AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte led the trustees in their budget discussion at the May 16 committee meeting. The formal budget presentation from the administration will come at the May 23 meeting.

That still leaves a $7 million gap to be addressed as the district faces a $17.8 million deficit for the 2012-13 school year, which begins July 1. There was general agreement on the board to use some amount fund equity to meet the budget targets, but no agreement about how much to use. Hypothetically, the entire $17.8 million shortfall could be covered by drawing on the fund equity the district has to start FY 2013, which is $18.73 million.

But without some cuts and revenue enhancements, that fund equity would be close to just $1 million by the end of the year, which is a half percent of the district’s currently proposed  expenditure budget for FY 2013 – $194 million. In addition, it would leave insufficient reserves to manage cash flow through the summer. And by the end of the following year, fund equity would be projected to be negative $23.5 million.

At the May 16 meeting, most trustees expressed support for leaving Roberto Clemente Student Development Center in place in its current form for at least another year, while evaluating the program’s educational effectiveness. Much of the board sentiment on Clemente was reflected in an exchange between trustees Simone Lightfoot and Glenn Nelson near the end of the three and half hour budget discussion. Lightfoot asserted that Clemente’s parents are “not caught up in test scores – they are just happy that their children want to go to school” and that their students are getting “some basics in place – social and mental.” Nelson responded, “I’m willing to grant that in that part of education, they are doing a good job, but for $18,000 [per-student cost], I’d like both the academic and social/emotional learning.”

The administration’s budget proposal called for the elimination of between 32 and 64 teaching positions, but trustees were in broad agreement that there should be no cuts to teaching positions, if at all possible. Nelson suggested that by hiring less-experienced new teachers to replace retiring teachers, the district would still be able to save roughly $960,000, without incurring any rise in class sizes. Trustees expressed support for that approach, which board president Deb Mexicotte dubbed the ”Nelson model.”

While trustees showed a consensus about maintaining teaching staff levels, they were divided on the issue of transportation. Lightfoot suggested a “hold harmless” approach to transportation this year – as the districts forms an administrative committee with broad stakeholder participation to develop a sustainable transportation plan. Taking almost an opposite view on transportation was trustee Christine Stead, who advocated several times during the meeting that all non-mandated busing should be cut. Based on the board discussion, busing for Ann Arbor Open will likely be preserved via a cost-neutral plan that relies primarily on common stops at the district’s five middle schools. Also likely is that the 4 p.m. middle school bus and the shuttles to and from Community High School will  be cut. Some board members also indicated an interest in “phasing out” busing to the magnet programs at Skyline High School.

The board took no formal votes during their committee-of-the-whole-meeting on May 16. However the board’s consensus on various issues, convey to the AAPS administration, will inform the final budget proposal. That final proposal comes to the board for a first briefing and public hearing on May 23.

In addition to the budget discussion, the May 16 committee meeting included four and a half additional hours of discussion on: discussing gifted and talented programming in the district; outlining the superintendent evaluation review process; and creating a framework for a broad-based committee to study the sustainability of transportation in the district.

Budget Discussion Process

Board president Deb Mexicotte began by outlining an approach to the budget discussion that would first identify areas of consensus on the proposed budget reductions. After that, it focused the board’s conversation on areas where opinions diverged. The idea was to determine “what [the board] will be able to tolerate” as it addresses the $17.8 million budget deficit. AAPS superintendent Patricia Green added that her administration had brought additional information to inform the discussion.

The board held three rounds of discussion. In round one, trustees briefly considered each of the 27 proposed reductions put forth in the administration’s budget proposal , and were encouraged to reach consensus on items that could be eliminated with very little or no discussion.  During this round trustees agreed on cuts to 13 budget items totaling $1.9 million.

In round two, trustees discussed each of the remaining 14 budget items in detail, but did not try to come to consensus about how to balance them against each other. This round ended with an administrative presentation and lengthy board discussion on the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center.

In round three, trustees tried to reach consensus on a subset of the remaining suggested reductions – in the context of the required fund equity that would otherwise be needed to balance the FY 2012-13 budget. In the end, trustees were able to agree on another $2.8 million of cuts.  They disagreed on the question how much of the remaining $7 million deficit to address by using fund equity versus deepening the budget cuts. Almost all the consensus cuts came from the administration’s core budget proposal (Plan A). The exception was a 10% cut to the district-wide discretionary budgets, which was part of the suggested second-tier of additional cuts (Plan B).

The Chronicle has organized this report by first listing the cuts the board adopted with little or no discussion. After that, discussion and general agreement reached by the board on the remaining proposed reductions are grouped into the following categories: Clemente, transportation, teaching staff, and other district-wide cuts. The report concludes at the same point the trustees’ discussion ended – with a brief discussion of next steps in the process, and general agreement that AAPS should pursue revenue enhancement via advertising.

Line Item Cuts – Round One

The board’s first pass at line item reductions yielded $1.9 million in savings. Mexicotte led trustees through a comprehensive list of the 27 proposed budget reduction options one by one and asked if there was consensus to retain each item on the list of cuts. She started a list of any items on which the board wished to have more extensive discussion on chart paper set on an easel at the front of the room.

Via this method, the board agreed to the following 13 reductions with very little or no discussion:

1. Eliminate four high school counselors ($400,000);
2. Eliminate middle school athletic directors ($37,500);
3. Eliminate funding for athletic entry fees ($58,000);
4. Move lacrosse to club sport status ($93,000);
5. Outsource noon-hour supervision ($75,000);
6. Eliminate district subsidy for summer music camps ($60,000);
7. Reduce budget for substitute teachers ($200,000);
8. Combine bus runs for Bryant and Pattengill elementaries ($16,560);
9. ITD restructuring ($200,000);
10. Move Rec & Ed director and office professional positions to Rec & Ed budget ($205,000);
11. Eliminate the early notification incentive for retiring staff ($40,000);
12. Enact Phase V of energy savings capital improvements ($500,000); and
13. Reduce health care costs ($100,000).

Regarding the reduction in counselors, Stead asked for clarification on whether the positions would come from attrition or retirements, and which schools would be affected. AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye said that three of the four positions would be reduced via retirements – one each at Forsythe and Scarlet middle schools, and Huron High School. Those three schools can reduce one counselor and still meet the contractual counselor-student ratio of 1:325, Flye said, but a staff reassignment would be needed to fill the position left by retirement at Scarlett. The fourth counseling position would be eliminated  at Pioneer High School – a suggestion that came from that school’s administration.

Trustee Susan Baskett questioned whether the reduction in counselors would have an effect on the district’s ability to enact the new counseling and guidance programming, which was presented at the February 2012 committee of the whole meeting.  Flye said it will be a challenge to deliver some of the new plan’s services, and that a reduced number of counselors at each building could be problematic down the road.

Trustees got clarification that the athletic entry fee was beyond the fees associated with regular conference participation for all sports. Baskett asked whether students would have less exposure to recruiters. AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen answered that recruiters would still be able to come to many events.

Mexicotte tallied up the total amount saved from the above cuts, and it came to $1,985,060. Trustees agreed to employ all four of the revenue enhancement suggestions proposed by the administration (Schools of Choice, Medicaid reimbursement, MPSERS offset, and best practices incentives), totaling $6 million.

That left $9,814,940 as the remaining amount the board was still looking to cut as it moved into the next phase of discussion.  [$17.8 million – $1,985,060 – $6 million = $9,814,940].

Roberto Clemente Student Development Center

At the May 16 meeting, four people addressed the board during public commentary on the topic of the Roberto  Clemente Student Development Center. AAPS administration also presented a new set of information for board review, including a set of options for relocating or restructuring the school, and a large amount of data on achievement, attendance, graduation rates, staffing, course offerings, and cost comparisons between the six district high schools. Additional board discussion on Clemente, including its summer school program, followed the administrative presentation.

Allen introduced the proposed reduction to Clemente as potentially saving $400,000, which included savings related to the building, principal, office professional, custodian, and utility costs. Moving the Clemente summer school to Pioneer would save another $80,000.

Clemente: Public Commentary

Barbara Malcolm, a community liaison at Clemente, asserted that the board members are no longer representing the community that elected them. She said she has been appalled by “actions, lies, and deceit” and that the school board has lost much of its credibility in the community. Malcolm said the district still faces the same level of attacks on blacks, poor people, and disenfranchised students as it did when she was a student at AAPS. She said it was shameful that Mexicotte has called Clemente “racist” and “a one-way street.” Calling superintendent Patricia Green an “outsider” who was “not part of the community, only paid by it,” Malcolm accused Green of dismantling a pillar of the community. Malcolm asked Green at least to “own” a statement Green had made at the beginning of her tenure as superintendent that Clemente was not on the chopping block. She argued that AAPS needs to educate all students, “not just those who do well on standardized, biased tests.”

Charlae Davis said that if the process is sloppy, the outcome will be sloppy, and said she had serious concerns with the budget proposal process. She argued that denying families and students a role in the planning process is a form of oppression and said the process has been “victim-blaming.” She asked board members to consider whether they would be satisfied with this process if their own children were at Clemente.

Georgina LeHuray shared the story of her grandson’s switch to Clemente and the positive effect it has had on him. She argued that test scores are the wrong measurements to use in evaluating Clemente, and asked what will mean the most to these kids in 10 or 15 years – test scores or [the support] they get from these people at Clemente. LeHuray urged the board, “If you save one kid at Clemente, it’s worth every damn tax dollar we put on these kids … Do not fail these kids. Appreciate what you’ve got at Roberto Clemente.”

Clemente staff member Pat Morrow asserted that AAPS has failed the children who attend Clemente. She argued that achieving high test scores is not as relevant as getting a high school diploma, and said that sending Clemente students back to the comprehensive high schools would be setting them up to fail. “We can get kids into colleges, Morrow said, “and they can go onto be productive citizens.” She said the board needed to let the Clemente community know right now what its fate is.

Clemente: Short-Term Focus

Green said the presentation her team brought to share was developed in response to questions from the previous committee of the whole meeting about what the options the district had to make changes to Clemente. Lightfoot noted that she was not comfortable getting this information for the first time at 11:20 p.m.

Flye reviewed how Clemente is made up mostly of 9th and 10th graders, but includes some upperclassmen as well. The goal of the program, she said, is to help students return to their home school by making use of smaller learning environments, among other program features. Flye said that the administration’s short term goal was to maintain the philosophy, initiatives, and structure of the Clemente program, with the long-term of possibly redesigning the program.

Green added that the district has been talking about the possible redesign of alternative programs, and noted that A2 Tech’s name change came out of those talks. She noted that when she had been interviewing for the position in Ann Arbor, she heard that cutting alternative programs had come up during last year’s budget discussions. Green also addressed an accusation made repeatedly at recent board meeting public commentary sessions about a statement she made on Clemente’s future: “When I had visited over there early in the year, at the time I was asked, ‘Are you planning on closing the school?’ I said there had been no conversation about that – it was very early in September. None of these conversations had taken place.”

