Which transportation millage approach should Ann Arbor choose for 2027 through 2032?

City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Michigan Transportation Tax Policy

Ann Arbor’s November ballot contains two separate transportation tax proposals for 2027 through 2032. Proposal A would replace the expiring authorization with a tax of up to 2.125 mills for streets, bridges, and sidewalk repair and construction. Proposal B would replace a separate expiring authorization of up to 0.20 mills for new sidewalks. Residents can vote independently on each proposal. A millage is a property-tax rate based on taxable value. Continuing these authorizations would provide dedicated revenue for the specified work. Rejecting one would require the city to adjust its program, find another funding source or return with a different proposal. It would not remove the underlying need to maintain safe and useful public routes. The policy choice concerns both maintenance and the extension of a connected walking network. Supporters of both proposals emphasize continuity and access; others prefer a smaller tax commitment focused on the larger repair program or a broader reconsideration of funding. This poll compares those directions while keeping the two actual ballot decisions separate. A route is useful only if people can travel it safely, whether they drive, walk or use a mobility aid. I want the city to explain which work the larger levy supports and what the smaller sidewalk levy adds. Residents should be able to weigh both commitments without treating them as one inseparable package.

Overall results

63% support · excluded by 5%

Repair and new connections serve different parts of a useful transportation network. I would renew both funding sources so the city can maintain what exists while addressing gaps that make walking difficult. The city should publish project priorities and progress, because dedicated revenue is valuable only when residents can see how it improves everyday travel.

A missing sidewalk can leave people with poor choices even when the adjacent street has been repaired. Continuing both levies gives the city tools to address existing deterioration and incomplete pedestrian routes. I would require clear safety criteria for choosing projects, rather than assume every new segment or every repair has the same urgency.

57% support · excluded by 10%

Maintaining streets, bridges and existing routes should come first when households face competing costs. I would continue the larger levy and ask the city to make a separate, stronger case for new sidewalk spending. That approach preserves substantial transportation funding while giving residents another opportunity to judge the scale and timing of additional construction.

Reliable existing infrastructure supports daily trips and commerce. Keep the principal repair program funded, then evaluate new sidewalk projects against specific benefits and realistic costs. I do not oppose every new connection; I prefer a narrower commitment until the city shows which additions deserve priority and how they fit with the repair schedule.

23% support · excluded by 10%

Dedicated taxes can make programs continue without a fresh comparison with other city responsibilities. I would let these authorizations expire and require a broader budget discussion about essential work, alternatives and costs. The city still needs to maintain public routes, but the existence of an expiring levy should not settle how that obligation is financed.

Residents should be able to demand a clearer account of results before extending years of taxation. I would reject both proposals and ask for a revised funding plan with explicit priorities and tradeoffs. That creates a difficult transition, but it may be necessary if the current approach has not earned a household’s confidence.

About the author

Anonymous

#gqfPh4mxM4