Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy county clerk and elections director, spoke with The Chronicle by phone and said that corrected ballots were currently being printed and would be provided to the city clerk’s office by noon on Monday, June 30 for mailing. The exact wording of the letter to voters accompanying the corrected ballots was being worked out by the county and city clerk’s offices. Updated at 5 p.m.: According to a followup email and interview with Golembiewski, the language in the letters will be based on a template that will be provided by the state Bureau of Elections. Roughly 400 ballots are being reprinted and re-mailed, Golembiewski said.

Dascola’s name will appear on the corrected ballot, along with those of Julie Grand and Samuel McMullen. In-person voting for the primary will take place on Aug. 5.

Golembiewski indicated that if a voter has already mailed in an incorrect ballot and subsequently mails in the corrected ballot, then their vote on the corrected ballot will be the one that is counted. Clerk’s staff is still reviewing how the scenario will be evaluated if a voter mails in only an incorrect ballot – marked with a vote for Grand or McMullen, or with a write-in vote for Dascola.  Updated at 5 p.m.: According to a followup email and interview with Golembiewski, the state of Michigan’s Bureau of Elections has indicated that if someone mails in only the incorrect ballot, then their Ward 3 vote on the incorrect ballot should not be counted. Their votes in other races, however, should be counted. [.pdf of email from Michigan Dept. of State confirming procedures for handling this situation]

Golembiewski estimated the ballpark cost of reprinting the ballots at around $3,000. Updated at 5 p.m.: According to a followup interview with Golembiewski, the county’s third-party ballot programmer, Government Business Systems (GBS), has expressed some openness to helping to pay for the cost of reprinting ballots. All ballots for Ward 3 will need to be reprinted, including those that were to be used for in-person voting on Election Day.

Golembiewski noted that there’s “a ton of proofing” that goes into checking the ballots. The omission of Dascola’s name stemmed from an extended chain of events that ultimately resulted in the incorrect ballots being sent out.

Dascola’s name was initially not included in the information provided to the county’s third-party ballot programmer – Government Business Systems (GBS). But when a federal court ruling was made last month on May 20, 2014, that the city charter’s eligibility requirements were not enforceable, the new Ward 3 candidate slate – including Dascola – was provided to GBS. Proofs of the ballots were then sent to the county clerk and the city clerk as well as to the candidates. Those proofs included Dascola’s name – so the ballots survived those checks.

Then, a change to the ballots was requested by the city of Ypsilanti – to remove city council races from Ypsilanti ballots where there was not a contested race. This is a city charter provision – that when there’s not more than one candidate for a primary race, it’s not included on the ballot. But instead of removing the Ypsilanti council races, GBS removed the city of Ann Arbor council races. The proofing process identified that error. But in restoring the Ann Arbor city council races to the ballot, GBS reverted to the initial slate – which did not include Dascola’s name.

At that point, Golembiewski said, the mistake was missed – by him and by the county election commission, which consists of the county clerk (Larry Kestenbaum), county treasurer (Catherine McClary) and the chief probate judge (Darlene O’Brien). A resident who received the incorrect ballot identified the error.

When the clerk’s office was notified on the morning of June 27, Golembiewski said he immediately focused on getting the mistake corrected.

The permanent parking sign in front of Ann Arbor’s Mary Street polling station – for voters in Ward 4, Precinct 2 – reflects the building’s long-time use on election days.

This year, Ann Arbor city council seats have contested Democratic primaries in four of the five wards – but in Ward 3, incumbent Christopher Taylor is unopposed. There are no contested Republican primaries.

The four-way non-partisan race for 22nd circuit court judge is also on the ballot, with the top two vote-getters advancing to the November election.

Some Ann Arbor residents also get to vote in a contested Democratic primary for Washtenaw County commissioner in District 7, as well as for the county’s water resources commissioner.

For all of you procrastinators who are still researching the candidates, here’s a link to Chronicle coverage of the local races for Ann Arbor city council, District 7 county commissioner, county water resources commissioner, and 22nd circuit court judge.

Not sure where to vote? To find your polling place and view a sample ballot for your precinct, visit the Secretary of State’s website.

Check back here throughout the day for briefs filed from the field, or add a comment with your own election day observations.

7:10 a.m. Ward 5, Precinct 2 (Bach School, 600 W. Jefferson St.): I am voter number 2. Campaign reps are not yet in place when I enter, but on exiting a group of three is standing at the 100-foot limit with their candidate’s lit. Alex is encouraging people to vote for Carol Kuhnke for 22nd circuit court judge, and Steph is ready to hand people a brochure for Erane Washington, also for 22nd circuit court judge. John Katarski, an Ann Arbor public art commissioner, is campaigning for Ward 5 council candidate Chuck Warpehoski.

As we chat, Evan Pratt arrives and leaves after planting his campaign yard sign with the others that are already there. Pratt is running for water resources commissioner. Former planning commissioner Erica Briggs rolls up on her bicycle headed towards the polls.

7:25 a.m. Ward 1, Precincts 5-6 (Northside School, 912 Barton Drive): Carol Kuhnke, candidate for 22nd circuit court judge, comes out of the school after voting. She shows me a photo on her iPhone of her completed ballot – yes, she voted for herself. Phillis Engelbert, co-owner of the Lunch Room at Mark’s Carts, is here too – her son attended this school. The Lunch Room is running an election day special: Wear your “I Voted” sticker and get a free cookie. “We’d be happy to give away a lot of cookies,” she says. Inside, about 20 voters have passed through so far. There’s some discussion among poll workers about bathrooms – a moment of panic upon discovery that the staff bathroom was locked. Smaller kid-sized toilets will have to suffice.

8:10 a.m. Ward 1, Precinct 9 and Ward 2, Precinct 6 (Clague Middle School, 2616 Nixon Rd.): Mike Woodyard, a candidate for 22nd circuit court, is greeting folks in the parking lot after they voted. He’s not on the ballot until November, but is laying the groundwork for that election against incumbent Tim Connors. There are six other candidate reps handing out literature for Evan Pratt, John Dingell, Andy LaBarre, Christina Montague and Erane Washington. The volunteer for Pratt’s campaign is also giving out  candy.

Inside the school gym, poll workers for each precinct report about 18 voters have come through so far. The main issue has been spoiled ballots – you can vote for either Democrat or Republican candidates, not both. Several people have had to vote again after their first ballots were rejected by the scanner.

8:35 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 9 (Thurston School, 2300 Prairie St.): It’s been slow – about 20 voters in the first 90 minutes. Poll workers are happy that this year they’re set up in an air-conditioned computer lab. The 2011 August primary was located in the school’s multi-purpose room with no AC, and it was stifling.

8:53 a.m. Ward 1, Precinct 8 (Skyline High School, 2552 N. Maple Rd.): “Is it time for lunch, yet?” asks one poll worker. It is not. They’re on voter number 28. Outside, the Skyline football coach instructs players that when they come inside from practice for snacks, they should use doors on the side so as not to conflict with activity at the polls. Campaigns for Carol Kuhnke and Doug McClure for judge are represented in person. Dan Smith’s sign for county commissioner draws from a color palette that’s unlike most of the other signs – light orange and black. It’s agreed they “stand out.”

It’s slow enough going inside that poll workers are now processing absentee voter ballots. Precinct delegates are on the ballot for this election, so all the ballots get processed at the precinct level. There won’t be any separate absent voter count boards that cut across entire wards.

9 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 7 (King School, 3800 Waldenwood Lane): Three dozen people have voted. Poll workers have started counting the 185 or so absentee ballots from their precinct. One worker thought there would be closer to 300 – could be a sign of a lower-than-normal turnout. A voter’s ballot is rejected – turns out he voted for two 22nd circuit court candidates, not just one, as the ballot indicates. There’s some confusion about that, as the top two vote-getters in that four-way race will advance to the Nov. 6 election. But you can only vote for one of them.

9:18 a.m. Ward 5, Precinct 10 (Abbot School, 2670 Sequoia Parkway): Joel Batterman outside campaigning for Chuck Warpehoski for Ward 5 city council. First two people approaching the building were not there to vote – as one was an employee at the school. The other woman, with a kid, responds to Batterman’s query about whether she’s voting elsewhere – by saying she’s not even sure what’s on the ballot.

9:35 a.m. Ward 3, Precincts 6 and 9 (Scarlett Middle School, 3300 Lorraine St.): Andy LaBarre, a candidate for District 7 county commissioner, is outside this Ward 3 polling station in his campaign’s distinctive green T-shirt. However, he’s somewhat upstaged by a representative of his opponent, Christina Montague, who is holding a cute baby girl. Inside, about three dozen people have voted at Precinct 9, but only two dozen at Precinct 6, which is set up across the gym. Despite fewer votes, one Precinct 6 poll worker jokes that “we’re more charming.”

A mother is voting with her two kids, and explains each step in the process. She is initially uncertain which precinct she lives in – a poll worker tells her it’s best to keep that information in mind before the Nov. 6 election, when it will likely be much busier because of the presidential race.

10:23 a.m. Ward 5, Precinct 4 and 5 (Slauson Middle School, 1019 W. Washington St.): Outside, a young woman campaigning for Carol Kuhnke reflects on her Kuhnke for Judge T-shirt and her intention to vote later. She’ll need to cover up the campaign message before entering the polling place. Wonders if it would suffice to turn it inside out.

Inside Jim Rees has just voted. He notes that he attended Slauson as a kid. The school still has the same bike racks as when he attended. A voter remarks to a poll worker that he’s glad election day is here – because he can now get the campaign signs out of the yard.

Poll workers engage in some “pro-active education” for voters who are receiving their ballots.

10:40 a.m. Ward 3, Precincts 4 and 7 (Allen School, 2560 Towner Blvd.): The only campaign volunteer on site is a rep  for Christina Montague, who exuberantly states that she hoped this would reflect the election outcome. A few minutes later volunteers for Andy LaBarre – including his wife Megan – return from a bathroom break. LaBarre and Montague are competing in the Democratic primary for District 7 county commissioner. It’s the only primary being contested for the county board.

Inside the school, Precinct 7 reports 61 voters so far, compared to 47 in Precinct 4. Peter Schermerhorn, a former Green Party candidate, is Precinct 7 chair and recalls a more dramatic primary in 2010, when he was at Scarlett Middle School during a tornado warning. To his surprise, he learned that there are no emergency shelters in the schools. The weather outlook today is considerably calmer.

10:57 a.m. Ward 5, Precinct 11 (Forsythe Middle School, 1655 Newport Rd.): Adam Zemke outside campaigning. He’s running for the Democratic nomination for 55th District state representative, along with Andrea Brown-Harrison. Voter departs precinct by telling poll worker: “Thanks for all the good work you folks do.” Spoiled ballots are a theme here, as in other precincts, as voters inadvertently try to vote both sides of the ballot. Procedure for spoiling ballot includes folding the ballot in half and inserting it into an envelope. They’re on voter 144. The observation “It’s a perfect square!” gets a laugh – so this is an easy crowd.

Poll worker notes that people seem more comfortable this time around getting their driver’s license scanned as a part of the electronic poll book record-keeping process. He was part of the pilot for the spring election, where EPBs were used in a limited number of precincts.

11:51 Ward 1, Precinct 4 (Community Center, 625 N. Main St.): Poll worker reading a book called “Leaky Boots” to pass the time. They’re on voter 42. Noon-time rush is not materializing. After five minutes of dead silence, no voters in the polling place, a voter arrives. Stop watch started. Thoughts: What if voting were an Olympic event? How would it be scored? Butterfly ballot, butterfly stroke. Four minutes 12 seconds measured from arrival at the door to crossing threshold on the way out. If she had not paused to peel the back off the “I voted” sticker and throw it away, she could have gone under four minutes. Not sure if that’d be a ward record.

12:45 p.m. Ward 4, Precincts 4 and 8 (Pioneer High School, 601 W. Stadium Blvd.): Daniel Marcin, a Democrat who’s challenging incumbent John Dingell for the District 12 U.S. House of Representatives seat, is one of only two people handing out campaign literature outside of Pioneer. The other is Margaret Connors, wife of incumbent 22nd circuit court judge Tim Connors – though he’s not on the ballot until Nov. 6. Margaret Connors, shading herself from the sun with a colorful umbrella, is supporting Carol Kuhnke in the other four-way judicial race for 22nd circuit court.

Signs point to the polling station for two Ward 4 precincts, located inside Pioneer’s BIG gym. In Precinct 4, 95 votes have been cast, compared to 45 in Precinct 8. It’s slow.

Outside, Marcin notes that he has replanted a Dingell sign that had fallen over, and Connors had done the same with a sign for Doug McClure, one of the candidates running against Kuhnke. There are no sign shenanigans here.

1:06 p.m. Ward 2, Precincts 3 and 4 (Angell School, 1608 S. University Ave.): Ward 2 city council candidate Sally Petersen and District 7 Washtenaw County commissioner candidate Andy LaBarre are chatting outside the polls as I roll up. Petersen is running against Tony Derezinski and LaBarre is running against Christina Montague. All are Democrats. Rebekah Warren is also here. She represents the 18th District in the Michigan Senate (which includes Ann Arbor) and does not need to run for re-election this year – so she’s here to help support LaBarre. Warren and Petersen introduce themselves to each other. Warren is married to Conan Smith, who is chair of the county board of commissioners but is not challenged in the Democratic primary.

Conversation turns to sports – lacrosse, marathoning … ice hockey. Petersen didn’t include college ice hockey in her campaign bio, but could have.

1:10 p.m. Ward 4, Precinct 9 (Lawton School, 2550 S. Seventh St.): One lone candidate rep is here – a volunteer for Carol Kuhnke’s campaign, standing in a patch of shade near the street. There have been 96 voters, not counting absentee ballots. A steady stream, but no lunchtime rush.

Carl Ent arrives. The former city police chief, who now works for the Bank of Ann Arbor, has no one ahead of him in line and dispatches with his civic duty quickly.

2:05 p.m. Ward 4, Precinct 7 and Ward 5, Precinct 7 (Dicken School, 2135 Runnymede Blvd.): There’s a significant size difference between these two precincts – which fall in different wards – and that’s reflected in the number of votes cast so far: 29 for Ward 5, and 184 for Ward 4, not including absentee ballots. One poll worker is knitting a lovely purple scarf.

Almost universally, poll workers are geeked about the new computerized poll books. One jokingly strokes the laptop and says: “We love the new box.” He then describes working the polls 30 years ago, when the large metal voting booths – with the curtains and analog levers – would have to be rolled in. One time a booth rolled over his foot and broke two toes, he recalls, so “I was glad to see those things scrapped.”

There’s a mini-rush of four voters. It’s their first encounter with the new system, which scans your driver’s license to pull up your voter information. While it’s way more efficient for poll workers, one voter offers a different view: “It’s a little creepy.”

This is the only polling station I’ve visited today where there were no volunteers from any campaigns handing out literature.

5:05 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 2 (Bach School, 600 W. Jefferson St.): Artist David Zinn is outside the school talking to the only campaign worker in sight – Bryan Weinert, the city’s former solid waste coordinator who’s handing out literature for Chuck Warpehoski. Soon another former city staffer walks up: Betsy Lindsley, retired executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, who’s precinct chair here. She’s back from a dinner break, with a bag from McDonald’s.

Inside, they’ve topped 200 voters, with 213 tabulated and another five or so waiting to vote.

5:30 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 6 (Eberwhite School, 800 Soule Blvd.): Of the roughly 1,500 registered voters in this precinct, 215 people have voted so far – that includes some of the absentee ballots. A poll worker expects whatever rush they might get to happen between 6-7 p.m.

Outside, there are no campaign workers but plenty of signs, including some for Republican races – Stuart Berry, who’s running unopposed in the Ward 5 city council primary, and for the two Republican candidates in the primary for District 12 U.S. Representative: Cynthia Kallgren and Karen Jacobsen.

5:50 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 1 (Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.): This precinct hasn’t topped 50 voters yet. With just over two hours left until the polls close, they’re at 47 votes, out of the nearly 1,300 registered voters in this precinct. Fred Beal of JC Beal Construction is on his way out, while a few minutes later sports columnist and raconteur John U. Bacon arrives. Only one of them was wearing a tie.

This precinct has the most distinctive display of the American flag, in two ways. Because they can’t affix it to the walls here in the library’s lower level, it’s draped artfully over a chair and placed under a light that acts as a spotlight behind the voting booths. The second visible flag is worn on the T-shirt of one of the poll workers – instead of stars, this flag is spangled with small corporate logos.