Clemente: Restructuring Options

Flye described four options for restructuring Clemente:

1. Relocate Clemente to the A2Tech building and run both programs separately;
2. Relocate Clemente to A2Tech and create a blended version of both programs;
3. Relocate Clemente to a dedicated space in either Pioneer or Huron; or
4. Integrate Clemente students into their home high schools, with the Clemente program principal coordinating support of Clemente students in the comprehensive schools.

Flye then explained why (option 1) and (option 2) were not seen as desirable. She briefly touched on how (option 4) was envisioned, and then went into detail about how (option 3) could work.

Flye noted that there might not be enough space to keep the programs fully separate in the same building (option 1). She also said that the principals of A2 Tech and Clemente had said it would not work well to blend the programs (option 2), because the two programs have such different areas of emphasis. Clemente targets mostly 9th and 10th grade students, Flye said, while A2 Tech targets older students.

If Clemente students were integrated into their home high schools (option 4), Flye said that some instruction could be delivered by Clemente staff, that some instruction could consist of “touchpoint” classes delivered with technological enhancements, and that” wraparound services” would be offered.

On the topic of relocating the Clemente program to Pioneer or Huron (option 3), Flye and Green suggested that modified schedules could be used to keep Clemente students totally separate from other students if that was desired. The modified schedules might include separate lunch periods, or alternative starting and ending times. At the comprehensive high schools, Clemente students would benefit from an enhanced set of opportunities, they said, including sports, arts, career and tech education and other electives, while maintaining Clemente’s mentoring approach and weekly “rap sessions.”

AAPS executive director of physical properties Randy Trent led the administration in describing the spaces within Pioneer and Huron that could house Clemente. At Pioneer, he said, there are seven classrooms in the D wing that could be available, along with an eighth room upstairs that could be used if necessary, an administrative area, a separate entrance, and a large lecture facility that could be used for the weekly rap session. Clemente would displace math classes currently using the space, which Pioneer’s administration said would be a good change for the school, Flye added.

At Huron, the available space would be an isolated area with eight classrooms would be on the third floor of the arch, Trent explained, noting that students would have to walk through the entire building to reach the space. Flye allowed that world language and language arts classes would be impacted by the classroom shift at Huron. However, she reported that Huron’s administrative team had indicated it would not be a problem to relocate those classes and provide office space to accommodate the Clemente program.

Stead questioned how much would be saved by relocating the program intact under (option 1) or (option 3) versus blending the program with A2 Tech under (option 2) or integrating Clemente students in to the comprehensive high schools under (option 4). Allen answered that only the blended program in (option 2) would save the targeted $400,000. The other three options would save around $200,000 – because those options preserve Clemente’s administrative costs.

Lightfoot asked if there had been any consideration of ways that $200,000 could be saved while leaving the Clemente family as it is – like marketing the program to bring in more School of Choice students, or opening it up to more 8th graders. No, Flye answered. Lightfoot asked when such alternatives would be considered. Mexicotte responded to Lightfoot by saying that the board would use the meeting to decide whether to move forward with one of the options presented by administration, or make no change to the program.

Clemente: Data

Flye presented the board with data on Clemente’s student achievement, attendance, graduation rates, staffing levels, and course offerings, and comparative data on student achievement, graduation rates, and cost per student for all six AAPS high schools.

Chart 1. Average cost per student at Ann Arbor Public School high schools. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

AAPS director of student accounting Jane Landefeld said that it was challenging to determine the degree of student academic growth at Clemente, because students enter the program at all times of year and stay for different lengths of time. Landefeld said she had reviewed the transcripts at the end of the second trimester for each of the 87 Clemente students enrolled at that time, and determined that 39 of the 87 (45%) then had higher GPAs than they had had when entering the program. However, she also noted that many of Clemente’s classes are slower-paced, and so “it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges in terms of which classes they are taking.”

Trustee Andy Thomas questioned the relevance of graduation rates – because the goal of Clemente is to return students to their home school for 11th and 12th grades. Landefeld confirmed that students do not graduate from Clemente because “Clemente is a program, not a school.” She explained, however, that “somewhere along the way, the state listed it as a school, so if a student ends at Clemente, they are considered graduating from Clemente.” Stead suggested that AAPS should communicate to the state that Clemente has been misclassified as a school.

Chart 2. Michigan Merit Exam scores by subject by AAPS high school. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Nelson asked about the capacity of Clemente’s building. Trent explained that the building has 18 classrooms, which can fit up to 15 students each, with some larger rooms as well. Nelson noted that many classes at Clemente have fewer than 15 students. Flye added that Clemente strives to keep class sizes averaging 10-12 students. Landefeld stressed that Clemente gains students throughout the year, so the number of students fluctuates. There are  currently 104 students in the Clemente program, according to the analysis of student growth presented by Landefeld.

Mexicotte said that when she was first elected to the board, Clemente’s enrollment was around 170 students. She pointed out that for the purposes of current discussion, the board has been using a population of 100 students.

Clemente: Long-Term Focus

In the long term, Flye said, Clemente and other alternative programs in AAPS could be redesigned to offer expanded distance learning opportunities made possible through digital technology, and additional course offerings. The administration could also continue to explore the implementation of a middle college concept, and more flexible day and evening schedules. Flye concluded by saying that AAPS will continue to develop early interventions for at-risk students.

Clemente: Board Discussion

Baskett asked if there was any discussion of team-building – in a scenario where Clemente students are moved back into the comprehensive high schools in any way. Flye said the schools would welcome them, and that team-building with staff and students was acknowledged to be a very important part of the process.

Thomas said he had a number of concerns, beginning with the fact that decisions about Clemente should take program effectiveness into account, as well as potential cost savings. Regarding the student achievement data presented, Thomas said that on one hand, the fact that 0% of Clemente students are proficient in writing [See Chart 2] seems like “a pretty strong indictment of the Clemente program.” However, he said, the real question is, “At what level are students when they enter the program, and where are they at the end of one year, two years?” Thomas said that student growth is not being clearly measured except by GPA, which he argued was an “imperfect” measure.

Thomas also expressed concern about the timeline of implementing any changes in the Clemente program by fall 2012, and said that the district needs more time to prepare. He suggested that AAPS keep Clemente intact for one year, during which it completes a comprehensive evaluation of the program based on data, not anecdotal evidence. “And if that costs $200,000 or $400,000 plus transportation costs, that’s the price that we pay for not dealing with this earlier in the year,” Thomas said.

Stead said her thoughts on Clemente were similar. She said she was willing to trade off all transportation to preserve education as the district’s primary mission. She said she could support a change to Clemente that is led by a focus on the program, and would be discussed for a year by the principal, parents, families, and students involved. She felt like the district is now “trying to retrofit” a solution.

Directing her comments to two Clemente students still in attendance at the meeting [at 12:30 a.m.], Stead called the Clemente achievement data “extremely concerning,” and said, “You can roll your eyes and say it’s not important, but I can tell you – these numbers are important.” She agreed that Clemente warrants further review and discussion, and that while there is not time to fix it this year, “We need to do right by these students.”

Lightfoot said that she believes Clemente has done a “great job,” and that she is interested in the district considering better marketing of the program so that perhaps AAPS can “get it up to capacity” and bring in new revenue.

Nelson said that how he will vote on preserving Clemente will come down to where the money comes from, saying, “If it comes from the 32 [teaching positions districtwide], I just can’t go there. I really believe in those 32 [teaching positions].” If the money for Clemente would be taken from fund equity, Nelson said, he would “want to be convinced by the evaluation people that in fact there is reason to think there is something different we are going to know eight months from now because I find the achievement data very disturbing.”

Responding to Lightfoot directly, Nelson questioned how AAPS could effectively market this program when the test scores at Clemente are so much worse than at the comprehensive high schools. Nelson questioned whether performance at Clemente was actually decreasing the achievement gap and asserted, “The averages for African-Americans would go up if you took these students out of the mix.”

Lightfoot said that she was also upset by the data, but noted that African-Americans’ scores are low throughout the district, not only at Clemente. She asserted that Clemente’s parents are “not caught up in test scores – they are just happy that their children want to go to school” and that their students are getting “some basics in place – social and mental.” Nelson responded, “I’m willing to grant that in that part of education, they are doing a good job, but for $18,000 [per-student cost], I’d like both the academic and social/emotional learning.”

Trustee Irene Patalan said the test scores as well as the money do concern her, noting that the per-student cost at Clemente is closer to $19,000 than $18,000. She said she feels an urgency to help the students at Clemente be successful as soon as possible, and that she would like a recommendation from the AAPS administration about which option to take.

Patalan also mentioned that her children had been in alternative programs within AAPS, and that she was very much an alternative school supporter. She shared some of the history of the district’s “Middle Years Alternative” program that was housed within Forsythe but had almost complete autonomy. Patalan said she is not afraid of “putting programs together and sharing spaces.”

Baskett said that she was tired and would refrain from commenting. But Mexicotte asked her to please share her thinking now. Baskett obliged, saying that if the district moves to change the status of Clemente now, it will not be done right. “The driver will be money, and not the quality of education for all our children,” she said, “I think, Irene, you are wrong on this one.”

Thanking the administration for the presentation, Baskett suggested that an evaluation of Clemente should include a qualitative element, saying, “When you talk about measuring climate, we need to capture that as well.”

Mexicotte began by clarifying that the comments ascribed to her during public commentary were things that she had reported having heard over the years about Clemente, not comments that she had made personally.

She continued by saying that while she appreciates that Clemente students have positive feelings about their school, the achievement data have troubled her for many years. “Are we going to say that these data points are not going to be what we are judging our achievement gap on across the district?” she asked. Mexicotte said that if the district wanted to decide not to judge “growth to proficiency” with test score data, then it would need to decide what else to use as metrics.

Mexicotte suggested the district needs to set expectations about test scores, and what kind of cost per student figures it would like to see. She suggested that the district study Clemente over a two-year time frame to determine if it should be marketed, moved, or adjusted in some other way, and noted, “If the program is really something we want for our students, we shouldn’t be gatekeeping as hard as we are.” Mexicotte also suggested that art and music should be brought back to Clemente in its current location.

Outcome: The board agreed to leave the Clemente program intact for at least one year while assessing its educational effectiveness. Stead suggested that in terms of the targeted savings in alternative high school programming, AAPS administration should have a conversation with A2 Tech one more time to see if any savings can be found in that program.

Clemente: Summer School

Green explained that the impetus behind moving Clemente’s summer school is to have all the secondary summer school programs located at one site – Pioneer High School.

