Ypsilanti property owners could pay about $100 next year for streetlights
Property owners in Ypsilanti are another step closer to footing most of the city’s streetlight bill and costs for installing new lights.
By a vote of 4-1, the City Council Tuesday night approved a “resolution of necessity” for a special assessment streetlight district that would impose a flat fee on residents and businesses to pay the city’s DTE bill and pay for new LED street lighting.
But officials stressed the fee is not a new tax — it’s a fee residents will pay the city in return for a service, they said.
As the city struggles to balance its budget over the long term, the fee would bring in an additional $400,000 annually to pay for lighting.
Mayor Paul Schreiber, Council Member Ricky Jefferson, Council Member Pete Murdock and Council Member Dan Vogt voted in favor of it. Council member Brian Robb voted against.
If the new fee gets final approval as proposed, a parcel owner will pay an estimated $98 in fiscal year 2014 and $92 in fiscal year 2015. That figure will drop to $84 through fiscal year 2020 and $67.51 through fiscal year 2031.
“There is a big demand on us to do this. We will be the first in the state to convert all our lights from sodium vapor to LED,” said City Manager Ralph Lange.
Those estimates do not include projected increases in the cost of electricity, though Lange noted that the city will be using much less electricity.
Switching to LED lights will cut the city’s electric bill from $515,000 annually to an estimated $400,000 annually. The conversion from current lighting to LED will take place over the next two years and will cost approximately $555,000, which will be amortized over seven years.
Costs for conversion to LED along with operation and maintenance will be divided equally and assessed among 4,812 of the city’s 4,951 parcels. The city will pay for 23 percent of all capital costs and operating and maintenance costs in the first year and 20 percent after.
Lange said the tax runs through 2031 because that is when Water Street debt should be retired and the city will be in a better financial position.
“We’re not taking it one second more than we need it,” Lange said.
Water Street refers to property the district bought up hoping to attract mixed-use development. The plans never materialized, and the city has been saddled with debt from the property.
Officials previously thought Eastern Michigan University’s parcels couldn’t be exempt, but City Attorney John Barr determined they are actually exempt.
Brian Robb
Council Member Brian Robb raised concerns that "arbitrarily" exempting Highland because they use very few lights will open the door for other residents to challenge the fee based on the same reason.
“Doesn’t it make it easier for people to ask if we are assessing this in a fair manner?” he asked. He and Council Member Pete Murdock also asked about the methodology for assessing and whether a flat tax was the fairest way to charge residents.
Murdock said he has already heard residents with two streetlights on their street breaking down their cost of operating the lighting with the new fee.
Alternate suggestions to a flat fee have included billing by lot size or charging a higher fee for businesses in commercial zones that use more streetlights.
“This is the fairest, cleanest way to do it and not overburden anybody. If you do the division, it keeps it under $100 for everyone," Lange said.
City Planner Teresa Gillotti said it would be easy to charge higher fees for businesses that benefit from large amounts of lights in Depot Town, for example, but it would be more difficult in areas where a residential property is near a commercial property. That would lead to questions over whether or not an adjacent residential propery really benefited from the lights.
“It was hard to make it clean outside of downtown and depot town areas,” she said.
Residents will have a chance to weigh in on the fee. If property owners representing more than 50 percent of the expected cost of the assessment file objections, the project may not proceed without the affirmative vote of four-fifths of all of the council members.
The timeline for approving the proposed district is as follows:
- Aug. 6: A first public presentation on the plan.
- Aug, 20: A public hearing regarding objections and review by the council.
- Sept. 3: A second public hearing regarding objections and confirmation by City Council.
Officials are also touting the environmental benefits of LED lights. The switch will save 500 metric tons of carbon emissions annually and is in line with the city’s climate action plan.
Comments
Peter
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 9:36 p.m.
How is this not a tax? Why have public hearings, they are going to take our money regardless of what we say.
Steve Pierce
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 5:02 p.m.
If EMU doesn't have to pay this Lighting Tax what about other groups? Are the Feds exempt? I don't think the Feds have any property in the City but are they exempt? What about State owned property? Will the County have to pay, will Public Schools have to pay, what about AATA owned property? Will the LIbrary have to pay? What about YCUA paying? YCUA has a number of parcels around town like the Water Tower and pumping stations. If YCUA has to pay, all they would do is up they City Surcharge to cover this fee which would mean City property owners are just paying more for lighting. No way residents in the Township will want to see their water bills go up to pay for a City tax on lighting. The City has already said churches and groups like Growing Hope will pay this new fee. Churches could get hit really hard as they often times own multiple parcels of land, they would have to pay $100 for each parcel of land, even if it is vacant. I could see a booming business in property owners consolidating their adjoining property into single parcels to avoid most of this tax, or I am sorry fee. Which would mean the city would have to raise the tax on everyone else to collect the same money. Brilliant!
Steve Pierce
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 4:47 p.m.
That means the business owner living in a huge house on North Huron Street will pay the same fee (it is really a tax because you can't opt out) as the 72-year old widower living on a fixed income of Social Security on Ypsi's southside. For the N Huron resident, it is dinner and drinks. For the senior citizen whose only income is social security, it is a 10 to 15% tax increase. It hardly seems fair to tax our most vulnerable residents.
Ypsi Eastsider
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 4:36 p.m.
"Lange said the tax runs through 2031 because that is when Water Street debt should be retired and the city will be in a better financial position." More evidence this has nothing to do with street lights and everything to do with getting residents to pay for Water Street when they already voted no.
YpsiLivin
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 4:19 p.m.
"There is a big demand on us to do this." From whom? Who is demanding that the City do this (besides Ralph Lange)? "We will be the first in the state to convert all our lights from sodium vapor to LED," Well, if there's such "demand" to do this, why would the unnamed demander(s) choose Ypsilanti over someplace like Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint, Saginaw, Ann Arbor or Lansing, all of which are larger, have more streetlights and consume more electricity? And why hasn't the oppressive "demand" for this solution caused these other cities to drop what they're doing, rush to get a new "assessment" levied and replace all of their streetlights? "We're not taking it one second more than we need it," Lange said. Project cost = $555K. Current electric bill for lights = $515K. Project savings from reducing consumption $115/yr. Break even point occurs in 2018. Tax continues until 2031, which coincides with the retirement of the Water Street bombs... er, bonds. "...it's a fee residents will pay the city in return for a service..." City residents already pay taxes to cover the cost of services. Does this open the door for new fees to cover police services, fire services, administrative services, garbage services, parks and recreation services, etc? You can look at anything the city does as a "service." The City Manager should explain why the new LED street lighting can't be paid for with the tax revenues that currently pay for the cost of the old sodium vapor lights. "This is the fairest, cleanest way to do it and not overburden anybody. If you do the division, it keeps it under $100 for everyone," Actually, if you're looking for fair, clean and easy, the best way to answer the question is to put it on the ballot and let the residents decide whether they want to support a 17-year assessment to pay for a project with a four-year return on investment.
TK2013
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 3:37 p.m.
How do we stop them, Goober? I'm sure a call to the Michigan Attorney General (AG) is a good start. The main Lansing number is (517) 373-1110. The Detroit office number is (313) 456-0240. I would simply question the legality of the proposed "flat fee" special assessment where the method of apportioning the cost of the stated improvement (street lighting) is not proportionate to the benefits conferred. The AG's office can certainly direct you to the appropriate agency and/or official to file your objection. I encourage all to do the same.
RUKiddingMe
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 2:52 p.m.
If I recall, Ann Arbor found out (after spending a bunch of money, I believe) that DTE actually didn't charge by kilowatt hour or whatever for city street lighting, but rather a service charge. So they didn't actually save any money from the LED replacement (in lights which, by the way, now have to be replaced and re-done due to rusting poles). Is this NOT the case for Ypsi? Also, I agree w/ other commenters that this is nothing better than a disingenuus money grab. Wish I could day it's the worst I've seen in a while, but they keep cropping up.
murph
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 4:33 p.m.
This has changed, yes. It was previously the case that DTE did not offer a separate rate for LEDs, and any savings had to be individually negotiated. However, enough other cities have now started LED conversion work with DTE that they've developed standardized rates for LED fixtures that do include lower energy usage and longer fixture life (hence lower maintenance costs). Therefore, the savings are now pretty real: the city & DTE did a batch of LED updates earlier this year of some of the worst-performing lights, with a really fast payback period -- the savings from the conversion should cover the cost of conversion within the first year and a half. (Try getting that return on your bank account...)
linuxtuxguy
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 2:21 p.m.
'But officials stressed the fee is not a new tax — it's a fee residents will pay the city in return for a service, they said.' 'Lange said the tax runs through 2031' So is this a tax or isn't it? If it's not a tax, why is EMU getting out on the technicality that it is tax exempt? It's not a tax, it's a fee in return for a service!
YpsiGreen
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 7:29 p.m.
So let's get this straight: the "fees" we pay for city services (i.e. police, fire) are not taxes? Then for what do we pay "taxes"? To fund "fee" collection? How "airline" like of you!
LXIX
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 2:17 p.m.
The program costs $555k and is amortized over seven years. The savings are $115k per year unless the lightpoles rust and fall over first. Watchout, that sneaky DDA move has already been tried once before. So it seems the program will pay for itself after seven years.. 7 x $115k = $805k savings and that's pretty darn tootin close to $555k Well, the bankers gotta eat too ya know. So what exactly are the residents being tapped for until 2031? Electricity? Not a tax because it is a "new" one-time expense.. Electricity wasn't used in Ypsi until recently after Edison so it's "new".. .Taxes are only for old expenses, fees are for new ones until they become old and then called taxes.. Good thing the City put in that backup solar array.
sesomai
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 2:03 p.m.
I was not excited about this, but I could see the benefit. Now that EMU will not be contributing this seems to just be another burden placed on homeowners and businesses. Ypsi property taxes are already extremely high, but we've been provided basic services. Lumping this new "fee" on to property owners is just too much. I'm seeing less and less of a reason to continue owning property in the area.
jayjay
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 1:45 p.m.
If the city of Ypsilanti were indeed worried about their financial picture instead of the "sexy solution", ie, LED lighting, they would have gone to Induction lighting. Induction lighting is cheaper up front, gives a truer light (less glare), costs at least the same if not less to operate, and is lower maintenance with a longer life (verified by the DOE) -- 100,000 vs 50,000 (and sometimes less) at best for LED. It is also my understanding that Induction lighting is preferable in cold weather climates, that LED performance can suffer when temperatures get below zero, not common in SE Michigan, but certainly possible. If you have any doubts about Induction lighting, ask yourself why the city of San Diego installed 32,000 induction lamps in its street light applications -- they did a major study of the various types of illumination including LED and then opted, based on their own analysis, for Induction lighting. If I were an Ypsilanti resident, I would be challenging the city council to prove the efficacy of their decision and use of taxpayer money.
murph
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 4:29 p.m.
If we look at lighting options in a vacuum, without considering any context, induction might compete well as an option. In the reality of southeast Michigan, though, DTE is providing a lot of support for LED conversions, but they've decided not to do induction fixtures. This means that LED offers the city economies of scale on the installation, as well as a much more efficient support system: for LED, DTE will maintain the lights, stock spare parts, etc, as part of their standard practice, but the city would be on its own to maintain the system if it decided to go with an "unsupported" option like induction.
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 1:42 p.m.
The notion of a flat fee is absurd and will disproportionally impact the residents who have limited or no street lighting, vs. those who greatly benefit from expansive street lighting. It would be easy and more fair to make the fee proportional to the value of the property. Also, if EMU will not pay the charges, do not provide them street lighting. Discontinue street lighting along EMU properties. They will very quickly come to the bargaining table with cash in hand. Grow a spine.
TK2013
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 1:36 p.m.
One has to wonder if our elected officials are aware of the requirements of creating a special assessment in the State of Michigan. While a special assessment bears some of the characteristics of a tax, it differs in that a special assessment may be levied only on land and may be imposed only to pay the cost of an improvement or service by which the assessed land is specially (as opposed to generally) benefited. The method of apportioning the cost of an improvement must be fair, just, equal and PROPORTIONATE TO THE BENEFITS CONFERRED. How could this legal requirement possibly be fulfilled by imposing a so-called flat fee across the board?
michael Limmer
Thu, Jul 18, 2013 : 1:29 a.m.
Flat tax is always the fairest. Hence the name Fair Tax. Except when it isn't.
TK2013
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 3:38 p.m.
See below, Goober. TK2013
Goober
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
Now, how do we stop them?
Carolyn
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.
How is that not a tax? Seriously, I am confused.
kevin
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 7:27 p.m.
It's not a tax because they say it's not a tax. Now get out your checkbook and keep quiet.
Cash
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 1:10 p.m.
I am curious.....could Ypsilanti City shut the street lights on EMU campus off so as not to incur non-reimbursed expenses? Is the City obligated to provide lighting to EMU if all others have to pay for it? I love EMU....but I do believe that everyone should pay their fair share and EMU is lit up like a Christmas tree at night year around.
joe golder
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 5:15 p.m.
Connect the lights surrounding campus to EMU elect grid! I wonder if any unused elect produced by their power plant is sold to DTE?
pseudo
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 1:05 p.m.
and the shells in this game have shifted as predicted... a) EMU is exempt - so previous advice was wrong b) the fee is now more than double the originally stated fee ( I believe it will go up again before this is "approved" ($100) c) its more permanent with each iteration - not just 8 years (which would put us at 2021) but now out 18 years to the end of water street (which means this is just about converting to save money but shifting a burden) Absolutely NO research presented on what lights are needed where and if some might be eliminated!! "unfortunate" is not a strong enough word. And we have to play this game of going to a meeting to individually object? Is that correct or can property owners object via a letter for the public record?
Faygo
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 12:53 p.m.
I am always impressed by the creativity of these men when it comes to destroying their city. A tax a day keeps new residents away.
PattyinYpsi
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 12:42 p.m.
Although I'm annoyed by the semantic games "officials" are playing in calling this tax a fee, I had decided it was a good idea--killing many birds with one not-too-onerous stone. Until I got to this: "Officials previously thought Eastern Michigan University's parcels couldn't be exempt, but City Attorney John Barr determined they are actually exempt." I am tired, as I think everyone in Ypsi is, of having those same officials bend over backwards to accommodate anything and everything that EMU wants while EMU pays no taxes and now pays no fee. Ridiculous! If EMU wants to contribute to good community relations, officials there should volunteer to chip in on this project. If no, no new streetlights for them!
joe golder
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 5:09 p.m.
They do get a free pass by their elected buddies in politics!
Hugh Giariola
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 12:20 p.m.
The 3rd paragraph states officials stressed this is a "fee" and not a tax, yet the 10th paragraph states "Lange said the tax runs through 2031 because that is when Water Street debt should be retired and the city will be in a better financial position."
Goober
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 11:53 a.m.
A wonderful idea. The Ypsi leadership just found another way to tax and spend. What's next - a fee for fire personnel, police, city employee benefits?
Billy
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 11:47 a.m.
Better make sure it's not the same company that did the streetlights here in Ann Arbor....they ripped us off BIG TIME.
jayjay
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 1:53 p.m.
Ann Arbor went LED, right? The LED lobby is out in front and has the ear of many people, making the decision to go LED quite easy. But if you compare it to Induction lighting and do an impartial analysis, for street lighting and parking lot applications, LED will lose every time. Induction lighting is not for all applications and there are specific applications where LED is indeed better, but LED clearly loses in the two applications cited above. But why should city council officials care -- it's not their money. If it were and they were to do a comparison of LED and Induction Lighting, their decision would have been different. The reality is that when you are moving away from High Pressure Sodium or Metal Halide lighting, both LED and Induction lighting will save you megabucks over time; it's just that induction lighting will save you more while giving you a more "eye-friendly" light.
Resident A2
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 11:33 a.m.
I don't understand why universities are exempt from paying property taxes, special assessments, etc. By dong this, it overburdens taxpayers because there are fewer taxpayers to share the cost. It just doesn't seem fair to me.
Glen S.
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 11:21 a.m.
If the plan includes a proportional (per square foot, or acre) charge on Ypsilanti's larger non-profit property owners -- including EMU -- then I support it. On the other hand, if this is just another way to concentrate the burden of paying for City services onto private homeowners, then I think this is a bad idea.
Murf
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 10:59 a.m.
"Officials previously thought Eastern Michigan University's parcels couldn't be exempt, but City Attorney John Barr determined they are actually exempt. " Good grief. I thought one of the main points of this idea was that EMU would be involved too. Go figure someone didn't get their facts completely straight again.
joe golder
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 5:05 p.m.
How about connecting all street lights adjacent to EMU's electric grid! When I look my window at midnight and see MJ and the library lit up I get upset knowing what little help the city gets from EMU!
beardown
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 4:08 p.m.
Who knows, maybe Barr will say they are not exempt at the next meeting? It seems to change day to day.