6:05 p.m. Ward 4, Precinct 2 (Mary St. Polling Place, 926 Mary St.): We wrap up this poll crawl with the city’s most distinctive polling station, featured in the photo at the beginning of this report. We’re greeted by poll workers who said they’ve been waiting all day for the two reporters who’ve visited them previously: from Al Jazeera and The Chronicle. It looks like The Chronicle will be the only repeat visitor.

Only 16 voters have walked through the door of this small ivy-covered building, which normally houses the Bird Center of Washtenaw. That alternative use had been highlighted earlier in the day, when FedEx delivered three large boxes of worms.

About an hour of voting time remain until the polls close at 8 p.m., but The Chronicle is packing it in until results start rolling in. We urge readers who haven’t already voted to get out and do so, and to check back with us later tonight for information on election outcomes. They’ll be published initially in the Civic News Ticker section of the website.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of elections to various public bodies. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Ann Arbor polling locations. Image links to Michigan Secretary of State website, where visitors can type in their names and find their exact polling locations.

Choices for most Washtenaw County offices will be easy for Democrats and Republicans alike – because many of the primaries are uncontested. Uncontested on either side of the ballot are races for prosecuting attorney (with no Republican on the ballot at all), county clerk and register of deeds, sheriff, and treasurer. Democrats, though, will have a choice will be between Harry Bentz and Evan Pratt to appear on November’s ballot as candidate for water resources commissioner. ["Who’ll Be Next Water Resources Commissioner?"]

Heavily contested is the countywide primary race for the 22nd Circuit Court judgeship, which will be open due to the retirement of Melinda Morris. Four candidates are competing for that position: Erane Washington, Doug McClure, Carol Kuhnke and Jim Fink. The top two vote-getters in the primary will appear on November’s ballot. ["22nd Circuit Court: Four-Way Primary Race"] The judicial race is non-partisan, so all voters can vote on that race – no matter which side of the ballot they choose for the rest of their votes.

Most of the primary races for the county board of commissioners are uncontested as well. But Democratic voters in District 7 will have a choice between Andy LaBarre and Christina Montague. ["District 7 Dems Vie for Washtenaw Board"]

And in Ann Arbor city council races, Democrats will have choices in four out of five wards. In Ward 1 Sumi Kailasapathy and Eric Sturgis are competing for the seat that incumbent Democrat Sandi Smith will be leaving. ["Ann Arbor Council Ward 1: Eric or Sumi?" and "Ward 1 City Council Race: Filling Sandi's Seat"]

In Ward 2, Democrats will have a choice between Sally Petersen and incumbent Tony Derezinski. ["Ann Arbor Council Ward 2: Sally or Tony?"]

In Ward 4, the Democratic side of the ballot will offer incumbent Margie Teall and challenger Jack Eaton. ["Ann Arbor Council Ward 4: Jack or Margie?"]

And in Ward 5, the seat that will be left open by Democrat Carsten Hohnke is contested by Chuck Warpehoski and Vivienne Armentrout. ["Ward 5 City Council: Studying, Listening" and "Ann Arbor Council Ward 5: Chuck or Vivienne?"]

Long since passed is the deadline to register to vote in tomorrow’s election. But eligible voters have until Oct. 9 to register to vote for the Tuesday, Nov. 6 general election. Information on voter registration can be found on the Washtenaw County clerk’s elections division website.

Carsten Hohnke, who was first elected in 2008 after defeating Armentrout in a close Democratic primary that year, announced on April 21 his decision not to seek re-election this year.

An Ann Arbor resident since 1986, Armentrout is a freelance writer and author of the Local in Ann Arbor blog, which focuses on the Ann Arbor area and frequently highlights public transit and other planning issues. She served on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners from 1997-2004.

In November 2010 she ran for a position on the board of trustees for the Ann Arbor District Library. She was one of four candidates – and the only non-incumbent – who vied for three seats with four-year terms. Armentrout finished fourth in that non-partisan four-way race, with 16,975 votes or 22.3% of total votes cast. That compared with percentages ranging from 24.2–26.8% for the three incumbents on the ballot, on which voters chose up to three out of four candidates.

On the same day that Hohnke announced his intent not to run again, Chuck Warpehoski indicated an interest in running for Hohnke’s open seat and subsequently pulled petitions for the Democratic primary. Warpehoski is the director of the local nonprofit Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice. His wife, Nancy Shore, is director of the getDowntown program, which is funded jointly through the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the city of Ann Arbor, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Republican Stuart Berry has also pulled petitions for the Ward 5 council race.

Each ward in the city is represented by two councilmembers. Ward 5 is also represented by Mike Anglin, who will be up for reelection in 2013.

For the Aug. 7 primary, the filing deadline for city council candidates with party affiliations is May 15 at 4 p.m. For independent candidates in the Nov. 6 general election, the filing deadline is July 19 at 4 p.m. More information about the filing process is available on the city clerk’s elections website.

Magenta dots indicate addresses of donors to the campaign of Ward 2 independent Jane Lumm. Overridge Drive is Lumm's home street, located near Huron Hills golf course, visible to the north in this image.

In an uncontested Ward 1 race, documents filed with the Washtenaw county clerk’s office show Democratic incumbent Sabra Briere raised $3,640 from 48 donors since the primary election (which for her was also uncontested).

In the contested Ward 3 race, Democratic incumbent Stephen Kunselman raised an additional $20 from one donor, bringing his total to $4,045 for this year’s election cycle. Kunselman prevailed in a three-way primary in August. Kunselman’s Republican challenger David Parker filed a waiver request – which is allowed if a candidate expects to spend less than $1,000.

In Ward 4, Democratic incumbent Marcia Higgins raised $1,075 from seven donors, compared with no contributions raised by her Republican opponent Eric Scheie. Scheie filed a negative balance (–$1,173.73), which earned him a notice of error from the county clerk’s office – the source of funds used to pay for expenditures must be given, even if it is a loan by the candidate to the campaign.

In Ward 5, Democratic incumbent Mike Anglin, who also had a contested primary, raised an additional $185 from three donors to bring his total this year to $7,405. Anglin’s Republican challenger Stuart Berry filed a waiver request.

In Ward 2, filing documents for Stephen Rapundalo show he raised an additional $4,420 since the primary, which was a contested race for him, bringing the total indicated on his paperwork for this year’s campaign to $8,505. [The Chronicle's arithmetic calculates $4,380, not $4,420, for this filing period.]

Independent challenger Jane Lumm, who of course did not participate in a partisan primary, outpaced all other candidates’ combined totals since the primaries by raising $18,950 from 193 donors.

After the jump we break down the Ward 2 contributions with charts and maps.

Ward 2: Who and How Much?

For Rapundalo, the pattern of contribution size was similar to the trend shown for his primary campaign – most contributions fell in the $50-$100 range.

About a third of contributions to Rapundalo’s campaign came from current or former elected or appointed officials, including Janis Bobrin (Washtenaw County water resources commissioner), Jean Carlberg (former planning commissioner and former city councilmember), Eunice Burns (former DDA board member), Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city councilmember), John Hieftje (mayor), Jan Barney Newman (Ann Arbor District Library board), John Splitt (DDA board member), Margie Teall (city councilmember), Brian Mackie (Washtenaw County prosecutor), and Joan Lowenstein (former city councilmember and current DDA board member).

Inspire Michigan also contributed to Rapundalo’s campaign, listing its address as that of Ned Staebler, who was appointed to the Local Development Finance Authority at the city council’s last meeting. The resolution appointing Staebler was sponsored by Rapundalo.

Former city of Ann Arbor community services area administrator Jayne Miller is also listed among Rapundalo’s contributors. [Miller took a job as superintendent of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation board a year ago, but the campaign contribution filing lists her Ann Arbor address.]

Chart A: Count of contributions for Rapundalo by category. Total of 33 donors, averaging $133 per contribution and a median of $100. Largest donation was $500.

The distribution of size among donations to Lumm’s campaign was skewed slightly lower than for Rapundalo – the highest frequency category was the $26-50 range.

Lumm’s contributors also include former city officials and past council candidates: Ingrid Sheldon (former mayor), Leslie Morris (former city councilmember), Peter Fink (former city councilmember), Stew Nelson (former Ward 2 candidate), Edwin Amonsen (former Ward 2 candidate), Emily Salvette (former Ward 2 candidate), Debra Bourque (spouse of Tom Bourque, a former Ward 2 candidate), John Floyd (former Ward 5 candidate), Vivienne Armentrout (former Ward 5 candidate), Ethel Potts (former council candidate and former planning commissioner) and Ed Shaffran (former DDA board member).

Chart A: Count of contributions for Lumm by category. Total of 193 donors averaging $98 per contribution and a median of $100. Largest donation was $1,000 (from Lumm and her husband).

Ward 2: Where?

In the maps we’ve created below, the light blue shaded area is Ward 2, with the city boundary shown in yellow. The magenta dots locate addresses of people who made donations. The size of the dots is uniform – they’re not sized to depict the amount of a donation. [link to dynamic Google Map with .kml file for Rapundalo's contributions] [link to dynamic Google Map with .kml file for Lumm's contributions]

For Rapundalo, no real patterns are evident. His support comes from inside and outside the ward.

Contributions to Stehen Rapundalo's campaign for the general election filing period. (Links to larger image.)

For Lumm, there’s a clear pattern of strong support in the southern part of the ward, Lumm’s home neighborhood, inside the loop formed by Washtenaw Avenue to the south, Huron Parkway to the east, and Geddes to the north. Another cluster of support inside the ward is evident in the middle of the ward, in the Glazier Way neighborhood.

Outside the ward, there’s a cluster of support in the Lawton neighborhood in the southwestern part of the city, as well as in the downtown area.

Contributions to Jane Lumm's campaign for the general election filing period. (Links to larger image.)

Historically, Ward 2 candidates running against Rapundalo have had relatively stronger showings at the polls in the same areas where Lumm is drawing financial support. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Elections: Past Voting Patterns" and "Incumbents Win Ann Arbor Dem Primaries"] However, he’s managed to prevail based on his popularity in his own neighborhood in the northern tier of the ward.

This year, the general election falls on Nov. 8. Readers who are unsure where to vote can type their address into the My Property page of the city of Ann Arbor’s website to get that information. A map of city ward boundaries is also online.

Additional Chronicle coverage of the local 2011 general election races includes reports from the League of Women Voters candidate forums for city council and Ann Arbor Public Schools board.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Independent Jane Lumm (left) and Stephen Rapundalo (right) before the start of the League of Women Voters Oct. 5 forum. They're vying to represent Ward 2 on the Ann Arbor city council. (Photo by the writer.)

The forums on Oct. 5, 2011 were held for all four of the city’s five wards that have contested races. Replays are available via Community Television Network’s video on demand service. [Ward 2 CTN coverage]

The Ann Arbor council is an 11-member body, with two representatives from each ward, plus the mayor. All members of the council, including the mayor, serve two-year terms. In a given year, one of the two council seats for each ward is up for election. In even-numbered years, the position of mayor is also up for election.

This year, the general election falls on Nov. 8. Readers who are unsure where to vote can type their address into the My Property page of the city of Ann Arbor’s website to get that information. A map of city ward boundaries is also online.

Of the four contested races this year, the Ward 2 contest likely poses the greatest chance for a challenger to take an incumbent’s seat. Lumm previously served on the city council in the 1990s, has been active in the community, enjoys good name recognition and has achieved a broad coalition of support across party lines. She served previously on the council as a Republican. Lumm’s supporters include some who previously supported Rapundalo as recently as in the August Democratic primary.

One measure of Rapundalo’s own perception that Lumm poses a significant threat is the tenor of his campaign – as reflected in his website as well as his closing comments at the LWV debate. In those comments, he attempted to paint Lumm – and the city councils of the 1990s – as having created a mess that he’s had to clean up. Specific votes cast by Lumm are described and criticized by Rapundalo on his website without their full context. The context for some votes by Lumm – votes that are cited and criticized on Rapundalo’s website – reveal a kind of garden-variety fiscal conservatism that Rapundalo is also known for.

Topics addressed by the two candidates, presented in chronological order below (annotated to include historical context), include the proposed Fuller Road Station, the retirement board charter amendment, street repair millage, finance, human services, public art, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Opening Statements

Each candidate had a minute to give an opening statement.

Opening: Rapundalo

Rapundalo began by thanking Ward 2 residents for their confidence in him and their support over the last six years. He said he’s seeking re-election because now more than ever the city needs strong fiscal leadership to address the challenges of the future and to move Ann Arbor forward. He said he’d been responsive to Ward 2 residents on a wide range of issues.

Rapundalo said he is proud of his accomplishments, which he said include leading the effort to replace outdated and expensive labor contracts, to provide more and better recycling, establish and protect neighborhood parkland, rebuild aging infrastructure, defend neighborhoods from inappropriate development, and ensure quality city services. Most important, he said, was to develop city budgets that do not put those services at risk. He said he had worked collaboratively with his council colleagues, despite occasional policy differences.

Opening: Lumm

Lumm began by thanking Rapundalo, the LWV and CTN. She said that in today’s nationally challenging environment, the city needs to make responsible, but difficult choices – the city simply can’t afford everything.

Lumm said the guiding principle should be to align city spending with what people value and are willing to pay for. Unfortunately, she said, this alignment is not there. She said the city needs to refocus its priorities on basics like police, fire, streets and infrastructure. The more discretionary and visionary items like public art and transit stations will just have to wait, she said. To her, she said, public safety is job one.

Lumm was honored, she said, that people across many different political persuasions had united in their support of her campaign. Their common concern is that elected officials have lost touch with the community and its needs and priorities. That needs to change, she said, and it’s time to get back to basics to reconnect Ann Arbor’s city government with its residents.

Transportation

Question: The Fuller Road Station will require parkland for the purpose of providing a parking structure, which will be used primarily by the University of Michigan. For this the city will pay 22% of the initial cost. Down the road, how will the parking revenue be split? Who will pay the maintenance? Who will provide safety measures and protection? How do you personally feel about the project? What is the long-term vision for this station and the probable timeline?

Transportation: Fuller Road Background

The introduction of the Fuller Road Station concept to the public can be traced at least as far back as January 2009, when the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, presented a concept drawing at a meeting of neighbors at Northside Grill. At the time, the city was trying to encourage the University of Michigan to reconsider its plans to build parking structures on Wall Street.

The city’s strategy was to get the university to consider building its planned parking structures on the city-owned parking lot, just south of Fuller Road, near the intersection with East Medical Center Drive. It would allow the university to participate in the city’s hoped-for transit station at that location. The university has leased that parking lot from the city since 1993.

The transit station is envisioned as directly serving east-west commuter rail passengers. A day-trip demonstration service that was to launch in October 2010 never materialized. But an announcement earlier this year, that some federal support for high-speed rail track improvements would be forthcoming, has shored up hopes by many people in the community that the east-west rail connection could become a reality. That hope has been further strengthened by the recent acquisition of the track between Dearborn and Kalamazoo from Norfolk Southern by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation.

The council has already approved some expenditures directly related to the Fuller Road Station project. It voted unanimously on Aug. 17, 2009 to approve $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund.

On Nov. 5, 2009, on separate votes, the council approved additional money for the environmental study and site assessment and to authorize a memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan.

Controversy on the project includes the status of the land where the proposed Fuller Road Station would be located. It’s designated as parkland, but formally zoned as public land (PL). In the summer of 2010, the possible uses for land zoned as PL were altered by the council, on recommendation from the city planning commission, explicitly to include transportation facilities. Any long-term use agreement with the university is seen by many as tantamount to a sale of parkland. A sale should, per the city charter, be put to a voter referendum.

Recent developments have included an indication from mayor John Hieftje that a work session would be scheduled to update the council. When the city council subsequently added a July 11, 2011 work session to its calendar, it left the expectation that the topic of that session would be Fuller Road Station. However, that session did not include the proposed transit station on its agenda.

A letter from Hieftje sent to constituents in late July 2011 reviewed much of the information that was previously known, but appeared to introduce the possibility that the University of Michigan would provide construction costs for the city’s share of the parking structure up front, with the city’s portion of 22% to be repaid later.

Transportation: Lumm

Lumm said the long-term vision is that it’ll be a multi-modal station. And that could be in Ann Arbor’s best interest, she said. But now the only thing on the table is a parking structure with a significant city funding commitment, she said, estimated at around $10 million. She felt she could not support the proposal right now, because there are way too many unanswered questions.

The main question that remains unanswered, Lumm said, are estimates of ongoing operating costs. Also the city hasn’t shared details of the operating or capital plan. If these plans exist, they should be shared in a completely transparent discussion with the community, she said. Before embarking on any such proposal, we need to understand what the financial commitments are, she said. In addition, she said, the location is a park. If the Fuller Road Station is as solid a proposal as the city says it is, it should pass muster with voters, Lumm concluded.

