demanding, for Mayor and Council to reward Mr. Fraser with salary increases in the form of lump sum payments, additional vacation and opportunities to cash out unused vacation time. There must be hundreds of emails pleading with Mr. Fraser to take pay raises as he systematically decimated our public service and public safety departments to pay for ballooning managerial overhead.

Ann Arbor residents don’t care about public safety? Bollocks. Of course we do. Deeply. It’s about time someone told Roger Fraser this in no uncertain terms. 

In September 2009 in the northwest part of town, people were exceptionally concerned about their own public safety. So was Channel 4 News. The television station sent a reporter to Ann Arbor to do a special feature about the crime wave. Daylight break-ins, dozens of them, prompted residents to contact the Mayor, police and City Council members. 

What residents who wrote to the Mayor got back was misleading and patently false information about crime in our city. One neighbor forwarded the Mayor’s response to me at A2Politico. I wrote about it here. “Crime is down,” the Mayor assured the resident whose house had just been broken into in broad daylight. The Mayor went on to write: “The number of officers on Patrol in our City is the same as it has been for several years and they will be paying special attention to your area. As I explained to someone else who wrote earlier today, crime statistics continue on a long term downward trend in our city.”

I then researched the most recent FBI crime statistics. Those statistics showed that crime in Ann “wasn’t on a long term downward trend.” Quite the opposite. On September 14, 2009 I posted an entry titled, “FBI Contradicts Hieftje’s Claim That Crime Is Down.” AnnArbor.com picked up the entry, and the Mayor and Police Chief Barnett Jones then had to backtrack and explain that, yes, crime in Ann Arbor had jumped in several categories, including rape, burglary, larceny and property crime.

Is it any wonder people don’t write to our current Mayor and Council members? Why bother? The response will be little than gobbledygook and, perhaps, even outright deception. It’s entirely possible in his weekly lunch meetings with Police Chief Jones and City Administrator Fraser, no one bothered to mention to the Mayor that crime was up significantly  in Ann Arbor in September 2009. It’s also entirely possible that they all knew very well that crime was up. It’s possible they wanted to keep a lid on the situation, since police officers had recently been let go, just a couple of months earlier, and Chief Jones had been quoted in the Press in July 2009, as being somewhat irked at the notion that having fewer police might lead to a rise in crime. Main Street merchants were quoted in the Press in July 2009 as complaining about increased panhandling on Main Street thanks to the loss of the beat and bike officers.

There is, of course, a more important lesson to be learned from Roger Fraser’s bizarre summation concerning the lack of interest he perceives on the part of Ann Arborites with respect to their own public safety: he has little respect for the people of Ann Arbor, and even less respect for the City Council and Mayor whom he serves. Why should he respect Mayor and Council? They can be counted to sit back, meekly, and say nothing as the Administrator blames the Bush and Reagan administrations for the economic woes of our city. 

Ryan Stanton writes, “At one point, Fraser criticized the failed policies of the Bush administration for contributing to the mess cities like Ann Arbor are in. He said Bush placed higher priority on investing in war than on domestic spending. Fraser said the federal philosophy of less government started with the Reagan administration and has trickled down to local governments that now are struggling to provide basic services.”

The cost of running our city has increased by $34 million dollars since 2006 due to the fiscal policies of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan? Remarkably, the answer to that question is yes, according to our City Administrator.

Just to be clear, long-dead Chairman Mao is the reason I bounced my last check. It had nothing to do with fact that there wasn’t enough money in the account.

As I wrote in this piece based on the audited financial statements provided by the City on its web site, state revenue sharing is down from $21 million per year to $11 million per year, but property tax revenues are up. More importantly, the cost of running our city government is up 35 percent.

 All the information is from CAFR statements posted to the city’s web site:

Year Property Tax Revenue State Shared Revenues Business-type Activities Total Revenue Total Expenses Total Debt Service
2002 58,095,088 21,877,296 46,978,051 155,479,402 135,016,056 1,029,598
2006 62,017,866 12,604,477 73,539,483 176,649,150 144,522,183 1,539,263
2009 69,994,107 11,102,183 68,882,686 190,244,281 184,811,290 3,229,523

You’ll note that between 2002 and 2009 property tax revenues rose. Now, look right to the “Business-type activites” column. First, you’re thinking, “what the heck are ‘business type activities’ that bring revenue to the city?” Good question, I’m glad you asked. Those activities include: water, sewer, parking, Farmer’s Market, golf courses, airport, stormwater management. and solid waste (i.e. trash and recycling) removal.

Should Ann Arbor taxpayers be expeced to email, write, call, and petition on bended knee for every service? Isn’t it a given that Ann Arbor taxpayers, who pay some of the highest per capita property taxes in the state of Michigan, should be able to expect a full complement of city services to be provided?

I think so. 

The City Administrator, Roger Fraser, is clearly confused. He’s under the impression that Ann Arbor citizens need to tell him that we want police and fire coverage.

Yes, Mr. Administrator, we would like police and fire coverage.

He seems to be under the impression that if people don’t keep in regular touch to reaffirm this, it must mean the citizens of Ann Arbor just don’t care enough. Call me self-centered, but I’m busy trying to get my 7th grader out the door in the morning, and the 4th grader stuffed into his snow suit every day of the week. That’s my job. Roger Fraser’s job is to make sure there will be a fully funded roster of police and firefighters on the job. The job of Mayor and Council is to make sure Roger Fraser is doing his job.

Ann Arbor’s budget is in crisis because, since 2002, Roger Fraser has crafted budgets that allocated every dime he managed to squeeze out of taxpayers, and has done so without being held accountable for the results of his consistent over-spending. Yes, state profit sharing is down, but expenses are up $34 million dollars since 2006. 