Baskett noted that part of the transition to Clemente is the summer school program, which is not just academic. Allen said that not all Clemente students attend summer school, and that $20,000 out of the $100,000 Clemente summer school program can be preserved to add services to the traditional summer school program, which focuses on credit recovery. Flye reported that Clemente principal Ben Edmondson has said that Clemente summer school students are also working primarily on credit recovery, and that summer school helps to provide a consistent routine for them.

Thomas said moving the Clemente summer school to Pioneer is an opportunity to achieve some efficiency. Flye noted that moving the program would also give students more opportunities in terms of course selection. Green added that the board should decide as soon as possible what the location will be – because Clemente needs to start preparing its summer program.

Trustees asked for clarification on the costs related to summer school. Landefeld explained that there are only fees for courses that are taken for extra enrichment, as opposed to courses taken for credit recovery, and that scholarships are available. Baskett asked if there is busing for summer school. Allen said there is no busing for summer school in general, but that Clemente students would be transported, and that it would likely cost less to bus them to Pioneer than to the Clemente building.

Outcome: The board agreed to move the Clemente summer school program into Pioneer High School to achieve an $80,000 budget reduction.

Teaching Staff Reductions

The administrative budget proposal includes the elimination of 32 FTEs (full-time equivalent positions) in teaching staff in Plan A, 48 FTEs in Plan B, and 64 FTEs in Plan C. Trustees were in agreement that they are not interested in cutting any teaching positions.

Nelson suggested retaining the number of teachers, but hiring new teachers to replace those who are retiring. He asked for confirmation on comparative salaries, and Allen confirmed that there is roughly a $30,000 spread between retiring teachers (whose salaries and benefits cost nearly $100,000 each) and new teachers (whose total cost to the district is roughly $70,000).  Nelson suggested that 32 FTEs at $70,000 would be $2.24 million, which means that if the number of positions were preserved, but less expensive teachers were hired, the district could save $960,000.

Stead, Thomas, Patalan and Mexicotte all agreed about the importance of retaining teachers. Stead said this is one area where the primary mission of the district is clear, and that she could not justify cutting one more teacher. Thomas said he is willing to compromise on everything else, but that cutting teaching positions would be unacceptable, even if it means dipping into fund equity.

Transportation

Trustees considered a variety of cost-saving measures in transportation services. There was disagreement among trustees about how much transportation they were interested in cutting this coming year – from none to all of it. Two people addressed the board during public commentary on the topic of transportation.

Transportation: Public Commentary on Busing to Ann Arbor Open

Ann Arbor Open Coordinating Council (AAOCC) co-chair Sascha Matish passed out a set of handouts to the board outlining the impact of eliminating busing to Ann Arbor Open on subgroups of the school’s population. She noted that busing is used by 95% of the school’s 22 African-American students, and 68% of the school’s 57 economically disadvantaged students (who receive free or reduced-price lunch). Matish also passed out an aerial map of the Ann Arbor Open area, and requested that the board view a video created by the AAOCC of morning traffic near the school to give trustees a sense of the traffic back-ups already facing families on a daily basis. Again, Matish suggested that cutting busing would severely compromise student safety.

The other co-chair of the Ann Arbor Open Coordinating Council (AAOCC), Jill Zimmerman, also addressed the board. Referring to a set of bar graphs distributed to trustees, she noted that Ann Arbor Open’s MEAP scores are higher than the district averages in math and reading. She also pointed out that districtwide, the percentage of students scoring “proficient” or “advanced proficient” in 8th grade is lower than the percentage of students scoring “proficient” or “advanced proficient” in 3rd grade. However, the gap between 3rd-grade achievement and 8th-grade achievement is smaller among Ann Arbor Open students than it is across the district. “When we are talking about equity and closing the achievement gap, what Ann Arbor Open does matters,” Zimmerman asserted. “Our kids are doing better, and we think it’s because of what we are doing.”

Zimmerman also briefly reviewed an alternate busing proposal created by the AAOCC, which was sent to board members and AAPS administration before the meeting. The alternative proposal relies on common stops at middle schools and would more than halve the cost of busing to Ann Arbor Open.

Transportation: 4 p.m. Middle School Bus

Nelson said that he has consistently heard from middle school parents about the value of the after-school middle school program. Thomas suggested that the middle school principals could use some of their discretionary funds to keep the 4 p.m. bus if they wished.

Stead reiterated her theme that she does “not see transportation as being more important than education.” She noted that transportation is not required, not funded, and is not more valuable than a teacher. She argued that the community could come together and provide transportation, but could not come together and provide teaching. Baskett argued that there are many people in the community who would not be able to come together to provide transportation, saying, “You can call a carpool on your iPhone. Other families do not have phones.”

Mexicotte said she was inclined to leave the 4 p.m. middle school bus in place for another year, because a few years ago the district completely restructured middle school and lost a lot of extras and opportunities.

Transportation: Mid-day Shuttles to/from Community High School

Mexicotte noted that students get themselves to Community High School, and Baskett asked how many students this affected. Stead asked if AATA could be approached to provide shuttles, and Margolis answered that AATA buses don’t run often enough to make it work. Stead asked if Community students could Skype into classes at the comprehensive high schools. Allen allowed that yes, that would be possible.

Thomas said he was in favor of this reduction, and noted that Community shuttles are a “big-ticket item.”

Transportation: Busing to Choice Programs – Ann Arbor Open, Skyline Magnets, Roberto Clemente

Green presented a proposal crafted in the previous week by her staff that offered a cost-neutral alternative to continuing Ann Arbor Open busing – by consolidating routes at middle school common stops. Lightfoot expressed frustration that a new proposal was drafted for the Ann Arbor Open portion of the transportation cuts only, and said that she wants to be sure the district is doing the same for everyone, not just “the squeaky wheel.” Baskett commented that the administration’s proposal was very similar to one crafted by Ann Arbor Open parents and presented by them to the district.

Several trustees expressed discomfort about eliminating busing at Ann Arbor Open – because of the inequity of that would arise from offering busing to all other students of the same grade levels (K-8). Nelson disagreed, saying that he was fine with cutting Ann Arbor Open busing to reach the cost savings goals.

Regarding transportation to Clemente, Thomas said he believes AAPS will have to maintain transportation to the building if it stays open – because there is no other way to get there.

Baskett said that providing busing to the magnet programs that are part of Skyline High School was a promise that the district made to the community, and was meant to ensure better diversity in the magnet programs. Baskett asked how many students in the magnet programs rely on transportation provided by AAPS. Landefeld explained that about 30% of Skyline students are bused, roughly 100 per grade level on average. Thomas said he’d consider eliminating magnet transportation before eliminating all high school busing. Mexicotte pointed out that not everybody who takes a bus to Skyline is in a magnet program, and suggested that the district should keep transportation for the magnet programs for now, but consider phasing it out.

Lightfoot said the she feels like she’s “operating in the dark” when it comes to transportation choices, like she has to “choose now and see the fallout later.”

Transportation: Skyline Starting/Ending Times

Lightfoot said she did not like moving Skyline’s start time up by 15 minutes, because she has a concern about the earliness of high school days in general. Baskett said that as the district makes use of its newly forming, community-wide committee on transportation, the decision about Skyline’s starting and ending times could be revisited and reversed. A change to Skyline’s starting and ending times would require a memorandum of understanding with the teachers’ union, as noted earlier by Allen.

Transportation: High School Busing/All Busing

Almost all the trustees expressed general concern that there was not enough advance time this year to eliminate high school busing or all busing in a responsible way. Stead disagreed, and continued to push for the elimination of all busing as a way to leave more money in the district’s fund balance.

Stead said she would be more inclined to work on creating an entirely new program for transportation, and to begin concerted conversations with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to work on that as soon as possible. She added that she wanted to remind the board the district had a “horrible experience” with transportation this year. The district had to adjust transportation spending by $800,000 mid-year, while maintaining a “fragmented” system with “little bits of transportation here and there,” she said.

Outcome: Trustees agreed to maintain busing to Clemente and to the Skyline magnet programs. Busing to Ann Arbor Open will likely continue under a modified plan, which will save the district $98,000. The board plans to cut the 4 p.m. middle school bus ($85,284) and mid-day shuttles to and from Community high ($230,184), as well as achieve $266,400 in savings by moving the Skyline starting and ending times up by 15 minutes.

Other District-Wide Cuts

The board also agreed to cuts to police liaisons, site-based budgets, and district-wide discretionary budgets.

Other District-Wide Cuts: Police Liaisons

Stead suggested that removing the police liaisons would cause increase safety issues. She cited five bomb threats at Forsythe Middle School and two bomb threats at Skyline High School as evidence. Baskett pointed out that the bomb threats were unsubstantiated. But Stead argued that students are staying home from school and getting physically sick with worry because of them.

Thomas said that it is not clear to him that having police liaisons is having any effect on the bomb threats in any way whatsoever. Stead countered that when she has talked to principals, they believe that the sheer presence of the officers helps to reduce disciplinary issues. Nelson stated that he believes five teachers will have a greater impact than three police liaisons for the same cost.

Stead argued that the city will not hire these police officers if AAPS releases them, and that the robberies in her area have gone up as police numbers across Ann Arbor would be decreasing.

Baskett pointed out that overall, crime in Ann Arbor has actually decreased, and that these three police liaisons have seniority in the Ann Arbor police department and would be reassigned within the community. She said that a police officer could arrive any building in the district in less than 10 minutes, and that she would rather have teachers than police officers. Patalan said she agreed with Baskett, Nelson, and Thomas.

Discussion: District-wide Discretionary Budgets

Mexicotte reviewed the administration’s proposal on discretionary budgets. She said that a 5% cut to these budgets – which cover building-level costs such as professional development, paper, and supplies – would save $250,000. A 10% cut would save $500,000. Thomas suggested “bumping that up” to possibly as much as a 15% cut. However, Allen and Flye suggested that would have a dramatic effect on the ability of a building to function effectively.

This was one area in which the board included a reduction from Plan B of the suggested reductions – Plan A of the budget proposal had suggested cutting discretionary budgets by 5%, and Plan B took the reductions to 10%.

Discussion: Site-Based Budgets

Site-based budgets in AAPS fund have been available to school improvement teams (SITs) to use as they see fit. Patalan said that while it was a small amount of money, she appreciated that each SIT was able to decide how to best use it to serve that school locally. Still, she said, she understands the need to cut it.

Outcome: The board agreed to eliminate police liaisons ($350,000) and site-based budgets ($250,750). They agreed to cut district-wide discretionary budgets by 10%, saving $500,000.

FY 2012-13 Budget – Next Steps

After the board worked through the list of possible reductions for the third time, Mexicotte tallied up the cuts tentatively agreed to by the board. The cuts totaled $4,805,678, leaving a $7 million of deficit [$17.8 million deficit, minus $4.8 million in cuts, minus $6 million in revenue enhancements]. She asked the board if they would be willing to use $7 million of fund equity to balance the budget. Their responses were mixed.

Part of the board’s decision about how much fund equity to use will be based on projections of school funding – this year and into the future. One person addressed the board at public commentary on the topic of school funding.

Next Steps: Public Commentary on School Funding

Steve Norton reported that the state of Michigan is currently projecting funding for the School Aid Fund (SAF) to increase, but cautioned that the board should not assume this unexpected revenue will accrue to benefit local districts. Norton pointed out that the state may choose to save the extra SAF funding to reduce the pressure on the state’s general fund, which is forecasted to be lower than expected this year and next.

Norton also suggested that the community begin a conversation about private giving to support schools. He noted that the East Grand Rapids public schools educational foundation has raised $350,000 in one year to offset the budget cuts facing their district. Norton said it’s hard to get people to dig deep, but that “we are at a point that if we can’t get the rest of our citizens to move forward with a countywide enhancement, and can’t convince legislators [to provide adequate school funding], maybe we should move forward to do something ourselves.” Norton suggested as an example that the Ann Arbor Public Schools Educational Foundation could launch a campaign to cover the cost of transportation.

Next Steps: Fund Equity

Mexicotte said that Norton had made a very good point during public commentary, and that there is no guarantee based on past history that the SAF would see any increase. At this point, she said, if the board does not give different direction to AAPS administration, a balanced budget would be achieved by taking $7 million coming out of the fund balance.

Thomas said he would be willing to use $7 million of fund equity, but Stead was adamant she would not be. When pressed, Stead said she might find it acceptable to use up to $5 million, and added that it was “poor planning to sit here for six, seven, eight hours.”

At 1:15 a.m., as the board appeared unable to make further progress, Mexicotte responded, “If this is as far as we can get now, it’s as far as we can get.” She explained that the administration would take the board’s input from the meeting, and present a final budget on May 23. After that, she said, the board can have additional discussion and move forward.

Nelson said that starting from a $17.8 million deficit and getting to within $2 million of addressing it is not bad for one evening. He thanked Mexicotte for her facilitation, and said that he was open to staying longer to continue discussion, but also fine with waiting to continue discussion on May 23. “Then the administration can come back and give us … an option with $7 million use of fund equity, and then those of us who want to can argue for $5 million.”

Nelson also noted that Senate Bill 1040 – a retirement reform bill which as of May 17 was passed by Michigan state senators and is moving on to consideration by the state House of Representatives –could be helpful in resolving the budget. “There is a chance that more than $2 million could come out of it, and with luck, we could be done,” Nelson said.

Stead disagreed, saying that part of what’s driving up the mandated employer contribution rate to the state retirement system is that many districts are laying off staff. She said she is very concerned about how things will look a year from now, because current layoffs are not part of the figures being considered.

Lightfoot said that while she would prefer not to use $7 million of fund equity, she could support it if the district committed to make the next year be strictly focused on planning to be more prepared to make cuts in the future.

Next Steps: Advertising

Just before the meeting wrapped up, AAPS superintendent Patricia Green said she had one quick question for trustees, and asked if they would give her and her staff direction on the revenue enhancement ideas that administration had previously presented.

AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis reviewed the suggested advertising possibilities – digital billboards, scoreboard advertising, and website banners. She said she felt the trustees had given clear direction against pursuing the creation of billboards on the properties of Wines, Pioneer, and Huron, but reiterated the suggestion for allowing banner ads across the top of the AAPS website.

Margolis said that the company AAPS would work with has worked with Plymouth-Canton Community Schools (PCCS), and when Margolis had talked to the Plymouth-Canton director of community relations, they spoke positively of the partnership. The first-year revenue from allowing banner advertising would be at least $22,500, said Margolis, and would be projected to increase to $250,000 by the third year. She noted that Plymouth-Canton’s revenue has increased by 30% every month, and that the terms of the agreement will be shifting from a 60/40 revenue share with the advertising company [in favor of AAPS] to a 50/50 split if the district does not commit soon.

Maintaining a commitment to local advertisers had been a concern expressed by trustees at their March 21 meeting, when the advertising proposal had been presented to the board.  Margolis said that it would cost about $500 a month for a rotating ad, which would price it equal to what it costs to run ads locally in other venues. This would give local advertisers another daily advertising spot, she said, and the ad company would also bring in regional and national ads to the AAPS website. Finally, Margolis noted that many community members have suggested the district engage in website advertising, and added that AAPS would have full discretion to have any objectionable ads removed immediately.

Margolis also sought approval to begin the process of re-equipping the high schools with new scoreboards, which would be paid for by an advertising company and would show ads during sporting events. She said the high schools would be eager to receive the new scoreboards. In a follow-up discussion after the meeting, Margolis explained to The Chronicle that the scoreboard equipment, valued at $270,000, would come at no cost to the district. After enough ad revenue is earned to pay back the cost of the equipment, future ad revenue will be split 50/50 between the district and the advertising company, she said.

Outcome: The trustees agreed to pursue website banner ads and the scoreboard advertising.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Christine Stead, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Glenn Nelson.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 South Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public School Board. 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!

Supporters of the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center filled the board room for the May 9 meeting. (Photos by Monet Tiedemann.)

Sentiments expressed during a heated public commentary section were later echoed during agenda planning, as two of the board trustees questioned administrative work being done behind the scenes to prepare for possible budget reductions. The budget does not need to be approved by the board until June 30. A second public forum on the budget will be held on May 14 at 6:30 p.m. in the Huron High School cafeteria.

Several speakers at the May 9 meeting thanked the community for passage of the technology bond millage two days earlier.

Also at the May 9 meeting, trustees considered approving two new easements with the city of Ann Arbor, and awarded a set of bids for physical properties work. They also took a first look at the district’s new anti-bullying policy, as well as a set of other policy updates presented by AAPS administration.

Finally the board reviewed the proposed 2012-13 budget of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), and shared its concerns about it. Local school boards are required by law to review the WISD’s budget, but have no vote in its actual approval.

2012-13 Budget

The proposed 2012-13 budget was first presented by AAPS administration in April. The Chronicle has pulled out of the May 9 meeting all budget-related threads and presented them as follows: public input; public commentary on Roberto Clemente; public commentary on music camp; public commentary on busing to Ann Arbor Open; clarification on public commentary; agenda planning; items from the board; and the Ann Arbor Education Association report.

2012-13 Budget: Public Input

Since the budget proposal was presented, the board has invited public comment on the proposal during its regular meetings as well as at two community budget forums – one already held on May 7, 2012, and one on May 14 at 6:30 p.m. in the Huron High School cafeteria.

AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte.

At the May 9 meeting, the board also set an official public hearing on the budget as part of the May 23 regular board meeting. Board president Deb Mexicotte explained that the budget hearing will function as an additional public commentary session devoted exclusively to public input on budgetary concerns. She also explained that, unlike regular public commentary for which citizens are required to sign up before the meeting, the budget hearing “can only be signed up for at the moment … Anyone who is here during that time can comment.”

Thomas asked if the length of the budget hearing is the same as the length of regular public commentary (45 min), and Mexicotte confirmed that budget hearings have typically also been 45 minutes long, which means that in total, the public input offered at the May 23 meeting could extend to an hour and a half. She clarified, that typically there is very little commentary during the public comment section, but people had sometimes talked during both opportunities.

As noted during Mexicotte’s president’s report at the May 9 meeting, the board will next meet as a committee of the whole [on May 16 in the Tappan middle school media center at 5:30 p.m.]. Update: Around noon on Monday, May 14, AAPS announced the committee meeting would be changed from Tappan to the Balas administration building at 2555 S. State St. The reason for the change was to allow for the possibility that the meeting could go past 10:30 p.m.

At that committee meeting, the board will hold a budget discussion, among other items. Committee meetings are open to the public, and typically offer an opportunity for public commentary as well. Other items on the committee meeting agenda are the district’s gifted and talented programming and the superintendent evaluation process.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary – Roberto Clemente

Twenty people spoke to the board about the proposed restructuring or closure of Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, which is projected to save $400,000.

Clemente’s founder, Joe Dulin, started off the public commentary on the school. He said that sharing a building with another school would be tantamount to closing Clemente completely. He compared board members who don’t know Clemente to Mitt Romney, who he said “doesn’t know poor people.” Dulin said that discussing the closure of Clemente pits Clemente’s families and staff “against the system,” and that “shifting to another school means we’ve lost rights.”

Many of Dulin’s points were reiterated by other speakers, with the energy in their statements rising as public commentary went on. Gregg Pratt, a social worker and community organizer, led the crowd of supporters in a chant: “Our school, our choice, our students, our future,” and closed with “We demand you keep [Clemente] open and we’re not going to stop.”

Sherry Weatherspoon, a longtime member of the Clemente community said she was angry at the decision-making of this board and this administration. She suggested that A2 Tech and Community High Schools be merged together, but that “there is a good reason for Roberto Clemente to be alone.” Weatherspoon added, “I will fight this board and future boards ‘til my dying day – by any means necessary.” Saying the salaries of the administration need to be cut just like everybody else, she called superintendent Patricia Green’s salary “outrageous,” and asserted that deputy superintendent Robert Allen appears to be doing Green’s job anyway. After she had spoken more than 30 seconds past her allotted time, and after a few requests to bring her comments to a conclusion, Mexicotte asked her to please step away from the podium.

Cassandra Parks, whose brother and nephew attended Clemente also drew attention to administrators’ salaries, saying, “The Balas [AAPS administration] building is not on the same financial diet that the rest of America is on.” Clemente alumnus and staff member David Malcolm suggested that Joe Dulin deserved accolades for saving many lives. “One [accolade] could be leaving our building alone … Leave us alone. Go find some money from somewhere else.” He also pointed out, “All of these kids that you are voting out today will be the voters tomorrow.”

Other speakers, too, stressed the familial aspect of Clemente. “Clemente is nothing but support – every teacher is looking to make sure you succeed,” said student Quentin Havlik. Parent Tara Cole noted that parents are given phone numbers for all staff members, which might not work for all schools, but is part of Clemente’s “open communication” policy. Jacob Mercer credited the school with “saving [his] family,” as the size of the school made it possible for a teacher to learn that his family was about to become homeless and helped them find a house to rent. Steven Ward, a University of Michigan professor and volunteer at Clemente, pointed out that it’s not common to hear repeatedly about how a school “saves lives” and that “to hear it over and over again is really meaningful.” Marcus Buggs, who witnessed his father’s shooting death as a child, said simply, “My family is being gunned down right now.”

Multiple students expressed disappointment that only one of the board members, trustee Christine Stead, took them up on their offer at the last board meeting to visit Clemente, and said that only four of the seven trustees had ever visited the school. They asked questions including: “What will control the final decision?” “How can it be possible to make an informed decision?” and “How can a final decision be made based on preconceived knowledge?” Student Tevin Cole said members of the board are showing apathy about a decision that would change students’ futures for good. Student Cierra Reese and other students asked the board to vote in front of them, if board members truly respected their voice and their time.

Another theme that ran through the comments was the question of why the board would choose to change a program that was so successful the way it is. Lexanna Marie Lyons, a Clemente teacher and counselor, pointed out that the philosophies of Clemente and A2 Tech are very different. Clemente parent Tara Cole added that combining the two programs will destroy them both, and that Clemente students would be subjected to bullying if they were re-integrated into the schools that “rejected them in the first place.” Cassandra Parks argued that the concept of Clemente works and called Pioneer and Huron “drop-out factories.”

Many speakers noted that Clemente’s location “away from other schools, distractions, and bus lines” was critical and argued that attendance would decrease if the program was moved. They argued that the program cannot be replicated, and that it would not be able to recreate the “culture of achievement” that motivates Clemente students in a new location. Parent Wilber Miller commended the board for creating Clemente, giving it a magnificent building, great teachers, a great principal, and supporting it so it could become a thriving community. “Let there be more testimonies, more tomorrows, more good news to come. Keep Roberto Clemente as it is,” he urged.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary – Music Camps

Four people addressed the board about the elimination of a $60,000 subsidy supporting summer music camps.

Parent Theresa Angelini said the Interlochen experience is one that students never forget, and that the “investment is more than matched by families.” She said that the model of cost-sharing, in which the district pays 18% and the parents pay 82%, “seems to be a model for education.” Her son Brandon Angelini also spoke, saying that band camp allows students to be friends with people they would otherwise never meet, creates smaller communities within the comprehensive high schools, and creates unity among high schools across the district.

Parent Amy Higgins noted that the band staff believe that the camps will end if this subsidy is cut. She urged the board to consider the return on investment for each of the things “on the chopping block” and said the $60,000 helps to “close the gap.” Higgins pointed out that AAPS has Grammy-winning schools and that the music program is an “engine for success” that brings people to the district.

Student Ales Chmiel said the Interlochen camp provides students with an amazing opportunity to play in front of thousands of people and enables all students to prosper.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary – Busing to Ann Arbor Open

Seven Ann Arbor Open parents addressed the board about the proposed cuts in “transportation of choice” totaling $266,400, which includes all general education busing to Ann Arbor Open, Skyline, and Roberto Clemente.

Jeff Hayner asserted that busing offered opportunities for socializing beyond the classroom that were beneficial to kids, and urged the board to reconsider. “Well-run public schools are a bargain, but poorly-managed public schools are a burden to society,” Hayner said. He argued that the board was violating the public’s trust, and asked why there were no administrative salary cuts in the proposed budget.

Multiple parents pointed out that the most vulnerable students would be those most affected by the loss of busing. “You are basically telling me that we have to switch schools. It’s targeting families much poorer than mine and it’s just not fair,” argued Tracy Jensen. Carol Sickman-Garner noted that Ann Arbor Open is a public school, should be accessible to all children in the community, and that Ann Arbor Open students should receive the same services as their K-8 peers. Sharon Simonton added that many working parents do not have the job flexibility to pick up children at 2:30 p.m. every day, and that elementary children are too young to ride the city buses home by themselves.

Saftey concerns were noted multiple times. Jill Zimmerman argued, “there is not enough time to ensure our children’s safety with this plan” if the board does not approve the final budget until next month. She questioned the district’s plan for addressing the doubling or tripling of auto traffic, and whether there would be time to talk to the city about traffic build-ups and access to Mack pool. She also questioned whether there would be eonough time, between now and next year, for parents to organize the carpools alluded to at the last board meeting.

Parents also stressed the desire for Ann Arbor Open to be given alternatives to cutting busing that meet the same savings targets. “We understand the budget crisis is real, and cuts have to be made and will continue,” Zimmerman said. She noted that Ann Arbor Open parents have repeatedly asked how much busing costs the district for Ann Arbor Open specifically. “If we had this information and more time,” she asserted, “We could suggest alternative cuts.” She added that the district’s attempts to reduce transportation costs in the past have not always yielded the projected savings.

Julie Roth suggested that the district get rid of the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) test implemented this year – because an online version of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) could replace it soon. She said the funds supporting NWEA could be better used to save Clemente, busing, and other services that affect the most vulnerable students. She pointed out that former AAPS superintendent Todd Roberts was more visible in the schools than Green has been. Roth said Roberts had encouraged schools to be part of the solution by suggesting their own plan to reduce costs at the building level.

Parent Ruth Ann Church agreed with Roth, accusing the district of “forcing one and only one solution on the problem of needing more money” instead of allowing the principals a chance to suggest alternatives. “We need a board that will ask for the solutions and listen.”

2012-13 Budget: Clarification on Public Commentary

Trustee Andy Thomas addressed a claim made during public commentary that the loss of the $60,000 summer music camp subsidy would mean the end of the camps. Thomas indicated that it was his understanding some of this concern revolved around a question of liability insurance. He asked Green to clarify that from a practical and legal point of view, there is no reason the music camps could not continue if an extra $70 per student could be found. Green responded that the administration has looked into the question of liability, and is confident that “if this is an activity that is an offshoot of our program, our insurance would cover [accompanying teachers].”

Thomas also asked for clarification on whether the new MEAP test will be similar to the NWEA. Green said that by 2014-15, the state would like to have a test that allows the kind of benchmarking already being done in AAPS. She also pointed out that the NWEA test being used in the district allows AAPS to create personalized learning plans to be able to accelerate and remediate as needed. Green argued that eliminating it would do a disservice to students.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot asked for clarification on how parents get the data they need. Green suggested that parents should use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. Lightfoot said that seemed cumbersome to her, and Green responded that without requiring FOIA requests, the district would be inundated with all kinds of requests for data and the district has to be sure it’s equitable. Trustee Susan Baskett pointed out that the cost of making a FOIA request could be a burden to some, making it an inequitable process, and suggested the district could come up with something better than FOIA in the future.

2012-13 Budget: Agenda Planning

During the agenda planning section at the end of the May 9 board meeting, Baskett and Lightfoot each questioned some of the work being done by AAPS administration to prepare the district for possible budget reductions the board could decide to make.

Regarding the possible closure or restructuring of Roberto Clemente, trustee Susan Baskett asked, “What is our plan with the transition?… It would help the community to know how it would work. Can we assure the public that it will be thought out?” Mexicotte said that discussing a transition plan would be “premature,” but that “there have been ongoing conversations with the administrators of the schools affected.”

Baskett and trustee Simone Lightfoot also asked about the status of talks between AAPS and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) about busing. Lightfoot asked, “Are we not going to have conversations about transportation and possible alternatives prior to approving the budget?” Mexicotte said the board would discuss transportation as part of the overall budget discussion to be held as part of the committee of the whole meeting on May 16. She added that at that time, the board could choose to put together a subcommittee or schedule a single meeting to discuss a single topic if necessary.

Lightfoot asserted that the board is not giving transportation the attention and time it’s going to require – because so much might need to be done before September. She asked how the meetings between AATA and the district were “evolving” and when the board would be updated on them. Green answered that there was a lot of conversation taking place, that the district had a meeting coming up with AATA’s CEO, and that she could summarize something for “the capsule,” a regular e-mail update from the superintendent to the board.

Lightfoot responded, “That’s unacceptable. We and the public should be getting more information on those meetings.” At the end of the meeting, during items from the board, Lightfoot invited the public to participate in a discussion being held by the AATA to get public input into their new transportation plans on Monday, May 14 at 7 p.m. at Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor district library.

2012-13 Budget: Items from the Board

At the close of the May 9 meeting, Patalan reminded the community of the upcoming budget forum on May 14, at Huron High School, and said she would love for people to attend and give feedback. Saying she understood the anger she heard at public commentary, and supported everyone advocating for what is dear to them, Patalan urged the public to remember that “we [trustees] are human beings.” She added, “I am a little troubled by what seems like a lack of sticking to the rules of public commentary, a lack of respect for public commentary … and what is perceived by me as threats to the board, administration, or superintendent. We are truly working for the good of all of our students and it is hard when, once again, we have to make reductions.”

AAPS trustees Christine Stead (left) and Irene Patalan (right) listen to public commentary during the May 9 meeting.

Stead thanked the principals and students at Roberto Clemente and A2Tech for “spending so much time with [her] in the past couple of weeks.” She singled out her four student hosts at Clemente as being “fabulous students, very informative” and for asking some really great questions of her during her visit. Stead encouraged the community to engage in a constructive way to change the law regarding local tax levy authority. “It’s insane that in this country we cannot exercise our own priorities,” she said. “… [A]s we hand out what Lansing has handed to us – the time has come to change the law and get back our own democratic rights.”

Nelson said that in the very short term, at the state level, the House bill on the School Aid Fund is considerably better than the Senate bill. He urged everyone who is listening who wanted to take constructive action in the short term to support the House bill.

2012-13 Budget: AAEA Report

Ann Arbor Education Association president Brit Satchwell used the bulk of his report to encourage taking action to change state funding for education, and pointed out that no matter what cuts the board decides to make, their effects will ripple throughout the system. “I want everybody who has come to advocate for programs to realize that it’s not the domino next to you causing the cuts … Coming here and advocating is not enough.”

Satchwell called the board’s upcoming decisions “impossible” in an environment of inadequate resources, and suggested trustees focus on meeting needs where they are the greatest, “like how when the body goes into shock, the blood rushes to the center of the body to keep the heart and lungs working even at the expense of the fingers and toes.”

Tech Bond

Mexicotte devoted her president’s report at the May 9 meeting primarily to expressing gratitude for the passage of the technology bond millage. She thanked trustee Glenn Nelson explicitly for his pivotal role in getting it passed, and offered Nelson a chance to thank each of the major players in the tech bond campaign.

Nelson first recognized AAEA president Brit Satchwell, superintendent Patricia Green, fellow trustees Christine Stead and Andy Thomas, AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis, and AAPS executive director of physical properties Randy Trent.

Nelson then thanked a number of “citizen volunteers” whose services he said would have been worth $1,000 a day in the consulting world, but who received no compensation: James Corey, who Nelson said was absolutely instrumental in facilitating local companies’ involvement with the bond; Parent-Teacher-Organizationp-Council leaders Donna Lasinksi and Amy Pachera; Patrick Leonard, who took charge of flyer distribution, and was able to get out double the number of flyers that were originally printed; Lorrie Barnett, who drafted the materials on the flyers and postcards; and Steve Norton, who oversaw communication, yard sign design and distribution, was the treasurer of the citizen’s millage committee, “and did 10-12 other things.” Nelson asserted that the district is “very fortunate to have all of these wonderful people.”

Mexicotte noted that if someone was not on Nelson’s list, it was because she did not warn him that she would be asking him to enumerate the campaign workers at this meeting. She then asked a Huron High School student to the podium, who reported that Nelson had participated in Challenge Day at his school and that Nelson is “a tremendous and wonderful person.” Nelson said that he would take great pleasure in watching the young man in the future.

Thomas asserted that the “spiritual and energetic and emotional leader” of the millage campaign was Nelson himself, and said that he “did it in a way that made everyone else feel like the decisions were communal … It was impressive – to be led without realizing you are being led.”

Green’s superintendent’s report also contained a list of thank-yous regarding the millage’s passing: to voters in the community for their support; to her executive staff for attending many community events; and to the bargaining units. “It does take a village,” she said, “and the village really responded … I hope we do very well implementing the next phase of this. [AAPS executive director of properties] Randy Trent – you have a lot of work ahead of you, and I know you are up for the job.”

During the agenda planning portion of the May 9 meeting, Baskett said that now that the tech bond had passed, she would like the board to have a discussion regarding its priorities in terms of hiring contractors. Mexicotte told Baskett that any trustee can bring forward a proposed policy for the board to consider. But Baskett said she would prefer to have trustees first have a discussion to see if they were all “on the same page” regarding hiring local workers, paying a living wage, encouraging bids from historically-underutilized businesses, and other such values before hiring contractors to carry out the work related to the tech bond.

During items from the board, Nelson and Patalan also thanked the community for passing the tech bond millage. Patalan said she was glad the board took the time to celebrate the people who helped to make it happen and the citizens who “are not giving up on the future.”

AAEA president Brit Satchwell also offered thanks for the tech bond’s passage on behalf of all educators, saying the community has given teachers the ability to do what they’re here to do – to prepare students for success in life in the outside world.

Easements for Northside and Pioneer

The board considered granting two easements to the city of Ann Arbor– one on the property of Northside Elementary School and another on the property of Pioneer High School, both for work related to water mains. AAPS executive director of physical properties Randy Trent explained to the board these are two different easements, one for work that the district has already done. Lightfoot asked how the easement could be granted for work after it was finished. Trent explained that the exact locations of water mains are not known until they are installed, and the sequence of installation followed by the easement is typical. When there is a water main and the city has easements, the city has responsibility for them. It works both ways very well, Trent said.

Outcome: The easements come back for approval at the next general meeting.

Physical Properties Bid Awards Approved

Trent was also on hand to answer board questions during a second briefing on six physical properties bid award recommendations. The bids are for: asbestos abatement; environmental consultation; integrated pesticide management; University of Michigan parking services; 2012 asphalt paving, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements.

Nelson asked Trent to explain how integrated pest management is approached in the district. Trent explained that the district always take the least toxic approach to managing pests as needed. Usually, he explained, pests can be managed with proactive monitoring, such as applying caulk if pests are entering through cracks, taking down hornet and wasp nests from the playground equipment before school starts in the fall, and hand-pulling poison ivy from school property. Lightfoot asked which pests the district is most burdened by, and Trent answered ants and bees.

Patalan noted that the ADA bid was for “Phase IV” of ADA improvements, and asked how many phases there will be. Trent answered that they will be ongoing as long as access can be improved, though there will be fewer in the future as the district has done a lot in recent years.

Mexicotte noted that the details on each bid were in the board packets, and Trent added that in all cases, the lowest qualified bidder is being recommended.

Outcome: The board awarded the bids unanimously approval as part of the consent agenda.

Anti-Bullying Policy

Mexicotte noted that the state has required all districts to create an anti-bullying policy that contains certain elements. Trustees asked AAPS deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel Dave Comsa to list the nine required elements and point out where they were in the draft policy, which he did. Comsa also noted that the policy must be adopted by June 6, and that detail regarding the regulations will be created once the policy is approved.

Trustees made the following suggestions: amend language to make it clear that the policy includes behavior at school-related activities, not only behavior in school; develop a tool to track whether bullying is linked to racial, ethnic, or sexual orientation intimidation; add a timeline for resolution of bullying investigations; add something about how this policy appears in multiple media – because it will be part of the Rights and Responsibilities handbook as well; link the annual review of bullying incidences to the expulsion and suspension report; and be sure staff is trained to counsel students through the process.

AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye said that some of the board’s suggestions would be addressed by the regulations as they are developed. She noted that students will be involved in creating some of the specific pieces of the district’s anti-bullying program, and that she is looking to develop a framework that is consistent throughout the district.

Mexicotte said the board has great interest in seeing the regulations as they are developed to understand how they reflect the spirit of the policy.

Outcome: The anti-bullying policy was reviewed as a first briefing item and will be returned to the board for additional review and comment before being voted on at the next regular meeting.

Policy Updates

The board reviewed seven expiring policies at this meeting – Student Reclassification-Retention (Policy 5160); Elementary Reclassification-Acceleration (Policy 5170); Field Trips (Policy 5300); Pilot Projects/Innovation (Policy 6120); Donations-Gifts and Bequests (Policy 7400); Parental Involvement (Policy 7800); and Parental Involvement Title 1 (Policy 7810).

No significant changes were suggested to policies 5160, 5170, 7400, 7800, or 7810.

Discussion of the field trip policy (5300) included the question of whether field trips could be required if they did not cost any money. Trustees suggested wording that stresses that missing a field trip would not adversely affect a student’s grades – either because a student does not go on the trip, or because a student is unable to participate in follow-up activities related to the trip.

Baskett suggested adding that “denial of field trips would not be used as a disciplinary action.” Thomas disagreed, saying that it is appropriate to deny participation in a field trip to an individual with a history of disciplinary programs who would be at risk to himself or others in a field-trip environment. Baskett noted that there is a sense of weeding out students early in the year from end of the year field trip opportunities. Mexicotte said the district might need to work to change the behavior of schools regarding this, and Green said that she is working to build in incentives with cooperative discipline that will help schools intervene early enough to change behaviors.

Lightfoot requested that Allen look into how athletic directors are choosing to transport students to sporting events, because some schools use buses and others use private vehicles.

Regarding the pilot projects policy (6120), Mexicotte said she had been part of crafting this policy in an attempt to bring oversight of significant academic programs to the board level, but that it “somehow just cannot work within our environment.”

Nelson pointed out that this policy just restates what is already law in terms of the board’s responsibility. “We just need to assert periodically through the agenda-setting process that we would like certain reports,” he said.

Mexicotte pointed out that without a policy like this at all, there were major programs going on at schools that the board did not know about, but that in the current fiscal climate, that appears to not be happening anymore, so perhaps the policy is no longer necessary.

Lightfoot, Thomas, and Baskett expressed interest in maintaining the oversight provided by this policy, and Mexioctte suggested perhaps the policy’s name is getting in the way of its being used.

Green said she likes consistency, and that “pilot project” has not been consistently defined. She also noted that the policy could be seen as constraining creativity.

Outcome: These policies will return to the board for more discussion and a vote at the next regular board meeting.

WISD Budget

Stead gave a presentation on the Washtenaw Intermediate School District’s 2012-13 budget, which had been furnished by the WISD to member districts. She noted that AAPS and other member districts are mandated by law to review the WISD’s general fund, and that AAPS would review the special education budget as well.

The presentation was in the board packet, and Stead read through it, highlighting the role of the WISD, the services it offers AAPS, and the various teaching and learning initiatives in which WISD is involved. Trustees expressed interest in getting brief descriptions for each of the roughly 50 teaching and learning initiatives – as a part of their information packets for their next meeting.

Stead then reviewed expenditure categories, sources of revenue (primarily property tax revenue), projected reimbursement rates, and the projected decrease in the WISD’s fund balances. She noted that AAPS is interested in the reimbursement rate for special education services, which has decreased since 2010, and is projected to continue to decrease as property values continue to decline.

Mexicotte pointed out that the recent special education millage renewal was a renewal of the rate, not the amount. The reimbursement rate is lower in part because the millage did not replenish the same amount of funds, she said. Nelson said that one of the things the board has a responsibility for is to think about things on the revenue side. Stead also pointed out that earmarked federal grant money, such as the IDEA grant, could also decrease.

Thomas asked what was included in “central services” in the WISD budget – because the WISD’s central services budget is almost three times as high as the corresponding item for AAPS. He also said he would like to see how much it costs to operate High Pointe.

Nelson said that he was in favor of approving the WISD budget, but would like to make two suggestions – that the transportation services provided to cooperating districts be broken out by district, and that the WISD work to establish closer relationships between itself and its member districts. Lightfoot also expressed interest in seeing the breakdown in transportation costs, as well as projections about their possible role with Head Start.

Mexicotte said she was really struck by the precipitous drop in the WISD’s fund balance, and asked what WISD will do when it is depleted. She suggested that the WISD should provide a line-by-line breakdown of its budget and offer explanations of each item. Also, she said she would like to see the amounts for the specific things AAPS should be paying attention to, such as the consolidated substitute teacher program, and programs for which AAPS gets specific support.

Association and Student Reports

Five associations are invited to make regular reports to the school board: the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent Teacher Organization Council (PTOC), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). The Youth Senate is also invited to speak once a month, as are representatives from each of the high schools.

At this meeting, the board heard from a student representative from Ann Arbor Technological High School (A2 Tech), the AAPAC, and the AAEA. Comments from AAEA were included above, in sections of the meeting report about the budget and the tech bond.

Association and Student Reports: A2 Tech

A2 Tech student Hannah King offered the board her story of how she became a student at A2 Tech. She described how she had been at Community High School and done well initially, but as classes became harder, she began to not do as well. Finally, after the first semester of her junior year, Community dean Jennifer Hein suggested that she transfer to Skyline permanently or attend A2Tech to recover some credits, and then be able to return to Community for her senior year. Her time at A2 Tech has been successful, King said, and the smaller class sizes have allowed her to learn how to become a better student. She is now planning to continue her journey to art school in the future.

King also read the statement of DeAndre Booker, another A2 Tech student who was called into work and was therefore unable to attend the meeting. She noted that Booker’s boss had said he would be fired if he did not come to work, so he had no choice but to go.

Booker’s story begins when he was 16 years old, living with his sister. He had dropped out of school to take care of his mother, who had a worsening mental disability, and his sister told him he would need to be in school or move out. At 17, he left home and went into independent living through a program called Fostering Futures in Ypsilanti. He began to attend school at Huron, but struggled due to the large class sizes, the lack of time to build relationships with teachers, and his perception that they weren’t concerned about him. After transferring to A2 Tech, he felt cared for, and has been able to thrive due to extra help received during and after school. Booker has received scholarship offers, has applied for college, and credits A2Tech with making him into the “peaceful, strong, and determined” young man he is today.

Nelson said he appreciated King’s excellent report and Baskett thanked her for reading both her story and her peer’s story. Nelson then asked for more detail describing the decision process that led to transfering to A2Tech. King reviewed her conversation with Hein, how she wanted to make the choice that would allow her to return to Community because of her interest in its art program, and how her parents had been part of the decision, too.

Nelson said King was the kind of student the district is proud of. Patalan agreed “You know what you want for your future, and you are doing what you need to do to get what you need fore your future – that is something to be commended. The board is proud of that.”

Baskett also commended A2Tech principal Sheila Brown for attending the meeting to support her students.

Association and Student Reports: AAPAC

Kelly Van Singel gave the report for the AAPAC. She thanked the SISS staff for providing a district update at the AAPAC’s recent meeting and expressed happiness that the tech bond had passed. Van Singel said she “appreciates the cabinet member’s efforts to work within the budget reality we are all facing.”

Van Singel noted that the AAPAC is conducting surveys on the special education experience within AAPS. She said that special education busing has had a lot of late arrivals and early departures and cautioned that these issues could result in compliance issues regarding students’ individualized education plans, such as loss of instructional time. Van Singel said the AAPAC requests that the board keep working on addressing transportation concerns.

Awards and Accolades

This meeting included a number of awards and accolades.

Tappan Band Ensemble

An ensemble of students from the Tappan middle school band performed for the board at the start of the May 9 meeting. Their director, Fred Smith, thanked everyone for their support of these and other music students, especially parents. After the two selections played by students, Mexicotte thanked them on behalf of the board, and said the performances were wonderful. Patalan added that she was very impressed, and that it was a nice way to start a meeting.

E3 Award

AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis introduced representatives from the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti regional chamber, who announced that AAPS was being awarded an E3 award for the health sciences technology program at Pioneer and Huron. The E3 awards, they explained, are granted to “exemplary educational endeavors,” and the health sciences technology program is just that. In its 33rd year, the program includes class time studying anatomy and physiology, as well as internships in the community that allow students to explore health careers. Teachers Lynn Boland (Huron) and Cathy Malette (Pioneer), who co-administer the program, were on hand to accept the award.

Proclamations

The board read and unanimously supported two proclamations – one celebrating school nurses in honor of National School Nurse Day, and one celebrating teachers in honor of National Teacher Appreciation Week and National Teacher Day. Green also thanked teachers and nurses as part of her superintendent’s report.

Superintendent’s Report

In addition to the accolades given to teachers and nurse, Green commended the following: elementary students who succeeded in the Knowledge Master Open; student poetry winners; students who won an innovative design challenge to convert a gas-powered car to an electric car; a student curating a cartography exhibit; entrants into the Michigan youth arts festival; short story entrants in the Ann Arbor District Library short story contest; students participating in a documentary competition; a Michigan high school football all-star; district choirs and sports teams; contributors in a large food drive; and a teacher who won an award for the best short fiction collection of 2011.

Agenda Planning

Baskett requested an update on the Rising Scholars program, as well as an update on the district’s equity and cultural competency work.

Lightfoot requested updates on the International Baccalaureate program, and Mexicotte said it has been placed on the agenda of one of the summer board meetings, along with updates on the Early College Alliance (ECA), and Widening Advancement for Youth (WAY) programs.

Lightfoot also asked when the board would have an opportunity to discuss its relationship with the Pacific Education Group, and Mexicotte said that would be included in the discussion on equity and cultural competency.

Items from the Board

Thomas reported on his attendance at music programs in the district. He highlighted the middle school orchestra and choir concerts and said it was rewarding to see the progression of development through the three years (6-8 grades). Thomas also brought to the board’s attention a new recreation facility – the Argo Cascades, on which he had the privilege of being the first official traveler. He said it was a wonderful experience and said he would be glad to host any of his fellow trustees and AAPS administrators who would like to try it.

Baskett thanked the Bryant-Pattengill community for their recent event celebrating parent volunteers.

Nelson praised Thurston elementary’s recent International Night event, and said that international nights are “one of the really great things we do here in AAPS.” He also invited everyone to a district-wide art exhibit opening to be held in the Slusser Gallery on the University of Michigan’s north campus at 7 p.m. on Monday, May 14.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Christine Stead, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Glenn Nelson.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 South Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

At the meeting, 33 parents, students, and staff responded to proposed budget cuts that would affect transportation, Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, and music camps. The total time allotted for public commentary by the AAPS board is 45 minutes. So speakers wanting to address the school board at public commentary at the April 25 AAPS school board meeting were limited to 1 minute and 22 seconds, which was rounded up to a minute and a half.

Brian Marcel and Scott Menzel gave the AAPS board an update on the transportation services provided by WISD to the district as part of a consortium of other districts.

After hearing the budget presentation, board members shared some of their individual thinking on how best to address the projected $17.8 million deficit facing the district next year. AAPS is sponsoring two community budget forums to get additional feedback on the budget proposal. Both start at 6:30 p.m. The first will be held on May 7 at the Pioneer High School Cafeteria Annex and the second one a week later on May 14 at the Huron High School Cafeteria.

Support of the upcoming technology bond millage came up multiple times at the meeting as one way local residents could have an impact on the funding crisis facing local schools. AAPS district voters will decide that issue on May 8.

Also at this meeting, longtime environmental educator Bill Browning was honored by the board for his years of dedication to the district, as well as his recent $30,000 donation to the AAPS Science and Environmental Education Endowment Fund.

Presentation of Proposed 2012-13 Budget

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green led off the formal budget presentation with a set of prepared remarks. She reviewed the effect that Proposal A, passed in 1994, has had on “the defunding of education as a state priority.” She said the resulting budget cuts have caused the district to feel a great sense of loss and tremendous pain. Green noted that AAPS students score higher on the ACT and SAT than state and national averages, and that the district is also recognized nationally for success in arts and athletics, but that “all of this excellence is in danger if the state does not address the structural deficit they have created.” Green urged all AAPS families to contact their legislators to ensure that retirement costs are fairly addressed, and that K-12 schools receive their rightful funding.

AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen then gave the board a formal presentation on the administration’s proposed budget for 2012-13. His presentation reviewed the assumptions underpinning the proposed budget, and reviewed the proposed reductions presented at the board’s April 18, 2012 committee of the whole meeting.

2012-13 Budget – Assumptions

Allen reviewed the funds held by the district, and noted that all funds have restrictions on their use, except for the general fund. He explained how schools are funded, and reviewed how student count is determined. Of the slides he presented, one piqued more interest from trustees than others – a slide that showed the per-pupil allocations AAPS has received from the state over time. The district is currently receiving $9,020 per pupil, which is less than the 2001-02 amount of $9,234.

Trustee Christine Stead pointed out that the actual amount is much lower when you adjust for inflation. And Andy Thomas suggested adding a column to the chart that shows the increase in the mandated employer contribution to the state pension system, MPSERS, alongside the decrease in foundation allowances. “It would give a very realistic portrayal of why we are sitting here after midnight getting ready to talk about some very difficult issues.”

Allen noted that, in 2001-02, the district was paying an amount equal to around 12% of employee wages into MPSERS, but that the rate has skyrocketed in the past decade. The mandated employer contribution rate is currently 27%, Allen said, and is projected to increase to more than 31% for FY 2013-14, and to more 33% for FY 2014-15.

Allen said that while legislation is currently being considered to reform MPSERS, the effect of any changes would be long-term. In response to a question from trustee Glenn Nelson, Allen said that for each percentage point that the MPSERS rate increases, the cost to AAPS is roughly $1.1 million.

Finally, Allen showed a slide of three-year projections and highlighted the impact on the district’s fund equity, if the district did not make any budget reductions. “If we don’t cut anything,” he said, “we could make it one more year.” Nelson suggested checking the accuracy of base budget numbers, given the projected changes to special education reimbursement.

In response to Allen’s review of potential revenue enhancements, Nelson asked if the enrollment projections included the School of Choice students. Allen said that although the district is expecting an increase in SOC students based on the move to all-day kindergarten, the projected increase in enrollment is not reflected in the budget’s enrollment projections. Nelson also contended that the “best practices” incentives offered by the state are not best practices as defined by educators, but function instead like “political ransom.”

Stead noted that Michigan school districts are facing the largest funding reduction in state history, and said it would really change the whole conversation if communities were able to regain local levy authority. Trustee Irene Patalan said that while sales in Michigan are projected to increase, she did not trust that the state will use the sales tax as promised to fund K-12 education.

The Chronicle has organized the bulk of this article according to the budget topics addressed at this meeting – transportation, Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, band and orchestra camps, staffing, the tech bond, and discretionary budgets.

2012-13 Budget – Transportation

The proposed transportation budget reduction options discussed at the April 25 meeting were:

• changing Skyline’s school day starting and ending times by 15 minutes to streamline bus use ($266,400);
• eliminating the 4 p.m. middle school bus ($85,284);
• eliminating midday shuttles from Community High School to comprehensive high schools ($230,184);
• eliminating all transportation of choice (i.e., Ann Arbor Open, Skyline, and Clemente) ($266,400);
• eliminating all high school busing ($545,000);
• and eliminating all busing except for special education busing ($3.5 million).

Transportation: WISD Update

Earlier in the evening of the April 25 meeting, the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD)’s superintendent Scott Menzel and assistant superintendent Brian Marcel presented the board with an update of the transportation services provided to AAPS as part of the WISD transportation consortium. Their presentation highlighted the results of a parent satisfaction survey they had conducted, from which they concluded there are an “unacceptable” percentage of parents who are unhappy with the service. [.pdf of WISD transportation update]

A key issue, Marcel explained, is that routing is done with the previous years’ student data – because the district’s student accounting software, PowerSchool, does not “roll up” student data until August. That is, in the district’s software, students aren’t moved to the next grade level until August. Multiple trustees questioned this process, and suggested ways to achieve greater accuracy in routing. Marcel also provided volume data for the phone calls received by the WISD about busing, and discussed plans to be better prepared to respond to calls in the coming year.

Nelson clarified that the district’s participation in the WISD transportation consortium has an effect on the special education reimbursement from the state. In Michigan, 70% of the cost of special education vehicles is eligible for state reimbursement. Marcel explained how the state reimbursements had shifted – as the responsibility for transporting special education students had shifted from AAPS to the WISD.

A few board members expressed disappointment with the WISD’s report, and requested additional information. Trustee Andy Thomas asked if the WISD was aware of any industry standards in terms of cost per student mile that would allow AAPS to benchmark the efficiency of the consortium, and also asked Green to have AAPS staff review the effect of the transportation changes to absenteeism in the district. Lightfoot also questioned the cost of services provided by the consortium. Patalan asked for the WISD’s suggestions on how to save money in transportation.