Transportation: Rapundalo

Raundalo said he was quite supportive of the project. For him, Fuller Road Station would be a “game changer” for the city and its future. The station is part of an effort to move people in and out of the city right next to the largest employer the city has [the University of Michigan]. We need to think about the future and what our kids and grandkids need and how they are going to move around in an increasingly dense community, he said.

Rapundalo said the idea of multi-modal transportation is exactly the kind of forward thinking the city needs to do now, not later, when it’s going to be too late and more costly. The city has the funding for the first phase, and funding for the next phases is evolving, he said.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment

Question: On the Nov. 8 ballot, voters will be asked to approve a city charter amendment that removes the city administrator, currently Steve Powers, from the city retirement board of trustees. Explain the purpose of approving this amendment.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Background

The composition of the nine-member body as currently set forth in the charter is as follows: “(1) The City Administrator and the Controller to serve by virtue of their respective offices; (2) Three Trustees appointed by the Council and to serve at the pleasure of the Council; (3) Two Trustees elected by the general city members from their own number (general city members being members other than Policemen and Firemen members); and (4) Two Trustees elected by the Policemen and Firemen members from their own number.”

The proposed change would retain nine members but would distribute them differently: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire.

If the measure passes on Nov. 8, it will still need to be ratified by the city’s collective bargaining units in order to take effect.

In 2005, a “blue ribbon” commission – tasked to make recommendations about the city’s retirement board and the city’s pension plan – had called for a change in the board’s composition to be a majority of trustees who are not beneficiaries of the retirement plan and, in particular, to remove the city administrator’s position from the board.

In 2008, a member of the retirement system’s board of trustees, Robert N. Pollack, Jr., resigned from the board in part due to the city’s failure to enact recommendations of the blue ribbon panel. [.pdf of blue ribbon panel report] [.pdf of Pollack's resignation letter]

Under the terms of new city administrator Steve Powers’ contract, he will not be a beneficiary of the city’s retirement plan, but will instead have a 401(a) plan.

The city’s retirement program is supported in part by the levy of a retirement benefits millage [labeled CITY BENEFITS on tax bills], currently at a rate of 2.056 mills, which is the same rate as the city’s transit millage. A mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Rapundalo

Rapundalo described that particular charter proposal as “years in the making.” It goes back, he thought, six years to a blue ribbon task force that was put together to study elements of the pension board and how it conducts its business. The task force had identified a number of issues related to the perceived conflict of interest and the lack of true independence on the board.

The idea is to remove the city administrator and a number of the other city beneficiaries from the board, Rapundalo said. Instead of those positions, he said, at-large citizens would be installed, who have the right skill sets to deal with the issues of pension allocations and dispersements.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Lumm

Lumm thought it was a good move. The recommendation had come over six years ago, and she said the community should vote for it.

But Lumm said it was unfortunate the way it was presented. Another one of the recommendations made by the task force was to improve communication between the pension board and the city. But the trustees on the pension board found out about the ballot proposal only after the city council voted to put it on the ballot, Lumm said. The executive director of the pension board didn’t find out about it until the day the council voted on it, she said.

When she previously served on the council, the council met with the pension board regularly, Lumm said. Now the city council does not meet even annually with the pension board, she said.

Street Repair Millage

Question: Proposal 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot requests up to 2.0 mills for street and bridge reconstruction. Proposal 2 allows an additional 0.125 mills for sidewalk repair outside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority TIF district. Please explain the mechanics of the two proposals’ interdependent passage. Tell voters in your ward how you plan to vote.

Street Repair Millage: Background

At its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved language for the Nov. 8 ballot that would renew the street and bridge reconstruction millage, at a rate of 2.0 mills. It was last approved by voters in November 2006 for five years beginning in 2007 and ending in 2011. A tax rate of 1 mill is equivalent to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

As a separate proposal on the ballot, voters will be asked if they support an additional 0.125 mill to pay for sidewalk repair. Up to now, sidewalk repair has been the responsibility of property owners.

The ballot language for the street repair millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax up to 2 mills for street and bridge reconstruction for 2012 through 2016 to replace the previously authorized tax up to 2 mills for street reconstruction for 2007 through 2011, which will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $9,091,000?

The ballot language for the sidewalk portion of the millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax increase of up to 0.125 mills for 2012 through 2016 in addition to the street and bridge resurfacing and reconstruction millage of 2 mills for 2012 through 2016, which 0.125 mills will raise in the first year of levy the estimated additional revenue of $563,000, to provide a total of up to 2.125 mills for sidewalk trip hazard repair in addition to street and bridge reconstruction and resurfacing? This Charter amendment shall not take effect unless the proposed Charter amendment to authorize the levy of a tax in 2012 through 2016 of up to 2 mills for the purpose of providing funds for the reconstruction and resurfacing of streets and bridges (Proposal 1) is approved.

The sidewalk repair portion of the millage would be levied only if the street repair millage were also approved by voters. But the levy of the street repair millage is not dependent on the authorization of the sidewalk repair millage.

If both millage proposals were to be approved by voters, the money would be collected under a single, combined millage – but accounting for reconstruction activity would be done separately for streets and sidewalks.

The separation of the question into two proposals can be explained in part by a summary of responses to the city’s online survey on the topic of slightly increasing the street repair millage to include sidewalk repairs. Sidewalk repairs have up to now been the responsibility of property owners. The survey reflects overwhelming sentiment from the 576 survey respondents (filtered for self-reported city residents) that it should be the city’s responsibility to repair the sidewalks.

The survey reflects some resistance to the idea that an increase in taxes is warranted, however. From the free-responses: “Stop wasting taxpayer money on parking structures, new city buildings, and public art. You are spending money like drunken sailors while we’re in the worst recession since the Great Depression.” Balanced against that are responses like this: “I strongly endorse the idea of the city taking responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks and am certainly willing to pay for it in the form of a millage in the amount cited in this survey.” [.pdf of survey response summary]

An amendment to the resolution approved by the council on Aug. 4 directs the city attorney to prepare a change to the city’s sidewalk ordinance relative to the obligation of property owners to maintain sidewalks adjacent to their property.

Street Repair Millage: Past Perspective on Voter Choice and Millages

This year, the basic strategy with the street and sidewalk repair millage is to separate out a basic millage renewal from consideration of an increase in the millage rate. The city is asking for a renewal of an existing millage at 2 mills and an increase of 0.125 mills as separate questions.

This is the same kind of strategy that Lumm supported in 1997, when she sponsored a resolution to present voters with the same kind of choice for parks maintenance – a renewal and an increase as separate ballot propositions. From city council minutes:

DEFEATED
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MILLAGE PROPOSALS FOR .3654 Mill and for .1071 MILL FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council propose that the City Charter be amended by amending Section 8.22 which shall read as follows: Funds for MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF PARK FACILITIES SECTION 8.22.
…
RESOLVED, That if one or both of the amendments are adopted, they shall take effect on January 1, 1998; provided, however, that the amendment to authorize a tax and levy of .1071 mill shall not take effect unless the amendment to authorize a tax and levy of .3654 mill also is approved by the voters.
Councilmember Lumm moved that the resolution be adopted. On roll call the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Hartwell, Putman, Lumm, Kwan, 4;
Nays, Councilmembers Kolb, Vereen-Dixon, Carlberg, Herrell, Mayor Sheldon, 5. Mayor Sheldon declared the motion defeated. [.pdf of Aug. 18, 1997 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

Having lost the bid to split the proposal, Lumm then joined the rest of her colleagues in voting unanimously for a single ballot proposal that asked voters to approve the millage with the increase, for a total of .4725 mills.

Rapundalo’s campaign website points to a vote of Lumm’s at the council’s previous meeting, on Aug. 4, 1997, against putting the single millage proposal before voters. On that basis, Rapundalo claims Lumm “voted against allowing Ann Arbor residents to vote on the parks and maintenance millage, which fund the City’s park maintenance.” In fact, the vote on Aug. 4, 1997 had come after an unsuccessful attempt by Lumm to get the measure postponed, so that an alternative, split proposal could be developed. [.pdf of Aug. 4, 1997 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

And when there were not enough votes to postpone, or for the other side to push through the single proposal, the ballot proposal was defeated at the Aug. 4, 1997 meeting. That gave Lumm the opportunity to put together the split proposal for the following meeting on Aug. 18, which ultimately did not succeed. The historical record of council minutes does not support a contention that Lumm was against allowing residents to vote on a parks maintenance millage.

Street Repair Millage: Lumm

Lumm said she supports the street millage. Updating the city’s basic infrastructure is a financial challenge, she said, and maintaining streets is a basic service that taxpayers value and are willing to pay for. However, she does not support earmarking those “precious capital dollars” for public art. To date, she said roughly $2.2 million had been diverted to public art.

In the budget deliberations for fiscal year 2012, Rapundalo had a chance to change that percentage earmarked for public art, chose not to do so, Lumm said. The sidewalk millage would generate another roughly $560,000, she said, and she was not supportive of that. She cited the administrative costs associated with the sidewalk repair program as the reason for her opposition to the millage.

Street Repair Millage: Rapundalo

Rapundalo said he also supports the street repair millage. Since 1984, it has been renewed on a five-year renewal cycle, he said. Clearly that is a basic service that many residents want to see provided.

Regarding the sidewalk millage, he said, it’s something the council had voted to put on the ballot because of the feedback the council received from residents all over the city. The current model is to have residents pay for repair of sidewalk slabs in front of their property. But many residents have said that the city should take care of it directly. So this millage addresses that feedback, he said. [Rapundalo did not indicate whether he supported the sidewalk repair millage as a voter.]

Finance

Question: Is there a deficit in the city budget and how large is it? If cuts were to be made, how would they be made? Is citizen safety being jeopardized? Is a city income tax being considered?

Finance: Background on Budget, Income Tax

The Ann Arbor city budget for fiscal year 2012 was approved by the city council with $77,987,857 in revenues and $79,105,945 in expenditures, and drew down the fund reserves by $1,118,088 to balance the budget.

In Michigan, local municipalities have four sources of possible revenue: (1) property taxes; (2) fees for services; (3) state shared revenue – apportioned from the state sales tax; and (4) a city income tax.

The city of Ann Arbor does not levy just one kind of property tax. Ann Arbor tax bills include separate taxes to support: general operations, employee benefits, the solid waste system, debt, street repair, city parks, open space acquisition, and mass transit.

An example of fees for service is the drinking water utility – residents pay for the amount of water they use.

It’s not an option for a city to levy any kind of sales tax in addition to the state sales tax. For example, the city of Ann Arbor is not legally empowered to apply an entertainment tax that could be added to University of Michigan football tickets. Part of the rationale behind the state shared revenue system is for local municipalities to have their inability to levy extra taxes balanced out by revenue that is shared with them by the state. However, the future of state shared revenues is unclear, and local municipalities aren’t sure if they’ll continue to receive those revenues in coming years.

A feature of the Ann Arbor city charter that distinguishes Ann Arbor from other Michigan cities is the relationship between the general operations property tax and a city income tax. Per the city charter, Ann Arbor can enact one, but not both kinds of tax:

City Tax Limit SECTION 8.7. (a) … In any calendar year in which the Uniform City Income Tax Ordinance is in effect on the day when the budget is adopted, the City may not levy any part of the three-fourths of one percent property tax previously mentioned …

But if the city of Ann Arbor were to enact a city income tax, it’s only the general operations property tax that would disappear – the other city property taxes would remain.

Cities can enact a city income tax under the state statute Uniform City Income Tax, which allows an income tax of up to 1% to be levied on residents of a city, and on non-residents up to 1/2 of the percentage levied on residents. For example, if a city enacted a .5% income tax on residents, then non-residents would pay no more than .25%.

Supporters of a city income tax for Ann Arbor typically defend against tax burden arguments by pointing to the fact that the city charter stipulates that a city income tax replaces, rather than supplements, the roughly 6 mill general operations property tax for residents. [For readers who wonder how much property tax they would save, the line item, on summer tax bills, is labeled CITY OPER].

Supporters also typically point out that 40% of the real estate in Ann Arbor is not subject to property tax – due to the large city park system and the presence of the University of Michigan, whose land is not subject to property tax. So funding operations from property taxes is more challenging than in cities where a greater percentage of the property is subject to a tax.

Supporters also typically point to the large number of workers who have jobs in the city of Ann Arbor – many of them at UM – who live outside the city. That translates into larger potential revenue from an income tax than in cities that have a smaller number of commuters.

Detractors of a city income tax typically point to the potential barrier such a tax might represent to businesses choosing to locate in Ann Arbor, or to the inequity of the income tax with respect to resident renters – who may not see the reduction in their landlord’s property tax passed along to them in lower rents. Some oppose the idea on philosophical grounds, arguing that applying the tax to non-resident workers amounts to taxation without representation. Income taxes as a source of revenue are also somewhat less stable than property taxes.

Finance: Income Tax – Previous Discussions

Two years ago, at the Ann Arbor city council’s January 2009 budget retreat, then-councilmember Leigh Greden advocated for an exploration of replacing the general operating millage with an 1% city income tax. The budget retreat discussion resulted in the dissemination of a previous, 2004 city income tax study. The 2004 study had been preceded by a 1997 city income tax study.

In July 2009, the city released a more current study. But in August of that year, it became clear at a city council work session that there was no enthusiasm on the part of councilmembers to place the issue on the ballot in the fall.

Yet at that year’s budget retreat on Dec. 5, 2009, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) again raised the issue of exploring a city income tax. And at a Feb. 16, 2010 meeting of the city council’s budget committee, which included [and still includes] Taylor, members gave then-city administrator Roger Fraser the green light to conduct a survey of voter attitudes on the city income tax.

Finance: City Income Tax – More Recent Discussions

Through the city council and mayoral election season in 2010, the idea of a city income tax received some discussion as an issue. During his campaign, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) in particular expressed support for the idea. He’s now part of a working group on the council, which also includes Taylor and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), that is taking a closer look at revenue questions.

At the Dec. 4, 2010 budget retreat, former city administrator Roger Fraser had expressed the same sentiment he’d conveyed to members of the budget committee back in February 2010: He thought he had an obligation to ask the citizens to consider the income tax question before cutting services. Fraser’s sentiment is one that Rapundalo has supported during his service on the council and during the current campaign.

Finance: Council’s Approach to Budgeting – Public Safety Unions

Part of Rapundalo’s current campaign is an attempt to characterize the city councils of the 1990s, which included Lumm, as having been irresponsible with respect to spending, in particular with respect to labor contracts, which Rapundalo has repeatedly characterized as “rich.”

However, up until this last year, the councils of the 2000s have essentially pursued the same kind of labor strategy as the councils of the 1990s. They have essentially bargained under the constraints of the state’s Act 312 legislation, while at the same time maintaining a defacto no-layoff policy. In 2009, the council elected to offer an early retirement buyout to police officers instead of imposing layoffs. At that time, 34 officers qualified for the retirement incentive – at least 26 of them accepted it, which cost the city over $5 million. The cost of the buyout was covered with the general fund reserve.

In early 2010, the council injected some drama into the budget discussion that year, by treating a $2 million payment from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as if were uncertain. As a result, the council raised the specter of police and firefighter layoffs. When the DDA authorized the $2 million payment, it was spent partly to prevent the layoff of public safety officers.

Finance: Council’s Approach to Budgeting – Amendments

On his campaign website, Rapundalo cites minutes of council meetings from the 1990s in his criticism of Lumm’s performance on the city council. Those minutes show that the council’s basic approach to the city budget was similar in the 1990s to what it is now. Specifically, the budget proposed by the city administrator underwent any number of amendments put forward by councilmembers, some of which succeeded and some of which failed.

For example, an amendment proposed by then-councilmember Peter Fink for the fiscal year 1996 budget stipulated that a business plan be put forward for the recycling drop-off station. Rapundalo’s 2011 campaign website characterizes Lumm’s vote in support of a business plan and a prohibition against a staff increase as being against recycling. From the council minutes:

Councilmember Fink moved that the resolution be amended by adding the following two “Resolves” regarding the recycling drop-off station with each clause to be voted on separately:
RESOLVED, THAT THE STAFF BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH A TOTAL BUSINESS PLAN FOR THE RECYCLING DROP-OFF STATION SHOWING PROPOSED NET SAVINGS FROM SUCH A PLAN AT THE SAME TIME AS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ARE BROUGHT FORWARD;
On roll call on the first part of the motion, the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Fink, Lumm, Nicolas, Kolb, Mayor Sheldon, 5 Nays, Councilmembers Hanna-Davies, Carlberg, Smith, Daley, 4
Absent for the vote, Councilmember Hartwell, 1
The Mayor declared the motion defeated.

The question under consideration was the following language:
FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT IN NO CASE SHALL THE PLAN FOR THE DROP-OFF STATION REQUIRE ANY NET INCREASE IN CITY STAFF;
On roll call, the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Fink, Lumm, Nicolas, Mayor Sheldon, 4
Nays, Councilmembers Carlberg, Smith, Kolb, Daley, 4
Absent for the vote, Councilmembers Hanna-Davies, Hartwell, 2
The Mayor declared the motion defeated. [.pdf May 25, 1995 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

Another vote of Lumm’s characterized by Rapundalo as against recycling was an omnibus amendment to the 1998 fiscal year budget. Among many other things, it included a cap on expenditures on commercial recycling. From the council minutes:

Councilmember Lumm moved that the following spending reductions be incorporated into the proposed budget: SAVINGS IMPACT ON 1997/1998 DEPT. PROPOSED BUDGET Reductions Required to Avoid Tax Increase $1,200,000 POSSIBLE REDUCTIONS

• Reduce temporary pay in Admin. Svcs., Admin. Svcs. $275,000 Parks & Rec., and Solid Waste to project- Parks & Rec. ed 1996/1997 levels plus 3%; reduce Solid Waste temporary pay in Parks an additional $75,000 to reflect permanent hiring of temporaries
• Reduce Police Dept. total budget Police $100,000 (Dept. discretion — possibly by deferring capital spending or reducing overhiring)
• Limit growth in vehicle fleet, maintenance Public Svcs. $100,000 costs, and/or acceleration of equipment re-purchase schedule
…
• Offset increase in Fire Dept. overtime Fire $50,00 (Dept. discretion)
…
• Limit spending on new commercial Solid Waste $30,000
recycling program to $30,000
…
The question being the proposed spending reductions, with the exception of the increase in Building Department fees, on roll call the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Lumm, Kwan, Putman, 3;
Nays, Councilmembers Hanna-Davies, Vereen-Dixon, Carlberg, Herrell, Hartwell, Kolb, Daley, Mayor Sheldon, 8.
The Mayor declared the motion defeated. [.pdf of May 28, 1997 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

Finance: Rapundalo

Rapundalo began by saying the general fund has to be balanced and the city has done that consistently. For the last number of years, since he had served on the council, councilmembers have worked diligently at retreats at the end of the calendar year to begin setting priorities for the upcoming budget discussions. He said it’s important to do that and it’s become even more important given the tough economic times that we’re going through.

There has been priority placed on public safety, he said, but public safety services have not been immune to cuts. He pointed out that cuts made this year could have been totally mitigated if unions had come on board – their health care plans have been too rich for too many years, he said. In Rapundalo’s closing remarks, he said he felt that the council owed it to the community to talk about revenue restructuring [i.e., a city income tax] and not just cost cutting.

Finance: Lumm

Responding to the question about the amount of the deficit, Lumm pointed out the city had used around $1 million in its fund balance this year in order to achieve a balanced budget. This is a situation, Lumm said, where elected leaders have not aligned spending priorities with the community’s priorities. Protecting public safety should be the priority of any local government.

Lumm said she felt those public safety cuts have been too severe. She described the budget as having been approved year after year with non-strategic, mindless, across-the-board reductions. The council can direct the administrator and staff to reduce costs in administrative areas more and with less reduction in police and fire.

Human Services

Question: The proposed Washtenaw County budget includes major cuts in human services. The Delonis Center homeless shelter will suffer from this. Is the city prepared and able to make up the shortfall? If not, it would seem to exacerbate the problem of homelessness in the city, particularly downtown.

Human Services: Recent Background

For background on the recently-proposed budget for Washtenaw County, see “Proposed County Budget Brings Cuts.”

The city’s support for human services is allocated in coordination with other entities: the United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County and the Washtenaw Urban County. For background on the coordinated funding approach, back when it was still in the planning stages: “Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned.”

Human Services: Past Background

Part of Rapundalo’s campaign has included the assertion that Lumm consistently opposed funding human services during her service on the city council in the late 1990s, when she served on the council as a Republican. (Rapundalo ran unsuccessfully as a Republican for mayor in 2000.) In May 1997, Lumm joined her Republican Party colleagues on the council on a party-line vote opposing the use of general fund dollars to create a new fund for human services contingencies [caps in original]:

RESOLVED, That a Housing and Human Services Contingency Fund of $100,000 be created in the Non-departmental Budget for 1997-98. Council unanimously agreed that the last paragraph of Councilmember Carlberg’s proposed language be amended as follows:
RESOLVED, That a Housing and Human Contingency Fund of $100,000 be created in the Non-departmental Budget for 1997-98 FROM GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE.

The question being Councilmember Carlberg’s proposed language as amended, on roll call vote the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Hanna-Davies, Vereen-Dixon, Carlberg, Herrell, Hartwell, Kolb, Daley, 7;
Nays, Councilmembers Lumm, Kwan, Putman, Mayor Sheldon, 4.
The Mayor declared the motion carried. [.pdf of May 28, 1997 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

Regarding an expectation that the human services area provide objective data on positive outcomes, in order to justify their funding, Lumm’s position on human services while on council in the 1990s appears consistent with the position championed by Rapundalo during his service dating from the mid 2000s. Rapundalo is fairly credited with much of the work that went into the current scoring matrix used to allocate and prioritize city funding to nonprofits. It’s an approach that has won widespread praise as a more equitable manner of making human services funding allocations.

An attempted amendment to the fiscal year 1996 budget – which was supported by Lumm, but which failed – called for an increasingly objective standard for evaluating community services. However, the resolution gives direction that is not nearly as fine-grained as the development of a scoring matrix to determine funding allocation. Instead, it simply directed city staff to reduce the number of different human services agencies funded by the city. From the council minutes:

Councilmember Fink moved that the resolution be amended by adding the following language:
RESOLVED, TO INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF STAFF TIME AND THE WORK OF NON-PROFITS THEMSELVES AND TO QUANTIFY AN EXISTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT “‘CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR”, AN ADDITIONAL “MEASURE OF SUCCESS” FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL BE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NON-PROFIT CONTRACTS BY 2% PER YEAR FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS. (THIS DOES NOT SPEAK TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FUNDING, ONLY TO THE NUMBER OF NON-PROFITS.);
On roll call the vote was as follows:
Yeas, Councilmembers Fink, Lumm, Nicolas, Mayor Sheldon, 4
Nays, Councilmembers Hanna-Davies, Carlberg, Smith, Kolb, Daley, 5 Absent for the Vote: Councilmember Hartwell, 1
The Mayor declared the motion defeated. [.pdf May 25, 1995 Ann Arbor city council minutes]

Human Services: Lumm

Lumm felt there are things that can be done budget-wise and priority-wise. There’s no question it’s important to address human services needs, she said. When she looks at how the city spends money – a beautiful city hall and the new maintenance facility – those are “nice to have,” she said. Those projects are in the past, she said, but accountability matters. There are ways to allocate finite resources, she said.

If the community feels that human services funding is a priority, then so be it, Lumm said. We need to engage citizens in assessing what their priorities are and how they want their money to be spent. She said she did that when she served on the council previously and she would do that again.

Human Services: Rapundalo

Rapundalo said he’d spent a lot of time over the last number of years working on human services funding. What had been in place previously was based on a “tugging of sleeves.” He said he’d tried to reform that kind of approach so that it’s based on performance and impact.

Rapundalo said that whether the city could cover some of the losses that the Delonis Center homeless shelter might encounter due to the county is left to the “peer review process.” That process would determine if the city had the money and whether the shelter deserves it based on performance and the impact that they have on the community. He said there is a good system in place now to engage the public and social services agencies, and to use all that information in a disciplined review process.

Public Art

Question: The city council is reconsidering the previously approved Percent for Art program, which sets aside 1% of each capital improvement project to be used for public art in the city. The process appears to be slow in producing art. Should it be reconsidered? Do you have suggestions for improvement?

Public Art: Background

At the city council’s Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, councilmembers voted to place ballot language before voters for a street repair and sidewalk repair millage. Before the meeting, some councilmembers had indicated they were prepared to modify the ballot language to make explicit that millage funds would not be subject to the public art ordinance. The ordinance, which establishes the Percent for Art program, stipulates that 1% of all capital improvement projects must be set aside to be spent on public art.

Mayor John Hieftje effectively preempted that conversation by nominating Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as a replacement for Jeff Meyers on the public art commission and assuring the council that the question of public art could be taken up at the council’s Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

However, at the Sept. 19 meeting a proposed revision to the public art ordinance, brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), was postponed until after a working session to be held on Nov. 14, after the election on Nov. 8.

The proposed revision would change the Percent for Art program by explicitly excluding sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art.

Some councilmembers had previously understood the public art ordinance already to exclude replacement of sidewalk slabs from its definition of capital improvement projects. But based on additional information from the city attorney’s office, the proposed ordinance revision was meant to spell that out explicitly.

On two previous occasions in the last two years (Dec. 21, 2009 and May 31, 2011), the council has considered but rejected a change to the public art ordinance that would have lowered the public art earmark from 1% to 0.5%. The city’s Percent for Art program was authorized by the council on Nov. 5, 2007. It is overseen by the city’s public art commission, with members nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council.

The most recent regular Chronicle coverage of the city’s public art commission is “Art Commission Preps for Dreiseitl Dedication.”

Public Art: Rapundalo

Rapundalo said he was a strong supporter of the public art program. He allowed that there’s been frustration at the pace of implementation. But any time there is a brand new program with such complexity, he said, it takes a while to get things off the ground. And things are now off the ground. The previous night, he said, there was a spectacular demonstration of that with the unveiling of the Dreitseitl fountain at the municipal center. There were well over 200 people in attendance, he said.

Rapundalo contended that the public art program doesn’t take any general fund dollars and thus does not impact things like police and fire protection. It’s been proven over and over again, he claimed, across 90 communities in 26 states that public art is an effective economic development tool. It contributes to the economic base and to the quality of life that is perceived in Ann Arbor. Public art draws talent and keeps people here, he said. That’s the kind of vibrancy that we want in our community, he concluded.

Public Art: Lumm

Lumm stated that her position is different from Rapundalo’s. She said she was certainly not opposed to public art. It boils down to this, she said: Is it an appropriate allocation of resources? Comparing it to Maslov’s hierarchy of needs, she said that if people are hungry and freezing, they don’t focus much on self-actualization. The city diverted $2.2 million to public art funding, she said.

Lumm said she begged to differ with Rapundalo about his contention that general fund money was not used for public art. She noted that the municipal center building fund was created out of the general fund reserves. Those are local tax dollars. It’s a good example of the unwillingness of the city to focus spending on basic services. And it’s a good example of the inconsistency of the use of the “bucket” analogy to talk about fund-based budgeting. When we want to spend money on something, magically the flexibility is there, she said.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Question: The city has recently moved towards greater transparency with its A2OpenBook. What about the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority? Please explain the relationship between the city council and the DDA, and between the DDA and the Ann Arbor voters. Beyond increasing downtown parking rates, how does the DDA impact the lives of Ann Arbor citizens? What is their contribution to the community?

Ann Arbor DDA: Background

The Ann Arbor DDA has been the focus of heavy Chronicle coverage over the last year. One reason for that focus is the recently renewed contract between the city and the DDA, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system. It was ratified in May 2011.

However, the DDA’s raison d’être is not to administer the public parking system, but rather to make “public improvements that have the greatest impact in strengthening the downtown area and attracting new private investments.” The streetscape improvements that are currently nearing completion on South Fifth and Division in downtown Ann Arbor are one example of the kind of projects the DDA can undertake.

The funding mechanism for those improvements is tax increment finance (TIF) capture in the downtown district. In broad strokes, the taxes on an increment – between the initial value of a property and the value after new construction – are captured by the DDA, instead of being distributed to the authorities that levy the taxes. Those taxing authorities include the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County and Washtenaw Community College.

This spring, city staff noticed that the ordinance establishing the Ann Arbor DDA appears to provide a kind of cap on the amount of taxes that the DDA is allowed to capture in its TIF district. Up to this year, that cap had not been observed. When that aspect of the ordinance was highlighted, it resulted in a repayment by the DDA of over $400,000 to other taxing authorities. In the future, a need to return TIF captured revenue to other taxing authorities could continue or be eliminated, depending on how the ordinance is interpreted. [See Chronicle coverage: "Column: Tax Capture is a Varsity Sport"]

After making repayments to other taxing authorities earlier this year, the DDA board subsequently took the position, at a special meeting held July 27, 2011, that the repayments it had made were not actually required.

The repayments, plus the conditions of the new parking agreement – which calls for transferring 17% of gross public parking revenues to the city of Ann Arbor – have put the DDA under considerable financial stress.

DDA board members are nominated to four-year terms by the mayor, and must be confirmed by the city council.

Ann Arbor DDA: Lumm

Lumm began by saying that she valued the DDA and what they do. She felt the DDA is a truly independent body. The DDA looks out for the best interests of the downtown, she said. Having a vital downtown is critical for a community, Lumm said. Unfortunately, she said, over the years the DDA has become a “piggy bank” for the city.

Under the new contract, the city will receive 17% of the revenue from the public parking system for the next 11 years, Lumm pointed out. That’s around $3 million a year, she said. The DDA also provides debt service of around $0.5 million per year for the city’s municipal center. Unfortunately, Lumm said, downtown merchants and residents are seeing the impact of these unwise allocations that Rapundalo has supported over the years. The council has not focused on the things they should be doing with that money, she said. She felt everyone could agree that the parking fund should be used to maintain the parking system. She described the DDA as “pretty much tapped out.”

Ann Arbor DDA: Rapundalo

Rapundalo described the downtown as the heart and soul of any community. The DDA is the independent authority that must oversee infrastructure and improvements to ensure vitality. He said he respected people who have served and continue to serve on the DDA board. They have brought great skill sets to the table to address many complex issues, not the least of which is parking, he said. The DDA has demonstrated its ability to do that, he said.

Rapundalo continued by saying the downtown has shortages in parking, so there’s a need to put additional facilities in place. The DDA has been forward-thinking in addressing the needs of the future and implementing solutions now instead of later, when the need is too great. The DDA is a body that has done a very good job of reaching out to community, he said, and being open and transparent about how they function and the decisions they make in the public interest.

Closing Statements

Each candidate had two minutes to give a closing statement.

Closing: Lumm

Lumm again thanked the LMW. She also thanked Rapundalo for his service to the city. She said she was honored to represent Ward 2 on the city council for three terms in the 1990s. She said she did not expect to ever run again. But she cares about Ann Arbor, she said, and thinks that the council has lost touch with the community and the community’s priorities.

So Lumm said she’s back trying to earn voters’ support to accomplish two goals. The first goal is to refocus city spending on basic services. Second, she wants to reconnect Ward 2 with city government.

As she walks Ward 2, Lumm said, she’s hearing over and over a genuine frustration from neighbors that elected officials are not listening to them, or think they know better. Residents recognize the many challenges faced by the city, she said, and they want to see focus on the basics, like public safety. Residents say they don’t see that happening, Lumm said, and they’re right.

During the six years Rapundalo had been in office, Lumm said, the percentage reduction in public safety is three times that of other areas of the budget. The city has hired a public art administrator, but is laying off police, she said. That doesn’t reflect the community’s priorities, she said, nor are they hers. Residents also expect elected officials to maximize efficiency, she said.

Rapundalos’s campaign literature states that the city should consider “revenue restructuring” alongside cost containment, Lumm noted. Before asking taxpayers for more, she said, the city must address structural cost issues, and pursue an acceleration of intergovernmental consolidation. While on the city council she worked hard to engage all the stakeholders, she said, and to ensure all options and points of view were heard in open dialogue. That’s essential to good government, she noted, but missing today. She said she knew that the city could do better and she would bring those principles back to the council table.

Closing: Rapundalo

Rapundalo again thanked voters for their past support. He said he’s seeking reelection because the city needs strong, principled leadership to address future challenges and to move the city forward. Cities across Michigan are facing the biggest crisis since the Great Depression, he said, and in the face of that, he’d helped lead a budget process that focuses on priorities. Those budgets did not raise taxes, and made city government more efficient, he said. The budgets had reformed outdated and expensive labor contracts that Lumm had supported in the 1990s, he said. Today, Rapundalo said, the city has 25% fewer employees, but has more and better recycling and waste pickup, lower crime, more parkland, and has rebuilt infrastructure like the new wastewater treatment plant.

Rapundalo said he was focused on maintaining the investment for the future, while prioritizing safety services, reconstruction of the East Stadium bridges, and economic development. He felt that the council owed it to the community to talk about revenue restructuring [i.e., a city income tax] and not just cost cutting. The community needs to have a conversation about what revenue model can work best and better spread the burden of all users of the city’s infrastructure and services. Rapundalo said that Lumm had a voting record that showed she consistently voted against recycling and human services, ignored needed infrastructure improvements and even pushed for cutting the police budget while supporting their unsustainable and expensive labor contracts.

Rapundalo said it had taken 15 years to “clean up that mess.” The city councils of the 1990s were characterized by brinksmanship and inaction, he contended. We see enough of that in Congress, Rapundalo said. The future of Ann Arbor can’t afford that approach to governance, he said, and residents don’t want that. They want public servants who lead through collaboration, even when they don’t agree on everything, which he’d done consistently. He wrapped up by thanking the LWV.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Democratic incumbent Mike Anglin (left ) and Republican challenger Stuart Berry (right) before the League of Women Voters forum on Oct. 5. The two men are vying for a seat on the Ann Arbor city council representing Ward 5. (Photo by the writer.)

This report focuses on the forum for Ward 5, where Republican Stuart Berry is challenging Democratic incumbent Mike Anglin. A replay of the forum is available via Community Television Network’s video on demand service. [Ward 5 CTN coverage]

The council is an 11-member body, with two representatives from each ward, plus the mayor. All members of the council, including the mayor, serve two-year terms. In a given year, one of the two council seats for each ward is up for election. In even-numbered years, the position of mayor is also up for election.

This year, the general election falls on Nov. 8. Readers who are unsure where to vote can type their address into the My Property page of the city of Ann Arbor’s website to get that information. A map of city ward boundaries is also online.

Although the election in Ward 1 is not contested – Democratic incumbent Sabra Briere is unopposed – voters in that ward will have a chance to vote on three ballot proposals along with other city residents. The first two ballot questions concern a sidewalk/street repair tax; the third question concerns the composition of the city’s retirement board of trustees.

Ballot questions were among the issues on which LWV members solicited responses from candidates. Other topics addressed by the two Ward 5 candidates, presented in chronological order below, included the proposed Fuller Road Station, high-rise buildings, human services, public art and finance.

Opening Statements

Each candidate had a minute to give an opening statement.

Opening: Berry

Berry began by thanking the LWV and introducing himself as a Ward 5 candidate. He first came to Ann Arbor in the late 1960s to help his father deliver milk on one of his routes. He described it as hard work – six days a week, 52 weeks a year, year after year. But he was glad to do it – his father had immigrated to the U.S. from Scotland, because he knew hard work paid off. He knew then Ann Arbor was a special place and it remains special today, he said.

Ann Arbor has great neighborhoods and schools, a terrific park system, and a competent, dedicated group of public employees, Berry said. But the world has changed and Ann Arbor has to face new realities, he said. When he returned to Ann Arbor in 1989 to work for the University of Michigan, the levels of services were very good. Declining revenue has forced tough choices, he said. The council has not always been wise about making those choices. The council has chosen to reduce basic services, he said.

Opening: Anglin

Anglin said that we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. He was honored to follow in the footsteps of local leaders who have left a legacy for Ann Arbor – a park system, a public safety system, a vibrant downtown and livable neighborhoods. Those are the things that make it a special city, he said. Ann Arbor’s greatest resources are its people and their personal commitments to the community, he said.

As an elected official, Anglin said he would continue to nurture and maintain the relationship between taxpayers and voters. Respect for constituents will result in a continued legacy of progress. He said he was honored to serve Ward 5 and would continue to lead, with voters’ help.

Street Repair Millage

Question: Proposal 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot requests up to 2.0 mills for street and bridge reconstruction. Proposal 2 allows an additional 0.125 mills for sidewalk repair outside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority TIF district. Please explain the mechanics of the two proposals’ interdependent passage. Tell voters in your ward how you plan to vote.

Street Repair Millage: Background

At its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved language for the Nov. 8 ballot that would renew the street and bridge reconstruction millage, at a rate of 2.0 mills. It was last approved by voters in November 2006 for five years beginning in 2007 and ending in 2011. A tax rate of 1 mill is equivalent to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

As a separate proposal on the ballot, voters will be asked if they support an additional 0.125 mill to pay for sidewalk repair. Up to now, sidewalk repair has been the responsibility of property owners.

The ballot language for the street repair millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax up to 2 mills for street and bridge reconstruction for 2012 through 2016 to replace the previously authorized tax up to 2 mills for street reconstruction for 2007 through 2011, which will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $9,091,000?

The ballot language for the sidewalk portion of the millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax increase of up to 0.125 mills for 2012 through 2016 in addition to the street and bridge resurfacing and reconstruction millage of 2 mills for 2012 through 2016, which 0.125 mills will raise in the first year of levy the estimated additional revenue of $563,000, to provide a total of up to 2.125 mills for sidewalk trip hazard repair in addition to street and bridge reconstruction and resurfacing? This Charter amendment shall not take effect unless the proposed Charter amendment to authorize the levy of a tax in 2012 through 2016 of up to 2 mills for the purpose of providing funds for the reconstruction and resurfacing of streets and bridges (Proposal 1) is approved.

The sidewalk repair portion of the millage would be levied only if the street repair millage were also approved by voters. But the levy of the street repair millage is not dependent on the authorization of the sidewalk repair millage.

If both millage proposals were to be approved by voters, the money would be collected under a single, combined millage – but accounting for reconstruction activity would be done separately for streets and sidewalks.

The separation of the question into two proposals can be explained in part by a summary of responses to the city’s online survey on the topic of slightly increasing the street repair millage to include sidewalk repairs. Sidewalk repairs have up to now been the responsibility of property owners. The survey reflects overwhelming sentiment from the 576 survey respondents (filtered for self-reported city residents) that it should be the city’s responsibility to repair the sidewalks.

The survey reflects some resistance to the idea that an increase in taxes is warranted, however. From the free-responses: “Stop wasting taxpayer money on parking structures, new city buildings, and public art. You are spending money like drunken sailors while we’re in the worst recession since the Great Depression.” Balanced against that are responses like this: “I strongly endorse the idea of the city taking responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks and am certainly willing to pay for it in the form of a millage in the amount cited in this survey.” [.pdf of survey response summary]

An amendment to the resolution approved by the council on Aug. 4 directs the city attorney to prepare a change to the city’s sidewalk ordinance relative to the obligation of property owners to maintain sidewalks adjacent to their property.

Street Repair Millage: Anglin

Anglin said he is in favor of the street repair millage. The streets need to be maintained better, he said. Periodically, every five years, the city requests support for that through a millage, he noted. On the second proposal, on sidewalk repair, he said he would only reluctantly urge people to vote for it. He wanted the accounting to be thorough – he wanted a “real good tabulation of those charges.” He was sorry so many people in the last five years had to pay to replace the sidewalks adjacent to their property. He described it as an inequitable system, and said he had no response to that, except to say he was sorry it happened that way.

Street Repair Millage: Berry

Berry said his concern is that we pay a lot of property tax already. He had to wonder why it is that we’re asked to pay for streets, when we already pay so much for general taxes. He said he’d have to study that proposal more.

As for the sidewalks, he would vote against it, Berry said. In his neighborhood, people had to pay to have their sidewalks replaced. To fund that from taxes is unfair to people who already had to pay for it themselves, he said.

Transportation

Question: The Fuller Road Station will require parkland for the purpose of providing a parking structure, which will be used primarily by the University of Michigan. For this, the city will pay 22% of the initial cost. Down the road, how will the parking revenue be split? Who will pay the maintenance? Who will provide safety measures and protection? How do you personally feel about the project? What is the long-term vision for this station and the probable timeline?

Transportation: Fuller Road Background

The introduction of the Fuller Road Station concept to the public can be traced at least as far back as January 2009, when the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, presented a concept drawing at a meeting of neighbors at Northside Grill. At the time, the city was trying to encourage the University of Michigan to reconsider its plans to build parking structures on Wall Street.

The city’s strategy was to get the university to consider building its planned parking structures on the city-owned parking lot, just south of Fuller Road, near the intersection with East Medical Center Drive. It would allow the university to participate in the city’s hoped-for transit station at that location. The university has leased that parking lot from the city since 1993.

The transit station is envisioned as directly serving east-west commuter rail passengers. A day-trip demonstration service that was to launch in October 2010 never materialized. But an announcement earlier this year, that some federal support for high-speed rail track improvements would be forthcoming, has shored up hopes by many people in the community that the east-west rail connection could become a reality. That hope has been further strengthened by the recent acquisition of the track between Dearborn and Kalamazoo from Norfolk Southern by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation.

The council has already approved some expenditures directly related to the Fuller Road Station project. It voted unanimously on Aug. 17, 2009 to approve $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund.

On Nov. 5, 2009, on separate votes, the council approved additional money for the environmental study and site assessment and to authorize a memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan.

Controversy on the project includes the status of the land where the proposed Fuller Road Station would be located. It’s designated as parkland, but formally zoned as public land (PL). In the summer of 2010, the possible uses for land zoned as PL were altered by the council, on recommendation from the city planning commission, explicitly to include transportation facilities. Any long-term use agreement with the university is seen by many as tantamount to a sale of parkland. A sale should, per the city charter, be put to a voter referendum.

Recent developments have included an indication from mayor John Hieftje that a work session would be scheduled to update the council. When the city council subsequently added a July 11, 2011 work session to its calendar, it left the expectation that the topic of that session would be Fuller Road Station. However, that session did not include the proposed transit station on its agenda.

A letter from Hieftje sent to constituents in late July 2011 reviewed much of the information that was previously known, but appeared to introduce the possibility that the University of Michigan would provide construction costs for the city’s share of the parking structure up front, with the city’s portion of 22% to be repaid later.

Transportation: Berry

Berry said he was opposed to the Fuller Road project, and was opposed to turning parkland into a parking structure. The city charter says you can’t take parkland out of the system without a vote of the people, he said, and the project amounted to an “end run” around the city charter. The University of Michigan is going to get a benefit, he said, so it’s important that the university should pay its fair share of maintenance and upkeep.

Transportation: Anglin

Anglin described the Fuller Road project as a complicated problem. It was presented to the city council as a two-phase project. The second phase includes a train station. But the first phase is simply a parking structure, Anglin said. The city is really good at building parking structures, he said, but he has no interest in doing that. The university has enough land and they it can figure out the solution to the parking problem itself, Anglin said.

In the second phase, Anglin said, there would be fast trains between Ann Arbor and Detroit and Kalamazoo. He was glad that the federal government is pumping money into the rail line, but he felt the city should use the train station it has.

High-Rise Buildings

Question: What is the current acceptable standard for building height in the central city? Do you know if the student enrollment has substantially increased or is there simply an appetite for luxury apartment living? Please speak to the occupancy rate in university dormitories, older housing and new units coming on the market. Do you think the numbers are working to fill the buildings?

High-Rise Buildings: Background

By way of background, the D-1 zoning for core downtown allows for buildings as tall as 180 feet. That was enacted as part of the city’s A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) rezoning initiative. That resulted in final approval by the city council in November 2009. [For Chronicle coverage, see "Downtown Planning Process Forges Ahead." For a timeline of the process, see also "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

High-Rise Buildings: Berry

Berry said he sees it as a question of building up or out. The university is the largest employer in Ann Arbor, Berry said, and Ann Arbor needs to accommodate the university’s growth if the city wants to grow with the university. He described Buenos Aires as a city with a lot of variety – tall buildings next to short ones. At first it appears disjoint, because you don’t see a lot of conformity, but it works very well, he said. Berry said he’s in favor of allowing people to develop, as long as they adhere to the local zoning ordinances.

High-Rise Buildings: Anglin

Anglin said further discussions are necessary to develop a healthy relationship between the city and the university. The city is essentially powerless, he said, with respect to the university’s nibbling away of the tax base by acquiring land within the city. Anglin said that 50% of the houses are rental properties. He would like to see more student housing put up. He noted that the university is starting to do more renovation of student dorms.

Human Services

Question: The proposed Washtenaw County budget includes major cuts in human services. The Delonis Center homeless shelter will suffer from this. Is the city prepared and able to make up the shortfall? If not, it would seem to exacerbate the problem of homelessness in the city, particularly downtown.

Human Services: Background

For background on the recently proposed budget for Washtenaw County, see “Proposed County Budget Brings Cuts.”

The city’s support for human services is allocated in coordination with other entities: the United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County and the Washtenaw Urban County. For background on the coordinated funding approach, back when it was still in the planning stages: “Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned.”

Human Services: Anglin

Anglin said it’s a difficult problem, because services are combined with the city and county, and collaboration is being requested. The fundamental problem is that when someone volunteeers with an organization, they’re supporting the mission of that organization specifically – people who volunteer for the Family Learning Institute or Kiwanis are volunteering to support those specific organizations, he said. He worried that collaboration might threaten the volunteer base. We need the private sector to come in and help, he said, because the city’s funds were not adequate.

Human Services: Berry

Berry said he spends time down at the shelter periodically and knows that many people down there are not from Ann Arbor. They come from all over the county and all over the state or outside the state. He sees the solution in providing jobs to people who are down at the shelter. Many of them are looking for work, but can’t find work, he said. If the city fosters an environment that helps job creation, then people who happen to be unfortunate at this time can get off that system, so that they don’t have to rely on the goodwill of taxpayers.

Public Art

Question: The city council is reconsidering the previously approved Percent for Art program, which sets aside 1% of each capital improvement project to be used for public art in the city. The process appears to be slow in producing art. Should it be reconsidered? Do you have suggestions for improvement?

Public Art: Background

At the city council’s Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, councilmembers voted to place ballot language before voters for a street repair and sidewalk repair millage. Before the meeting, some councilmembers had indicated they were prepared to modify the ballot language to make explicit that millage funds would not be subject to the public art ordinance. The ordinance, which establishes the Percent for Art program, stipulates that 1% of all capital improvement projects must be set aside to be spent on public art.

Mayor John Hieftje effectively preempted that conversation by nominating Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as a replacement for Jeff Meyers on the public art commission and assuring the council that the question of public art could be taken up at the council’s Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

However, at the Sept. 19 meeting a proposed revision to the public art ordinance, brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), was postponed until after a working session to be held on Nov. 14, after the election on Nov. 8.

The proposed revision would change the Percent for Art program by explicitly excluding sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art.

Some councilmembers had previously understood the public art ordinance already to exclude replacement of sidewalk slabs from its definition of capital improvement projects. But based on additional information from the city attorney’s office, the proposed ordinance revision was meant to spell that out explicitly.

On two previous occasions in the last two years (Dec. 21, 2009 and May 31, 2011), the council has considered but rejected a change to the public art ordinance that would have lowered the public art earmark from 1% to 0.5%. The city’s Percent for Art program was authorized by the council on Nov. 5, 2007. It is overseen by the city’s public art commission, with members nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council.

The most recent regular Chronicle coverage of the city’s public art commission is “Art Commission Preps for Dreiseitl Dedication.”

Public Art: Berry

Berry said that public art is always an issue for discussion. For the sake of clarity, he said, it should be called “taxpayer-funded art,” not public art. He noted that throughout the city there are people who have lost their jobs, and have houses that have been put into foreclosure. At this time, he said, he did not think that the city can afford the expenditure on taxpayer-funded art. The city should spend that money on people, not on producing taxpayer-funded art.

Public Art: Anglin

Anglin noted that the Percent for Art program has been voted on in the last year by the city council. On any given project, there’s a cap of $250,000, he said. He thought that the council should take a look at it by first getting a legal opinion from the city attorney about whether the program is legal. After that, we should figure out what projects we might want to have as art projects, he said. The University of Michigan should be involved, he said. He was glad for the opportunity to discuss the public art program to ease the irritation that many people have about the program.

Finance

Question: Is there a deficit in the city budget and how large is it? If cuts were to be made, how would they be made? Is citizen safety being jeopardized? Is a city income tax being considered?

Finance: Background on Budget, Income Tax

The Ann Arbor city budget for fiscal year 2012 was approved by the city council with $77,987,857 in revenues and $79,105,945 in expenditures, and drew down the fund reserves by $1,118,088 to balance the budget.

In Michigan, local municipalities have four sources of possible revenue: (1) property taxes; (2) fees for services; (3) state shared revenue – apportioned from the state sales tax; and (4) a city income tax.