Our City Administrator’s contract guarantees him a six-figure dollar golden parachute if he leaves. That needs to be changed, because with it he’s got nothing to lose. Taxpayers, however, will continue to lose services until we have people on Council who have a clear understanding of what it means to hold the City Administrator accountable. What follows comes from a piece posted to AnnArbor.com on January 19, 2010.  Do you think these actions by Mayor and Council qualify as holding Mr. Fraser accountable? I certainly don’t, and wouldn’t have agreed to any of the pay raises given past 2004. 

Fraser was hired in 2002 with a salary of $133,000. In December 2004, he received a 3 percent raise retroactive to July 2004.

In December 2005, he received a 3 percent raise retroactive to July 2005 and 10 extra vacation days, which can be exchanged for cash. In February 2007, he received a one-time payment of $8,479.48, plus a life insurance policy worth twice his salary.

In November 2007, the City Council approved a lump sum payment of $4,361 and five extra vacation days. In October 2008, the council approved giving Fraser another lump sum payment of $3,634 and the ability to cash out 150 hours of vacation, sick or personal time.

This past November, Fraser’s contract was revised again to include a clause that allowed him to cash out an additional 120 hours of accumulated paid time off before June 30, 2010.

Popularity: 33% [?]

February 8, 2010

The Politics of Priorities: Firefighters, Police or Capital Improvements?

Filed under: money — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 10:13 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (11 votes cast)

On Sunday February 7, 2010, citizens read in AnnArbor.com that our City’s General Fund is projected to come up $5.2 million dollars short due to falling property tax revenue. The bulk of the cuts proposed to close the fiscal gap will impact public safety. City officials informed taxpayers that, “On the chopping block are 20 positions in the Fire Department and 17 in the Police Department.”

Cutting emergency and other citizen services is an absolutely unacceptable and unnecessary solution to closing this projected gap in the budget. We should also remember that since 2003 City Administrator Roger Fraser has repeatedly predicted there will be losses in the General Fund, and when the actual numbers have come in, the city’s General Fund has registered surpluses. The only exception was 2009, when Fraser projected a $10.4 million dollar General Fund deficit related to the early retirement of 27 police officers, and the cost of the police/courts building. That projected loss was inflated by $2 million dollars. Such consistent inflation of losses brings into question the budgeting processes used, as well as the fiscal assumptions relied upon by the City Administrator when making budget predictions. This is a serious issue that needs to be resolved. Projecting loses

I have over 20 years of experience in finance as the CEO of a national higher education publishing group headquartered in Ann Arbor. I’ve studied the City’s budget, its audited financial statements, as well the Budget Impact document released to City Council members on Friday February 5th. There’s an obvious alternative to cutting services in order to close that budget gap.

Cut Capital Improvement Projects NOT Police and Firefighters

The City’s Economic Development Fund is slated to contribute over $5 million dollars for the Fuller Intermodal Trasportation Station (FITS). Thus far, the only source of revenue for the Economic Development Fund has been a $2.1 million dollar transfer from the General Fund. The City’s General Fund pays for our emergency services. FITS was described in the Ann Arbor Observer by the city’s Transportation Director, Eli Cooper, and by the Mayor, as a gamble. I’m not a gambling woman when the safety of our citizens and the jobs of our police and firefighters are on the line. At the moment, FITS is a proposed 1,000 car parking garage for U of M, bus stop, and parking for a few bikes. Our city doesn’t have the cash on hand to partner with the University on the FITS project. It’s irresponsible to lay off police and firefighters so that millions can be diverted from the General Fund to the Economic Development Fund to pay for a parking garage for U of M employees and visitors. The remaining money in the Economic Development Fund should be transferred back to the General Fund. 

When the current administration approved the police/court facility bonds in 2008, Ann Arborites were assured the projected expenditure wouldn’t impact the delivery of services. Today, thanks to the city’s inability to sell a parcel of land included in the project’s financing package, the project faces a $3 million dollar shortfall. In 2009, Ann Arbor lost 27 police officers through $6.7 million dollar early retirement offer—some of our most experienced police officers. It’s time to economize significantly, wherever possible, on the design, finishes and furnishings of the police/court facility, and to look for additional savings on that project. In addition, the downtown library underground garage project should be suspended. It represents an absolutely unnecessary capital expenditure.

In the recently released 2008-2013 Capital Improvements Plan, the plan calls for cuts to improvements in parks, street repair and the sanitary sewer system, and a $5 million dollar increase to alternative transportation, the FITS project. It’s called robbing Peter  to built the FITS for the University of Michigan.

We have 187 miles of roads that are classified as in poor condition. The Stadium bridges are, literally, falling down. Because the repairs of the bridges were put off, our city lost $750,000 in federal funding, and now must use its road repair money on the bridge. 

Here’s how we can clean up this mistake.

I’m in favor of halting the Library Lot underground parking garage project. According to officials from the SEC, those Library Lot bonds may be repurposed. We could, then, use half  of the Library Lot bonds to reconstruct the Stadium bridges. We could then invest the remaining bond money in Treasury bills for the mandatory five year waiting period before the bonds could be repaid early. There will be a penalty for early repayment ($4-$8 million dollars). The Downtown Development Authority has $14 million dollars, collectively, in its Parking and DDA Funds. The penalty not covered by the interest earned over the five years the bond money was invested in T-bills, would be made up by taking the money from the DDA’s funds. Taxpayers would save, approximately, $50 million dollars over 30 years.

The Stadium bridges would be reconstructed. Our street millage money would, then, be freed up to repair our crumbling streets.

Popularity: 39% [?]

Older Posts »
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes