Sometimes it is Difficult to say ‘No’

Two of the City of Ann Arbor’s parks millages—one for capital improvements and one for maintenance—are about to expire.  Over the past few months, the city has been developing a new millage proposal and I have been attending the meetings and community forums that have been held to provide input on behalf of the Chamber and its members. 

Sometimes in my job and in this column I am critical of City of Ann Arbor policies and processes.  Let me be the first to say that city staff did an outstanding job taking input and running a transparent process. 

Furthermore, City Council was willing to consider input on the proposal before it went on the ballot.  For example, the Chamber wanted to make sure the city could not ask taxpayers for more parks millage revenue and also have the option to significantly reduce parks funding in the general fund budget.  City Council agreed and linked general fund parks funding to non-safety services funding in the City Budget.   This protects taxpayers and gives the city some flexibility to make budget decisions while maintaining fire and police services as a core city service. 

The two expiring parks millages together amount to .91 mills.  City staff’s replacement plan called for combining the two millages into one millage at 1.25 mills.  We think combining the two into one millage is a good idea.  It gives the city the ability to concentrate more on maintenance, but they still have the flexibility to shift this focus year to year.  The Chamber let the city know that we would support one millage at a renewal rate of .91, but we would not support a 37% increase to 1.25 mills.  City Council agreed that 1.25 mills was too high and if you live in Ann Arbor, you will have a chance to vote on a 1.1 mill parks millage on Tuesday, November 7.

The city did a number of things to make this a good proposal, but the Chamber does not support the millage on the ballot.  We believe overall that it should have been a renewal at .91 mills.  Now is not an appropriate time to ask for a 20% increase over the previous millage. 

Is it hard to say no in this case?  Absolutely.  But at the beginning of 2006, the Chamber set a goal to ensure effective and efficient government spending.  That is why we believe firmly that the City must provide a high level of services in the parks at the current rate.  We are still concerned that increasing health care and pension costs are the cost drivers that push the city and local governments to seek higher millages and still must be addressed.

So why don’t I just write about the reasons to love it or hate it and keep it simple.  Because it’s not simple.  The truth is the city did a great job putting together the 2006 Parks Millage and did a number of things to make it good, sound policy.  Had it been a renewal and not an increase, we would have supported it.