The city of Ann Arbor does not levy just one kind of property tax. Ann Arbor tax bills include separate taxes to support: general operations, employee benefits, the solid waste system, debt, street repair, city parks, open space acquisition, and mass transit.

An example of fees for service is the drinking water utility – residents pay for the amount of water they use.

It’s not an option for a city to levy any kind of sales tax in addition to the state sales tax. For example, the city of Ann Arbor is not legally empowered to apply an entertainment tax that could be added to University of Michigan football tickets. Part of the rationale behind the state shared revenue system is for local municipalities to have their inability to levy extra taxes balanced out by revenue that is shared with them by the state. However, the future of state shared revenues is unclear, and local municipalities aren’t sure if they’ll continue to receive those revenues in coming years.

A feature of the Ann Arbor city charter that distinguishes Ann Arbor from other Michigan cities is the relationship between the general operations property tax and a city income tax. Per the city charter, Ann Arbor can enact one, but not both kinds of tax:

City Tax Limit SECTION 8.7. (a) … In any calendar year in which the Uniform City Income Tax Ordinance is in effect on the day when the budget is adopted, the City may not levy any part of the three-fourths of one percent property tax previously mentioned …

But if the city of Ann Arbor were to enact a city income tax, it’s only the general operations property tax that would disappear – the other city property taxes would remain.

Cities can enact a city income tax under the state statute Uniform City Income Tax, which allows an income tax of up to 1% to be levied on residents of a city, and on non-residents up to 1/2 of the percentage levied on residents. For example, if a city enacted a .5% income tax on residents, then non-residents would pay no more than .25%.

Supporters of a city income tax for Ann Arbor typically defend against tax burden arguments by pointing to the fact that the city charter stipulates that a city income tax replaces, rather than supplements, the roughly 6 mill general operations property tax for residents. [For readers who wonder how much property tax they would save, the line item, on summer tax bills, is labeled CITY OPER].

Supporters also typically point out that 40% of the real estate in Ann Arbor is not subject to property tax – due to the large city park system and the presence of the University of Michigan, whose land is not subject to property tax. So funding operations from property taxes is more challenging than in cities where a greater percentage of the property is subject to a tax.

Supporters also typically point to the large number of workers who have jobs in the city of Ann Arbor – many of them at UM – who live outside the city. That translates into larger potential revenue from an income tax than in cities that have a smaller number of commuters.

Detractors of a city income tax typically point to the potential barrier such a tax might represent to businesses choosing to locate in Ann Arbor, or to the inequity of the income tax with respect to resident renters – who may not see the reduction in their landlord’s property tax passed along to them in lower rents. Some oppose the idea on philosophical grounds, arguing that applying the tax to non-resident workers amounts to taxation without representation. Income taxes as a source of revenue are also somewhat less stable than property taxes.

Finance: Income Tax – Previous Discussions

Two years ago, at the Ann Arbor city council’s January 2009 budget retreat, then-councilmember Leigh Greden advocated for an exploration of replacing the general operating millage with an 1% city income tax. The budget retreat discussion resulted in the dissemination of a previous, 2004 city income tax study. The 2004 study had been preceded by a 1997 city income tax study.

In July 2009, the city released a more current study. But in August of that year, it became clear at a city council work session that there was no enthusiasm on the part of councilmembers to place the issue on the ballot in the fall.

Yet at that year’s budget retreat on Dec. 5, 2009, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) again raised the issue of exploring a city income tax. And at a Feb. 16, 2010 meeting of the city council’s budget committee, which included [and still includes] Taylor, members gave then-city administrator Roger Fraser the green light to conduct a survey of voter attitudes on the city income tax.

Finance: City Income Tax – More Recent Discussions

Through the city council and mayoral election season in 2010, the idea of a city income tax received some discussion as an issue. During his campaign, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) in particular expressed support for the idea. He’s now part of a working group on the council, which also includes Taylor and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), that is taking a closer look at revenue questions. At the Dec. 4, 2010 budget retreat, former city administrator Roger Fraser had expressed the same sentiment he’d conveyed to members of the budget committee back in February 2010: He thought he had an obligation to ask the citizens to consider the income tax question before cutting services.

Finance: Anglin

Anglin said he would not want to consider a city income tax. He said it sends a negative message and has a negative impact on the lower end of the work force. When we talk about the budget, he said, it’s the general fund we’re talking about – that funds safety services. We need to step up funding for police and fire, he said. We should look at administrative costs as an area to cut. We should also look for concessions from unions, he said.

Finance: Berry

Berry said that city finances is always a hard topic. The majority of funding comes from taxes and fees, he said. That brings up the question of what the priorities are of government. He believed the role of government was to provide basic servies that people can’t reasonably provide for themselves individually. When times are tough, the council has to cut programs that aren’t a part of basic services. He said hoped that cuts made to police and fire have not jeopardized safety. He said he was opposed to a city income tax.

Closing Statements

Each candidate had two minutes to give a closing statement.

Closing: Anglin

Anglin thanked the LWV and its continued efforts to educate the public about the candidates. In 2007 when he first ran, Anglin said, he was determined to reflect the desires of his constituents. As he went door-to-door, he said he developed a sense of what voters valued. They support parks and active recreation. When Huron Hills was threatened, he said, he worked hard to make sure that Huron Hills remained a golf course. He said he believed in a healthy community through recreation, for all ages and ability levels.

As a city council representative to the city’s park advisory commission, Anglin said he worked to save Ann Arbor’s parks, which make the city a destination. It’s taken 150 years to create the park system, he said. Another issue he’s heard from voters is the need for the city of Ann Arbor to be more fiscally responsible. The city has limited resources, and even though others felt they wanted to build more buildings, he felt the city could not afford it, without reducing services. He said he did not vote for either the new municipal center to house the police and courts building, or the new underground parking garage currently under construction downtown. He said he encouraged more communication with residents.

Closing: Berry

Berry thanked the LWV for the invitation to come. He said the good people of Ann Arbor deserve more than what they’ve been getting. If elected, he would work for more police and fire protection, good roads, timely snow removal, maintenance of city parks and other basic services. He said he’d work for change in the business climate that promotes business growth.

Berry’s vision of Ann Arbor is one that leads the nation as a safe, affordable city, known for efficient, responsive government. He wants a government that lets entrepreneurs know they can do business in Ann Arbor without arbitrary intervention. He said he supports liberty and freedom. He would work on returning Ann Arbor to its core greatness and letting Ann Arbor be what it can be, not what somebody thinks it should be.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Republican candidate for Ward 4 city council Eric Scheie, before the League of Women Voters forum on Oct. 5. On Scheie's website, he gives the pronunciation of his name, which is pronounced "Shay." During small talk among LWV members before the start of the meeting, they drew upon a character familiar from American history to help remind themselves of the pronunciation: "It's 'Shay' as in Shay's Rebellion." (Photo by the writer.)

This report focuses on the forum for candidates in Ward 4, where Republican Eric Scheie is challenging Democratic incumbent Marcia Higgins. A replay of the forum is available via Community Television Network’s video on demand service. [Ward 4 CTN coverage]

Higgins did not attend the forum, sending her regrets in a written statement, which was read aloud: “I’m confirming that I will not be in attendance tomorrow evening due to a family commitment on Oct. 5. I appreciate the league’s focus on debating the issues and time spent on bringing debate to the public. Thank you for the invitation to participate.” The LWV indicated that holding the forum without Higgins would be consistent with its “empty chair” policy.

Higgins began her city council career as a Republican, first winning election to the council in 1999. She changed parties to become a Democrat in 2005. Many observers believe it’s not possible to be elected to the council as a Republican in Ann Arbor’s current political climate.

At the LWV forum, Scheie explicitly addressed the issue of party membership, saying that he was running as a Republican precisely because of the lack of opposition politics in Ann Arbor – “Republican” has become a dirty word in Ann Arbor, he said.

The council is an 11-member body, with two representatives from each ward, plus the mayor. All members of the council, including the mayor, serve two-year terms. In a given year, one of the two council seats for each ward is up for election. In even-numbered years, the position of mayor is also up for election.

This year, the general election falls on Nov. 8. Readers who are unsure where to vote can type their address into the My Property page of the city of Ann Arbor’s website to get that information. A map of city ward boundaries is also online.

Scheie responded to LWV questions on the street/sidewalk repair millage, the proposed Fuller Road Station, high-rise buildings, human services and public art.

Opening statement

Scheie had a minute to give an opening statement.

Scheie said he’d lived in Ann Arbor for three years. The reason he’s running is that the biggest problem he thinks the city faces is a lack of opposition. Overwhelmingly, he said, city council measures are unanimously or nearly unanimously approved. He wants to see diversity in government, he said. He described himself as a reluctant candidate.

The reason he’s running as a Republican is that he’s discovered that in Ann Arbor, “Republican” is a dirty word. He said that going door-to-door, he’s had people practically chase him off their porch. One woman looked him in the eye and told him she didn’t think Republicans should be running for office in Ann Arbor. So that’s why he’s running, he said. He also noted that there are a number of issues in Ward 4 that are of particular concern – the East Stadium Boulevard bridges, potholes, sump pumps and Georgetown Mall.

Street Repair Millage

Question: Proposal 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot requests up to 2.0 mills for street and bridge reconstruction. Proposal 2 allows an additional 0.125 mills for sidewalk repair outside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority TIF district. Please explain the mechanics of the two proposals’ interdependent passage. Tell voters in your ward how you plan to vote.

Street Repair Millage: Background

At its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved language for the Nov. 8 ballot that would renew the street and bridge reconstruction millage, at a rate of 2.0 mills. It was last approved by voters in November 2006 for five years beginning in 2007 and ending in 2011. A tax rate of 1 mill is equivalent to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

As a separate proposal on the ballot, voters will be asked if they support an additional 0.125 mill to pay for sidewalk repair. Up to now, sidewalk repair has been the responsibility of property owners.

The ballot language for the street repair millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax up to 2 mills for street and bridge reconstruction for 2012 through 2016 to replace the previously authorized tax up to 2 mills for street reconstruction for 2007 through 2011, which will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $9,091,000?

The ballot language for the sidewalk portion of the millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax increase of up to 0.125 mills for 2012 through 2016 in addition to the street and bridge resurfacing and reconstruction millage of 2 mills for 2012 through 2016, which 0.125 mills will raise in the first year of levy the estimated additional revenue of $563,000, to provide a total of up to 2.125 mills for sidewalk trip hazard repair in addition to street and bridge reconstruction and resurfacing? This Charter amendment shall not take effect unless the proposed Charter amendment to authorize the levy of a tax in 2012 through 2016 of up to 2 mills for the purpose of providing funds for the reconstruction and resurfacing of streets and bridges (Proposal 1) is approved.

The sidewalk repair portion of the millage would be levied only if the street repair millage were also approved by voters. But the levy of the street repair millage is not dependent on the authorization of the sidewalk repair millage.

If both millage proposals were to be approved by voters, the money would be collected under a single, combined millage – but accounting for reconstruction activity would be done separately for streets and sidewalks.

The separation of the question into two proposals can be explained in part by a summary of responses to the city’s online survey on the topic of slightly increasing the street repair millage to include sidewalk repairs. Sidewalk repairs have up to now been the responsibility of property owners. The survey reflects overwhelming sentiment from the 576 survey respondents (filtered for self-reported city residents) that it should be the city’s responsibility to repair the sidewalks.

The survey reflects some resistance to the idea that an increase in taxes is warranted, however. From the free-responses: “Stop wasting taxpayer money on parking structures, new city buildings, and public art. You are spending money like drunken sailors while we’re in the worst recession since the Great Depression.” Balanced against that are responses like this: “I strongly endorse the idea of the city taking responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks and am certainly willing to pay for it in the form of a millage in the amount cited in this survey.” [.pdf of survey response summary]

An amendment to the resolution approved by the council on Aug. 4 directs the city attorney to prepare a change to the city’s sidewalk ordinance relative to the obligation of property owners to maintain sidewalks adjacent to their property.

Street Repair Millage: Scheie

Scheie said he planned to vote no on both the street and sidewalk repair proposals. The city was not using the funds it had, he said. The city spends money on art – $750,000 for art in front of city hall, which was a project awarded to a German artist. He said he loved art and local artists, but the prioritization should be done differently.

As far as sidewalk repair, his understanding was that the city would do the repairs, and then the citizens paid the city for the repair. [Editor's note: That's one scenario that could unfold under the city's sidewalk repair program that it has run for the last five years. The city first inspects and marks problematic slabs, and notifies property owners. If property owners do not arrange to have the work done themselves, one option is to allow to the city to do the work – the owners would then be billed for it.] Scheie said people had complained to him that they had paid money and the repairs had not been done. He did not think at this point that the city could be trusted with the money it would collect under the millage.

Transportation

Question: The Fuller Road Station will require parkland for the purpose of providing a parking structure, which will be used primarily by the University of Michigan. For this the city will pay 22% of the initial cost. Down the road, how will the parking revenue be split? Who will pay the maintenance? Who will provide safety measures and protection? How do you personally feel about the project? What is the long-term vision for this station and the probable timeline?

Transportation: Fuller Road Background

The introduction of the Fuller Road Station concept to the public can be traced at least as far back as January 2009, when the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, presented a concept drawing at a meeting of neighbors at Northside Grill. At the time, the city was trying to encourage the University of Michigan to reconsider its plans to build parking structures on Wall Street.

The city’s strategy was to get the university to consider building its planned parking structures on the city-owned parking lot, just south of Fuller Road, near the intersection with East Medical Center Drive. It would allow the university to participate in the city’s hoped-for transit station at that location. The university has leased that parking lot from the city since 1993.

The transit station is envisioned as directly serving east-west commuter rail passengers. A day-trip demonstration service that was to launch in October 2010 never materialized. But an announcement earlier this year, that some federal support for high-speed rail track improvements would be forthcoming, has shored up hopes by many people in the community that the east-west rail connection could become a reality. That hope has been further strengthened by the recent acquisition of the track between Dearborn and Kalamazoo from Norfolk Southern by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation.

The council has already approved some expenditures directly related to the Fuller Road Station project. It voted unanimously on Aug. 17, 2009 to approve $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund.

On Nov. 5, 2009, on separate votes, the council approved additional money for the environmental study and site assessment and to authorize a memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan.

Controversy on the project includes the status of the land where the proposed Fuller Road Station would be located. It’s designated as parkland, but formally zoned as public land (PL). In the summer of 2010, the possible uses for land zoned as PL were altered by the council, on recommendation from the city planning commission, explicitly to include transportation facilities. Any long-term use agreement with the university is seen by many as tantamount to a sale of parkland. A sale should, per the city charter, be put to a voter referendum.

Recent developments have included an indication from mayor John Hieftje that a work session would be scheduled to update the council. When the city council subsequently added a July 11, 2011 work session to its calendar, it left the expectation that the topic of that session would be Fuller Road Station. However, that session did not include the proposed transit station on its agenda.

A letter from Hieftje sent to constituents in late July 2011 reviewed much of the information that was previously known, but appeared to introduce the possibility that the University of Michigan would provide construction costs for the city’s share of the parking structure up front, with the city’s portion of 22% to be repaid later.

Transportation: Scheie

Scheie said his understanding is that there’s a plan to put the Amtrak station on city parkland. He felt that should be put before voters. He noted that the city said it’s not bound by the city charter in this instance. For that kind of dramatic change in the use of parkland, he said, it should should be put before voters.

It’s also his understanding, said Scheie, that the rail traffic the station is supposed to serve is not yet there. It’s connected up to Detroit, he said, and what they’d be doing is putting in a station and hoping that trains eventually begin to run. That seemed foolish and short-sighted, he said. It’s also undemocratic, he added – people should have a right to vote on it.

High-Rise Buildings

Question: What is the current acceptable standard for building height in the central city? Do you know if the student enrollment has substantially increased or is there simply an appetite for luxury apartment living? Please speak to the occupancy rate in university dormitories, older housing and new units coming on the market. Do you think the numbers are working to fill the buildings?

High-Rise Buildings: Background

By way of background, the D-1 zoning for core downtown allows for buildings as tall as 180 feet. That was enacted as part of the city’s A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) rezoning initiative. A2D2 was given final approval by the city council in November 2009. [See Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Planning Process Forges Ahead." For a timeline of the process, see also "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

High-Rise Buildings: Scheie

Scheie said he did not think the numbers worked. He’d read there’s a substantial vacancy rate. And in spite of that, new high-rise buildings were being approved – for example, The Varsity Ann Arbor, which would stand 13 stories tall. He thought that was short-sighted. He described Ann Arbor as a small-scaled city of older homes.

Scheie did not think you could tear down older buildings and putting up a high-rise and expect that you can fill up the new building. He did not think that was going to happen – given the existing vacancy rate. Why would you want a high-rise? He wondered why developers would do that. What he’d read, he said, is that developers are in partnership with the city and there are tax advantages.

Human Services

Question: The proposed Washtenaw County budget includes major cuts in human services. The Delonis Center homeless shelter will suffer from this. Is the city prepared and able to make up the shortfall? If not, it would seem to exacerbate the problem of homelessness in the city, particularly downtown.

Human Services: Background

For background on the recently-proposed budget for Washtenaw County, see “Proposed County Budget Brings Cuts.”

The city’s support for human services is allocated in coordination with other entities: the United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County and the Washtenaw Urban County. For background on the coordinated funding approach, back when it was still in the planning stages: “Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned.”

Human Services: Scheie

Scheie said nobody wants a problem with homelessness. Right where he lives, there are homeless people trying to squat, Scheie said. He’s called the police, but they say they’re understaffed. He said he’s very compassionate about that, but at the same time many of the homeless people in Ann Arbor are not from Ann Arbor. He said he would not want to see anyone denied services, particularly if it’s an Ann Arborite. Spending money on people who may come from other parts of the state needs to be looked at – with compassion, but also with an eye towards priorities, he concluded.

Public Art

Question: The city council is reconsidering the previously approved Percent for Art program, which sets aside 1% of each capital improvement project to be used for public art in the city. The process appears to be slow in producing art. Should it be reconsidered? Do you have suggestions for improvement?

Public Art: Background

At the city council’s Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, councilmembers voted to place ballot language before voters for a street repair and sidewalk repair millage. Before the meeting, some councilmembers had indicated they were prepared to modify the ballot language to make explicit that millage funds would not be subject to the public art ordinance. The ordinance, which establishes the Percent for Art program, stipulates that 1% of all capital improvement projects must be set aside to be spent on public art.

Mayor John Hieftje effectively preempted that conversation by nominating Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as a replacement for Jeff Meyers on the public art commission and assuring the council that the question of public art could be taken up at the council’s Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

However, at the Sept. 19 meeting a proposed revision to the public art ordinance, brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), was postponed until after a working session to be held on Nov. 14, after the election on Nov. 8.

The proposed revision would change the Percent for Art program by explicitly excluding sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art.

Some councilmembers had previously understood the public art ordinance already to exclude replacement of sidewalk slabs from its definition of capital improvement projects. But based on additional information from the city attorney’s office, the proposed ordinance revision was meant to spell that out explicitly.

On two previous occasions in the last two years (Dec. 21, 2009 and May 31, 2011), the council has considered but rejected a change to the public art ordinance that would have lowered the public art earmark from 1% to 0.5%. The city’s Percent for Art program was authorized by the council on Nov. 5, 2007. It is overseen by the city’s public art commission, with members nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council.

The most recent regular Chronicle coverage of the city’s public art commission is “Art Commission Preps for Dreiseitl Dedication.”

Public Art: Scheie

Scheie said he loves art and he’s a patron of the arts. He’s learning how to weld, to create metal sculpture. He does like art, he said. However, he doesn’t particularly like the orange trees in West Park [which were the first project completed through the Percent for Art program].

Scheie’s problem with the public art ordinance is that it might possibly be illegal. It concerns public money, he said, that is supposed to go to other purposes like roads and bridges. People who are voting for millages for those purposes are not voting to pay for art. People should have the right to weigh in on that.

Basic services should come ahead of art, Scheie said. He is not against art, but the city’s approach is just not an appropriate way to fund it. Scheie rejected the defense of the public art program that the city is bound by the law to designate 1% of capital improvement projects to art – the city council passed that law and could rescind it, he said.

Closing statement

Scheie had two minutes to give a closing statement.

Scheie said he hadn’t had a chance to talk about the issues relevant to his ward. That included the East Stadium bridges project, which he described as dragging on forever. He said it’s more than a bridge project – the city is reconstructing a whole neighborhood. He described how some of the streets will be partly closed – people who live on Golden Avenue are very upset, he said, because of the closure of White Street. Scheie said that everybody is talking about potholes – it’s almost comical. Ann Arbor has the third worst roads in the state, he said.

There’s also a sump pump problem, Scheie said. He’d talked to several ward residents who said they’d never had a problem with basement flooding until the city forced them to get a sump pump. He described it as intrusive, busy-body government that people don’t like. [For background on the sanitary sewer disconnection program, see "DDA Preps Downtown Ann Arbor Process"]

People are also worried about the site that is the former location of the Georgetown Mall – he’s afraid it’s going to be another Broadway Village. Crime is increasing, Scheie contended, and police has been cut 35%. The city should focus on basic services, stop extravagant spending and end one-party rule.

We need opposition politics in this town, Scheie said. Republicans would never be the majority, he said, no matter what. Maybe the solution is not Republicans, maybe it’s independents like Jane Lumm, he said. But the city desperately needs some opposition.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Democratic incumbent Stephen Kunselman (left) and Republican challenger David Parker (right) before the start of the League of Women Voters forum on Oct. 5. The men are vying for a Ward 3 city council seat. (Photos by the writer.)

This report focuses on the forum for Ward 3, where Republican David Parker is challenging Democratic incumbent Stephen Kunselman. A replay of the forum is available via Community Television Network’s video on demand service. [Ward 3 CTN coverage]

The Ann Arbor council is an 11-member body, with two representatives from each ward, plus the mayor. All members of the council, including the mayor, serve two-year terms. In a given year, one of the two council seats for each ward is up for election. In even-numbered years, the position of mayor is also up for election.

This year, the general election falls on Nov. 8. Readers who are unsure where to vote can type their address into the My Property page of the city of Ann Arbor’s website to get that information. A map of city ward boundaries is also online.

Although the election in Ward 1 is not contested – Democratic incumbent Sabra Briere is unopposed – voters in that ward will have a chance to vote on three ballot proposals, along with other city residents. The first two ballot questions concern a sidewalk/street repair tax; the third question concerns the composition of the city’s retirement board of trustees.

Ballot questions were among the issues on which LWV members solicited responses from candidates. Kunselman indicated he would support the street and sidewalk repair millages, but only reluctantly. Parker said he would not support the sidewalk millage. They both supported the proposal to change the composition of the retirement board.

Other topics, presented in chronological order below, include the proposed Fuller Road Station, city finances, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, human services, public art, and the planned Allen Creek greenway.

Opening Statements

Each candidate had a minute to give an opening statement.

Opening: Kunselman

Kunselman introduced himself by saying he’s a Democrat who won the Democratic primary this August. He’s seeking re-election, because there’s a lot to do and he thinks it’s important to have independent-minded councilmembers who pose questions and pursue answers that will result in better policies and will promote public health, safety and welfare for residents.

Opening: Parker

Parker introduced himself as a certified public accountant who’s lived in Ann Arbor since 2000. He described Ann Arbor as an eclectic, evolving and rich city. He said Ann Arbor is a rich city, both financially and culturally. Yet Ann Arbor has some of the highest property tax rates in the country and in the state.

On expense side, we’ve had cutbacks in police, Parker said. In 2001 the city had 232 FTEs in the police department – in 2010 there were 152. He asked if we are 35% safer with 35% fewer police – he didn’t think so. Ann Arbor should get back to the basics and make public safety our top priority, he said. He would be someone who would watch the bottom line, make basic services and public safety our top priority, and would fight to lower taxes, he said.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment

Question: On the Nov. 8 ballot, voters will be asked to approve a city charter amendment that removes the city administrator, currently Steve Powers, from the city retirement board of trustees. Explain the purpose of approving this amendment.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Background

The composition of the nine-member body as currently set forth in the charter is as follows: “(1) The City Administrator and the Controller to serve by virtue of their respective offices; (2) Three Trustees appointed by the Council and to serve at the pleasure of the Council; (3) Two Trustees elected by the general city members from their own number (general city members being members other than Policemen and Firemen members); and (4) Two Trustees elected by the Policemen and Firemen members from their own number.”

The proposed change would retain nine members but would distribute them differently: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire.

If the measure passes on Nov. 8, it will still need to be ratified by the city’s collective bargaining units in order to take effect.

In 2005, a “blue ribbon” commission – tasked to make recommendations about the city’s retirement board and the city’s pension plan – had called for a change in the board’s composition to be a majority of trustees who are not beneficiaries of the retirement plan and, in particular, to remove the city administrator’s position from the board.

In 2008, a member of the retirement system’s board of trustees, Robert N. Pollack, Jr., resigned from the board in part due to the city’s failure to enact recommendations of the blue ribbon panel. [.pdf of blue ribbon panel report] [.pdf of Pollack's resignation letter]

Under the terms of new city administrator Steve Powers’ contract, he will not be a beneficiary of the city’s retirement plan, but will instead have a 401(a) plan.

The city’s retirement program is supported in part by the levy of a retirement benefits millage [labeled CITY BENEFITS on tax bills], currently at a rate of 2.056 mills, which is the same rate as the city’s transit millage. A mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Kunselman

Kunselman said the primary purpose of the amendment was to remove the conflict of interest that results from having a city administrator who also receives a pension, from engaging in policy making on the pension board. It should have been done long ago, he said, because it was recommended by a blue ribbon task force formed six years ago. Finally it’s coming to the community for a vote, so he hoped the community would support it.

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Parker

Parker agreed that conflict of interest should be eliminated.

Street Repair Millage

Question: Proposal 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot requests up to 2.0 mills for street and bridge reconstruction. Proposal 2 allows an additional 0.125 mills for sidewalk repair outside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority TIF district. Please explain the mechanics of the two proposals’ interdependent passage. Tell voters in your ward how you plan to vote.

Street Repair Millage: Background

At its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved language for the Nov. 8 ballot that would renew the street and bridge reconstruction millage, at a rate of 2.0 mills. It was last approved by voters in November 2006 for five years beginning in 2007 and ending in 2011. A tax rate of 1 mill is equivalent to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

As a separate proposal on the ballot, voters will be asked if they support an additional 0.125 mill to pay for sidewalk repair. Up to now, sidewalk repair has been the responsibility of property owners.

The ballot language for the street repair millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax up to 2 mills for street and bridge reconstruction for 2012 through 2016 to replace the previously authorized tax up to 2 mills for street reconstruction for 2007 through 2011, which will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $9,091,000?

The ballot language for the sidewalk portion of the millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax increase of up to 0.125 mills for 2012 through 2016 in addition to the street and bridge resurfacing and reconstruction millage of 2 mills for 2012 through 2016, which 0.125 mills will raise in the first year of levy the estimated additional revenue of $563,000, to provide a total of up to 2.125 mills for sidewalk trip hazard repair in addition to street and bridge reconstruction and resurfacing? This Charter amendment shall not take effect unless the proposed Charter amendment to authorize the levy of a tax in 2012 through 2016 of up to 2 mills for the purpose of providing funds for the reconstruction and resurfacing of streets and bridges (Proposal 1) is approved.

The sidewalk repair portion of the millage would be levied only if the street repair millage were also approved by voters. But the levy of the street repair millage is not dependent on the authorization of the sidewalk repair millage.

If both millage proposals were to be approved by voters, the money would be collected under a single, combined millage – but accounting for reconstruction activity would be done separately for streets and sidewalks.

The separation of the question into two proposals can be explained in part by a summary of responses to the city’s online survey on the topic of slightly increasing the street repair millage to include sidewalk repairs. Sidewalk repairs have up to now been the responsibility of property owners. The survey reflects overwhelming sentiment from the 576 survey respondents (filtered for self-reported city residents) that it should be the city’s responsibility to repair the sidewalks.

The survey reflects some resistance to the idea that an increase in taxes is warranted, however. From the free-responses: “Stop wasting taxpayer money on parking structures, new city buildings, and public art. You are spending money like drunken sailors while we’re in the worst recession since the Great Depression.” Balanced against that are responses like this: “I strongly endorse the idea of the city taking responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks and am certainly willing to pay for it in the form of a millage in the amount cited in this survey.” [.pdf of survey response summary]

An amendment to the resolution approved by the council on Aug. 4 directs the city attorney to prepare a change to the city’s sidewalk ordinance relative to the obligation of property owners to maintain sidewalks adjacent to their property.

Street Repair Millage: Parker

Parker contended that years ago, the city of Ann Arbor paid for sidewalk repair, then started having individual homeowners pay for repairs. In his opinion, the sidewalks can become the responsibility of the city without enacting the sidewalk millage.

Street Repair Millage: Kunselman

Kunselman noted that Ann Arbor residents have, from what he can remember, always supported the street repair millage. He said he’d support it, but hesitantly this time around, due to concern about how it’s been managed. There’s a great amount of money that was not spent out of the street millage fund, he noted, in anticipation of spending it on the East Stadium bridges project [when it appeared that the federal funding would not be forthcoming, which has since materialized].

The millage that is up for a vote, Kunselman said, includes the word “bridge,” whereas the previous one did not. He said he did not think it would have been possible to spend that street millage money on the bridges, because it was not authorized for that purpose by residents who voted at that time. Kunselman said he would also hesitantly support the sidewalk repair millage. The program as previously administered does not work, he contended. Having individual property owners contract out makes for a complex and difficult process.

Transportation

Question: The Fuller Road Station will require parkland for the purpose of providing a parking structure, which will be used primarily by the University of Michigan. For this the city will pay 22% of the initial cost. Down the road, how will the parking revenue be split? Who will pay the maintenance? Who will provide safety measures and protection? How do you personally feel about the project? What is the long-term vision for this station and the probable timeline?]

Transportation: Fuller Road Background

The introduction of the Fuller Road Station concept to the public can be traced at least as far back as January 2009, when the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, presented a concept drawing at a meeting of neighbors at Northside Grill. At the time, the city was trying to encourage the University of Michigan to reconsider its plans to build parking structures on Wall Street.

The city’s strategy was to get the university to consider building its planned parking structures on the city-owned parking lot, just south of Fuller Road, near the intersection with East Medical Center Drive. It would allow the university to participate in the city’s hoped-for transit station at that location. The university has leased that parking lot from the city since 1993.

The transit station is envisioned as directly serving east-west commuter rail passengers. A day-trip demonstration service that was to launch in October 2010 never materialized. But an announcement earlier this year, that some federal support for high-speed rail track improvements would be forthcoming, has shored up hopes by many people in the community that the east-west rail connection could become a reality. That hope has been further strengthened by the recent acquisition of the track between Dearborn and Kalamazoo from Norfolk Southern by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation.

The council has already approved some expenditures directly related to the Fuller Road Station project. It voted unanimously on Aug. 17, 2009 to approve $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund.

On Nov. 5, 2009, on separate votes, the council approved additional money for the environmental study and site assessment and to authorize a memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan.

Controversy on the project includes the status of the land where the proposed Fuller Road Station would be located. It’s designated as parkland, but formally zoned as public land (PL). In the summer of 2010, the possible uses for land zoned as PL were altered by the council, on recommendation from the city planning commission, explicitly to include transportation facilities. Any long-term use agreement with the university is seen by many as tantamount to a sale of parkland. A sale should, per the city charter, be put to a voter referendum.

Recent developments have included an indication from mayor John Hieftje that a work session would be scheduled to update the council. When the city council subsequently added a July 11, 2011 work session to its calendar, it left the expectation that the topic of that session would be Fuller Road Station. However, that session did not include the proposed transit station on its agenda.

A letter from Hieftje sent to constituents in late July 2011 reviewed much of the information that was previously known, but appeared to introduce the possibility that the University of Michigan would provide construction costs for the city’s share of the parking structure up front, with the city’s portion of 22% to be repaid later.

Transportation: Kunselman

Kunselman began by saying that the prompt had a bunch of questions for which there are no answers. Information may be there, which has not been provided to some members of the council, but has been provided to others, he said. He did not have the information. He described the conversations as negotiations at the mayoral level.

In August before the primary election, he said, new information had come from the mayor to the effect that the University of Michigan would provide some manner of a loan to the city for its share of the construction cost. Kunselman said he was not sure where that information came from – it had not yet been considered by the UM board of regents.

Kunselman described himself as reluctant about the project, unless it includes a train station. If there’s no train station, then it is not a Fuller Road Station, it’s a structure with a bus stop, he said. So far, he’s only seen elevation drawings for a parking structure, but not for a train station.

Transportation: Parker

Parker agreed with Kunselman that there hasn’t been enough information on the project. Until you have more information, you don’t know, he said. His default answer when there is not enough information is no.

Finance

Question: Is there a deficit in the city budget and how large is it? If cuts were to be made, how would they be made? Is citizen safety being jeopardized? Is a city income tax being considered?

Finance: Background on Budget, Income Tax

The Ann Arbor city budget for fiscal year 2012 was approved by the city council with $77,987,857 in revenues and $79,105,945 in expenditures, and drew down the fund reserves by $1,118,088 to balance the budget.

In Michigan, local municipalities have four sources of possible revenue: (1) property taxes; (2) fees for services; (3) state shared revenue – apportioned from the state sales tax; and (4) a city income tax.

The city of Ann Arbor does not levy just one kind of property tax. Ann Arbor tax bills include separate taxes to support: general operations, employee benefits, the solid waste system, debt, street repair, city parks, open space acquisition, and mass transit.

An example of fees for service is the drinking water utility – residents pay for the amount of water they use.

It’s not an option for a city to levy any kind of sales tax in addition to the state sales tax. For example, the city of Ann Arbor is not legally empowered to apply an entertainment tax that could be added to University of Michigan football tickets. Part of the rationale behind the state shared revenue system is for local municipalities to have their inability to levy extra taxes balanced out by revenue that is shared with them by the state. However, the future of state shared revenues is unclear, and local municipalities aren’t sure if they’ll continue to receive those revenues in coming years.

A feature of the Ann Arbor city charter that distinguishes Ann Arbor from other Michigan cities is the relationship between the general operations property tax and a city income tax. Per the city charter, Ann Arbor can enact one, but not both kinds of tax:

City Tax Limit SECTION 8.7. (a) … In any calendar year in which the Uniform City Income Tax Ordinance is in effect on the day when the budget is adopted, the City may not levy any part of the three-fourths of one percent property tax previously mentioned …

But if the city of Ann Arbor were to enact a city income tax, it’s only the general operations property tax that would disappear – the other city property taxes would remain.

Cities can enact a city income tax under the state statute Uniform City Income Tax, which allows an income tax of up to 1% to be levied on residents of a city, and on non-residents up to 1/2 of the percentage levied on residents. For example, if a city enacted a .5% income tax on residents, then non-residents would pay no more than .25%.

Supporters of a city income tax for Ann Arbor typically defend against tax burden arguments by pointing to the fact that the city charter stipulates that a city income tax replaces, rather than supplements, the roughly 6 mill general operations property tax for residents. [For readers who wonder how much property tax they would save, the line item, on summer tax bills, is labeled CITY OPER].

Supporters also typically point out that 40% of the real estate in Ann Arbor is not subject to property tax – due to the large city park system and the presence of the University of Michigan, whose land is not subject to property tax. So funding operations from property taxes is more challenging than in cities where a greater percentage of the property is subject to a tax.

Supporters also typically point to the large number of workers who have jobs in the city of Ann Arbor – many of them at UM – who live outside the city. That translates into larger potential revenue from an income tax than in cities that have a smaller number of commuters.

Detractors of a city income tax typically point to the potential barrier such a tax might represent to businesses choosing to locate in Ann Arbor, or to the inequity of the income tax with respect to resident renters – who may not see the reduction in their landlord’s property tax passed along to them in lower rents. Some oppose the idea on philosophical grounds, arguing that applying the tax to non-resident workers amounts to taxation without representation. Income taxes as a source of revenue are also somewhat less stable than property taxes.

Finance: Income Tax – Previous Discussions

Two years ago, at the Ann Arbor city council’s January 2009 budget retreat, then-councilmember Leigh Greden advocated for an exploration of replacing the general operating millage with an 1% city income tax. The budget retreat discussion resulted in the dissemination of a previous, 2004 city income tax study. The 2004 study had been preceded by a 1997 city income tax study.

In July 2009, the city released a more current study. But in August of that year, it became clear at a city council work session that there was no enthusiasm on the part of councilmembers to place the issue on the ballot in the fall.

Yet at that year’s budget retreat on Dec. 5, 2009, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) again raised the issue of exploring a city income tax. And at a Feb. 16, 2010 meeting of the city council’s budget committee, which included [and still includes] Taylor, members gave then-city administrator Roger Fraser the green light to conduct a survey of voter attitudes on the city income tax.

Finance: City Income Tax – More Recent Discussions

Through the city council and mayoral election season in 2010, the idea of a city income tax received some discussion as an issue. During his campaign, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) in particular expressed support for the idea. He’s now part of a working group on the council, which also includes Taylor and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), that is taking a closer look at revenue questions. At the Dec. 4, 2010 budget retreat, former city administrator Roger Fraser had expressed the same sentiment he’d conveyed to members of the budget committee back in February 2010: He thought he had an obligation to ask the citizens to consider the income tax question before cutting services.

Finance: Parker

Parker noted the on-again-off-again discussion of a city income tax and said he would be against such a tax. He said he grew up in Detroit, which has a city income tax, and he thought it drove people and businesses away. As far as the budget goes, he said he was looking at the city’s comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) with a total of $184 million in all 51 funds. At this point, he said, he thought the city has enough money, and he’d be against a city income tax.

Finance: Kunselman

Kunselman said he’s been opposed to a city income tax “from the get-go.” He characterized a city income tax as a transfer of burden from commercial property owners to working families inside and outside the city. He said a city income tax never been approved by a community since the state legislature took away the ability of city governments to impose a city income tax without voter consent.

With respect to public safety, he allowed that the city budgets have included cutbacks in the public safety area. He said he was not going to express his personal opinion, because it was not appropriate to promote fear in a venue like a candidate forum. He said he will work diligently to make sure there are no more cuts. He acknowledged that the general fund has a projected deficit for next year. He said he would cut funding for public art before he cuts police.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Question: The city has recently moved towards greater transparency with its A2OpenBook. What about the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority? Please explain the relationship between the city council and the DDA, and between the DDA and the Ann Arbor voters. Beyond increasing downtown parking rates, how does the DDA impact the lives of Ann Arbor citizens? What is their contribution to the community?

Ann Arbor DDA: Background

The Ann Arbor DDA has been the focus of heavy Chronicle coverage over the last year. One reason for that focus is the recently renewed contract between the city and the DDA, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system. It was ratified in May 2011.

However, the DDA’s raison d’être is not to administer the public parking system, but rather to make “public improvements that have the greatest impact in strengthening the downtown area and attracting new private investments.” The streetscape improvements that are currently nearing completion on South Fifth and Division in downtown Ann Arbor are one example of the kind of projects the DDA can undertake.

The funding mechanism for those improvements is tax increment finance (TIF) capture in the downtown district. In broad strokes, the taxes on an increment – between the initial value of a property and the value after new construction – are captured by the DDA, instead of being distributed to the authorities that levy the taxes. Those taxing authorities include the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County and Washtenaw Community College.

This spring, city staff noticed that the ordinance establishing the Ann Arbor DDA appears to provide a kind of cap on the amount of taxes that the DDA is allowed to capture in its TIF district. Up to this year, that cap had not been observed. When that aspect of the ordinance was highlighted, it resulted in a repayment by the DDA of over $400,000 to other taxing authorities. In the future, a need to return TIF captured revenue to other taxing authorities could continue or be eliminated, depending on how the ordinance is interpreted. [See Chronicle coverage: "Column: Tax Capture is a Varsity Sport"]

After making repayments to other taxing authorities earlier this year, the DDA board subsequently took the position, at a special meeting held July 27, 2011, that the repayments it had made were not actually required.

The repayments, plus the conditions of the new parking agreement – which calls for transferring 17% of gross public parking revenues to the city of Ann Arbor – have put the DDA under considerable financial stress.

DDA board members are nominated to four-year terms by the mayor, and must be confirmed by the city council.

Ann Arbor DDA: Kunselman

Kunselman said it was a very long question and not one he could answer completely. However, he said he’s been disappointed in the DDA, in its management. The DDA had not provided the TIF annual status reports for the last four or five years until he’d asked for it. The most recent one shows $140 million of outstanding debt from the projects they’ve undertaken.

He contended the DDA had not been forthright with the finances of its organization. He described the board as a “hotbed of political cronyism,” because mayoral appointees steered the DDA in a direction that is not in the interest of the neighborhoods and residents, he said. The DDA has focused on generating revenues through the parking system – the DDA thinks they are a business and not a public service, he concluded. He would be working hard to make sure that changes, he said.

Ann Arbor DDA: Parker

Parker said that he was, of course, for transparency. The A2OpenBook has just happened, but it’s a good move. As far as the DDA, there are a lot of complaints about it, based on his talking to people. He said he had not done deep research but felt that the long-term contract [between the city and the DDA on the DDA's operation of the city's public parking system] needs to be looked into.

Parker said he knew that the DDA is thinking about raising parking rates based on relative demand. But he agreed with Kunselman’s conclusion that the DDA just seems to be interested in making money. It needs some oversight, he concluded.

Human Services

Question: The proposed Washtenaw County budget includes major cuts in human services. The Delonis Center homeless shelter will suffer from this. Is the city prepared and able to make up the shortfall? If not, it would seem to exacerbate the problem of homelessness in the city, particularly downtown.

Human Services: Background

For background on the recently-proposed budget for Washtenaw County, see “Proposed County Budget Brings Cuts”

The city’s support for human services is allocated in coordination with other entities: the United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County and the Washtenaw Urban County. For background on the coordinated funding approach, back when it was still in the planning stages: “Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned.”

Human Services: Parker

Parker said times are tough and we’ll need to cut back on things. This is one of the areas that’s very tough. Being homeless is a tough thing, he said. Fortunately, there are some charities that are helping out. He said some services are continuing. He said churches are doing a good job.

Human Services: Kunselman

Kunselman said the city is not prepared in a number of ways. The city is having problems right now dealing with panhandling. He said the city would not be able to handle additional people out on the street. When he returned to the city council in 2009, Kunselman said, he sent a letter to the city attorney asking: If we have a Percent for Art program, can we have also have a Percent for Human Services? He’d received no response publicly, he said, about the legality of the city’s public art program. There’s a conflict of priority, he said. The city can’t make up the shortfall due to reduced county funding, he noted – the city needs to put police on the street before spending money elsewhere.

Public Art

Question: The city council is reconsidering the previously approved Percent for Art program, which sets aside 1% of each capital improvement project to be used for public art in the city. The process appears to be slow in producing art. Should it be reconsidered? Do you have suggestions for improvement?

Public Art: Background

At the city council’s Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, councilmembers voted to place ballot language before voters for a street repair and sidewalk repair millage. Before the meeting, some councilmembers had indicated they were prepared to modify the ballot language to make explicit that millage funds would not be subject to the public art ordinance. The ordinance, which establishes the Percent for Art program, stipulates that 1% of all capital improvement projects must be set aside to be spent on public art.

Mayor John Hieftje effectively preempted that conversation by nominating Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as a replacement for Jeff Meyers on the public art commission and assuring the council that the question of public art could be taken up at the council’s Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

However, at the Sept. 19 meeting a proposed revision to the public art ordinance, brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), was postponed until after a working session to be held on Nov. 14, after the election on Nov. 8.

The proposed revision would change the Percent for Art program by explicitly excluding sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art.

Some councilmembers had previously understood the public art ordinance already to exclude replacement of sidewalk slabs from its definition of capital improvement projects. But based on additional information from the city attorney’s office, the proposed ordinance revision was meant to spell that out explicitly.

On two previous occasions in the last two years (Dec. 21, 2009 and May 31, 2011), the council has considered but rejected a change to the public art ordinance that would have lowered the public art earmark from 1% to 0.5%. The city’s Percent for Art program was authorized by the council on Nov. 5, 2007. It is overseen by the city’s public art commission, with members nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council.

The most recent regular Chronicle coverage of the city’s public art commission is “Art Commission Preps for Dreiseitl Dedication.”

Public Art: Kunselman

Kunselman said that the fundamental flaw in the Percent for Art program is the lack of a written opinion by the city attorney as required by the city charter. The guidance that the city administration has asked for on the legality of the program must have been received verbally or via information classified as attorney-client privileged info. Part of the reason that the program is slow in producing results, he said, is that when the public art commission receives a proposal, it has to consult the city attorney – is it okay to use public art funds on a mural, or for performance art, or for landscaping?

Kunselman described government is a book of rules, not a set of verbal assertions. That’s the significant problem Ann Arbor’s public art program has, he said. Other public art programs have strong standards and guidance, but Ann Arbor’s does not.

Public Art: Parker

Parker said he was against the public art program. Art is a very individual eye-of-the-beholder type of thing. But the city is using taxpayer dollars, he said, and picking certain artists. He didn’t think that’s a fair or wise use of money, especially during recessionary times. One percent can add up to a lot of money, he said, and he didn’t agree with the program.

Allen Creek Greenway

Question: Please tell voters your views on the proposed Allen Creek greenway how it will affect the city.

Allen Creek Greenway: Background

At its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council passed a resolution that expresses general support for the idea of constructing a greenway along the Allen Creek corridor. The idea has been around for several years, but was resurrected around 2005 in response to a proposed 3-Site Plan put together by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

That plan would have built a parking structure on the First and William parcel, leaving only a small portion of the land as green open space. Opposition to the 3-Site Plan was successful and ultimately led the council on July 6, 2009 to rezone the First and William parcel as public land and set forth the council’s intention that the property (currently a parking lot) would eventually become part of a greenway. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "First & William to Become Greenway?"]

The single “resolved” clause from the Aug. 4, 2011 resolution reads: “That the Ann Arbor City Council is fully supportive of the creation of the Allen Creek Greenway, and hereby directs City staff to continue to work with and to assist the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy during the Greenway’s development and implementation phases.” [.pdf of Aug. 4 greenway resolution]

During public commentary at the Aug. 4 meeting, the council heard that various key property owners – like the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Railroad – are interested in hearing a clear statement from the city expressing its commitment.

Allen Creek Greenway: Parker

Parker said that when you’re dealing with waterways, different studies have to be done. The city has to do more research to see if this greenway should be allowed, he said.

Allen Creek Greenway: Kunselman

Kunselman allowed that the greenway has been talked about for some time and there’s a lot of community support for it – he had to respect that support, he said. As far as the city’s involvement, it would entail using three parcels along the greenway – he agreed with that. But he would not support using city dollars to purchase other properties. He was opposed to daylighting Allen Creek near downtown. He was adamantly opposed to that, based on the turbulent flow of stormwater, which would pose a danger, he said.

Closing Statements

Each candidate had two minutes to give a closing statement.

Closing: Parker

Parker repeated the sentiment from his opening statement that Ann Arbor is an eclectic, evolving, rich city. The CAFR (comprehensive annual financial report) shows 51 funds of the city government with $184 million in revenue and $155 million in expenses – a surplus of $30 million.

David Parker, Republican candidate for Ward 3 Ann Arbor city council.

Even though Ann Arbor is a rich city, it has some of the highest tax rates, he said. He reiterated the fact that in 2001 Ann Arbor had 232 police officers, but was down to 152 in 2010. We’ve all driven on the roads, he said, and we can see they’re not being maintained properly. The city wants to raise more money to pay for sidewalks, as if there is not already enough money to pay for that. City resources are not being put to wise use, he said.

Parker has lived all his life in southeast Michigan and said he’s seen firsthand how increasing taxes, regulations and fees drives business away. He did not want to see that happen to Ann Arbor. He would do his best to keep the city council from raising taxes, he said.

Closing: Kunselman

Kunselman thanked the League of Women Voters and thanked his supporters in the Democratic primary in August. He also thanked his family and named them off: his wife Letitia, his daughters Sabrina and Sophia, his son Shane and his stepson Hannon. They have put up with his absence at the dinner table and the absence of his mind as he thinks about city issues.

Stephen Kunselman, the incumbent Democratic candidate for Ward 3 city council, adjusts the microphone cord before the Oct. 5 candidate forum.

His main focus is public safety, health and welfare, Kunselman said. He would continue to support the police department, the fire department and union members. He’d continue to support parks and recreation programs. He is very proud to serve Ward 3 because it’s diverse socially and economically.

There are a significant number of low- to moderate-income families. In his neighborhood, he said, Habitat for Humanity has constructed a house and renovated another. Ward 3 welcomes diversity.

He said he’s from Ann Arbor, and graduated from Pioneer High School in 1981. He received three degrees from the University of Michigan: a bachelors in natural resources, a masters in urban planning, and a masters in landscape architecture. He worked at the city of Ann Arbor as an intern in the forestry department, and was a driver for Recycle Ann Arbor. He previously served on the planning commission and was the city council liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission board.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!