Board president Deb Mexicotte said the presentation had given the board a lot to think about, and said, “Hopefully we can do better next year.”

Transportation: Ann Arbor Open and Community

Five parents spoke to the board during public commentary regarding the proposed cuts to busing that would affect students attending Ann Arbor Open and Community High School.

Bruce Tasonjy, whose daughter will be attending Community in the fall, said that the cuts to busing will make it hard for single parents to keep their jobs. He also suggested cutting salaries across the board, instead of laying off so many employees.

Sascha Matish, Jill Zimmerman, Carol Sickman-Garner, and Carol Chase discussed the ramifications of cutting busing to Ann Arbor Open. Matish said parents at Ann Arbor Open are sympathetic to the difficulty of the job facing the board, but noted that Ann Arbor Open serves 500 students ages 4 to 14, who deserve the same services as their K-8 peers. She argued that cutting busing would limit Ann Arbor Open to families who live nearby the school and are able to transport their children to and from school each day.

Zimmerman suggested that Ann Arbor Open could make other cuts that would equal the cost of transporting to and from the school. She and Chase said Ann Arbor Open parents would welcome the district’s suggestions for alternative ways to meet the targeted budget reductions, and that parents can also suggest alternatives that would achieve budget reductions while doing less damage to the school’s institutional integrity. Zimmerman also pointed out that students who are interested in pursuing open education might find local charter schools more interesting if AAPS does not offer transportation to Ann Arbor Open.

Finally, Sickman-Garner said that if the board does decide to eliminate bus service to Ann Arbor Open, the school will need help from the district to ensure student safety during drop-off and pick-up. She pointed out that twice every day, 500 students and their families are converging on one building with a small parking lot in the middle of a neighborhood. She asked if there had been any consideration of the impact of eliminating busing on the neighborhood surrounding Ann Arbor Open, as well as the cost of possibly upgrading traffic lights, redoing the school’s parking lot, or hiring additional crossing guards.

Transportation: Board Discussion

Trustee Simone Lightfoot said she would like to see the district form a transportation committee that includes representation from parents and kids who are affected, and said she would be willing work with the committee. During the agenda planning portion of the meeting, Mexicotte said she would place the possible creation of a transportation committee on the board’s next committee of the whole agenda.

Thomas said that it seems to him, in looking over the budget projections, that the question is not whether but when to eliminate transportation. He said, that like taking off a bandaid, “You know it’s going to hurt no matter when you do it. In my view, transportation appears to be a dead duck.” Regarding transportation at Ann Arbor Open, Thomas recounted his memory of living on the Old West Side, seeing Ann Arbor Open parents standing in line with tents, barbeques and camp chairs, to be able to register their children for the school. Citing the extreme dedication and determination of Ann Arbor Open parents, Thomas said he firmly believed that these parents would figure out how to organize carpools to get their kids to school.

Lightfoot asked for clarification on why only Skyline’s and not other high school’s schoolday times would be changed. Allen responded that Skyline’s day ends later than the other high schools, and would not allow for buses to take Skyline students home and then return in time to take middle school students home.

Lightfoot also said the board needs to be sensitive to all parents, even those who don’t show up, who “don’t love their children any less.” She said she felt the board had a tacit agreement to “hold harmless” transportation this year, make it right, and put alternatives in front of parents. Lightfoot expressed frustration that when people talk about keeping budget cuts out of classrooms, they don’t think about the need to get kids to the classrooms. “I would like us to take the elimination of busing off the table, and figure out real, sustainable solutions after we can study it.”

Patalan said she shared Thomas’ vision of the future of transportation, and asked, “Where is AATA with this – they provide something we need.”

Patalan also said taking away transportation from Ann Arbor Open makes her uncomfortable because it serves younger children (K-8), but that if busing is taken away, she would look to Ann Arbor Open to be a model to the rest of the district as to how to work with their coordinating council/PTO to get their kids to school. “I am asking them to lead this community,” she said.

Trustee Susan Baskett said that she appreciates that folks at Ann Arbor Open will work out transportation issues, but argued that some people “don’t always want to be a charity case.” She gave an example of having a beat-up vehicle that is unreliable making a parent unable to be part of a carpool. “If we say we believe in alternative education, our actions are not speaking with out words… If we value it, we have to put money behind it,” she said.

Baskett also pointed out that the elimination of the 4 p.m. middle school bus could have a disproportionate effect on children at-risk. Allen noted that the elimination of the bus would impact both academic and athletic programs at the middle schools. Baskett said the impact of eliminating this bus should be thought out fully, and pointed out, “Some things we are willing to study with a committee and some we are not.” She also requested more information behind the reasoning for eliminating the midday shuttles at Community.

Jill Zimmerman, an Ann Arbor Open parent who stayed at the meeting past 2 a.m., asked to be recognized, and Mexicotte said she could speak to the board very briefly. She said that she appreciates that Thomas thinks Ann Arbor Open parents are super-dedicated, and that Patalan thinks they could set an example for the district, but pointed out that it would a hard burden for Ann Arbor Open parents to lose transportation. “It’s one thing to wait outside for a few days in a tent [to register for the school]; it’s another to have to be at school every day,” Zimmerman said. Lastly, she pointed out that the kids who will leave Ann Arbor Open due to a lack of transportation will be its most vulnerable kids.

2012-13 Budget – Roberto Clemente

The board is considering closing or restructuring Roberto Clemente Student Development Center to achieve targeted cost savings of $400,000. At the April 25 meeting, 23 people addressed the board to express disapproval with a proposed budget reductions which would affect the school – 16 students, 4 parents, 1 teacher, 1 social worker, and Clemente’s principal, Ben Edmondson. Almost all of the speakers reflected on the way that Clemente functions more like a family than a school.

During the April 25 meeting, comments made by individual board members about the Clemente meeting indicated a general willingness to consider relocating the program into the building currently being used by A2 Tech.

Roberto Clemente: Public Commentary from Students

One of the themes that came across in the students’ statements to the board was the importance of second chances. Many students gave examples of their grade point averages before and after moving into Clemente from their traditional programs, and credited the school with their turnarounds. Xavier Lawson defined himself as a former “at-risk kid,” and said that because of Clemente, he and many other students who had previously been “in the [achievement] gap” were not any longer in the gap. Alexzandra Botello agreed, saying, “I became a student at Clemente.”

A handful of students gave very humbling statements about how staff at Clemente had helped them to realize how their previous attitudes or behaviors were only hurting themselves. They talked about how they had taken responsibility for themselves and were preparing to attend college. Students expressed concern that moving Clemente’s location would cause a regression in their positive behavior. Many asked that board members visit Clemente to see firsthand how unique and well-suited the environment is to this population of students.

Multiple students also credited Clemente with being a “lifesaver.” Marcus Buggs said that without Clemente, he “would be dead or in jail.” After witnessing his father’s fatal shooting at age 9, and with his mother currently in jail, Buggs credited Clemente with “making [him] a man – a person who can take of [his] family, and other families – who can go to college and change the world.” Buggs will be attending Western Michigan University on a 6-year scholarship, beginning in the fall of 2012.

Finally, the most prevalent theme was the family atmosphere fostered at Clemente; multiple students called Clemente home, and the school community a family. Cierra Reese said that “each teacher is like a parent to each student. Taking away this program is like taking away a child’s home.” Meghan Lau said that consolidating Clemente would be like “Closing the road to success for people who have finally found their way there.” After she was overcome with emotion, principal Ben Edmondson offered to finish reading Lau’s statement: “It’s like shutting a door to your house and not being allowed back in…” London Renfroe-Lindsey directed her comments specifically to AAPS superintendent Patricia Green, reminding Green that when she visited Clemente, she had promised that Clemente would be safe from budget cuts. Renfroe-Lindsey asked “This program has more to offer than meets the eye…What would drive you to take that away?”

After public commentary had concluded, Thomas asked a clarifying question of Clemente students regarding the medals that some of them were wearing around their necks. Students explained that the medals signified the attainment of certain grade point averages.

Roberto Clemente: Public Commentary from Parents

Parents noted Clemente’s small class sizes, mentorship program, universally high expectations, and exceptionally caring staff as critical to the school’s success and did not want to see any changes to the program or its location. “We want success just like anyone else wants success,” said parent Jeri Jenesta. Andrea Martin noted that without Clemente, many of these students would not get a diploma, and that if they don’t graduate, “we, as taxpayers, will be taking care of them the rest of their lives.” Chris Miller’s comments regarding her son summarized many of the sentiments shared: “He is not a number. He is not a statistic. And, he is not a dollar sign.”

Roberto Clemente: Public Commentary from Staff

Clemente principal Ben Edmondson stood beside each student as they spoke, but said little himself other than that he was proud of his students and thankful for the opportunity to be their principal. Edmondson also read the rest of one student’s statement when she became too overcome with emotion to speak. Charlae Davis, a social worker who identified herself as the co-founder of a mentoring program used by Clemente students, urged the board to “humanize the discussion,” and noted, “In a world of policy, if you find programs that are experiencing success, you ask how you support and replicate them, not eliminate them.”

Longtime Clemente teacher Michael Smith questioned the district’s commitment to closing the achievement gap, noting that some of the students he teaches enter his classes reading significantly below grade level. He noted that Clemente’s current building was purpose-built for students needing the structure, discipline, and family atmosphere it offers, and called it a “rescue mission” for students who had been “lost or forgotten by the district and this community.”

Roberto Clemente: Board Discussion

Lightfoot asked why Community High School had not been considered for closure or restructuring, as the other two alternative high schools had been. “It has this reputation as a sacred cow,” Lightfoot said. Allen answered that Community’s student population is much larger than the populations of Clemente and A2 Tech, and therefore could not be combined with other programs. Also, Allen said, A2 Tech and Clemente have similar goals, while “the program at Community is slightly different in terms of who they cater to.” Lightfoot said it should have been more clear that the district was looking at restructuring “alternative programs with fewer than 250 kids in them” rather than all alternative programs.

Thomas said he was “sick” about letting a financial decision drive a programmatic decision, such as moving Clemente onto the A2 Tech campus. He expressed concern about being able to effectively merge the two programs when they are operationally very different. “There is a huge climate gap with the way they do things at A2 Tech versus how they do things at Clemente. Will it be that they share teachers and classrooms, or will it be A2 Tech on one side of the building and Clemente on the other side, as though they are still five miles apart? I am willing to keep an open mind, but I am really concerned.”

Lightfoot said she would like to see the Clemente program continue without being “morphed.” She was less wedded to it continuing in the very same building. “The thing that makes the program work is the individuals implementing it,” she said.

Patalan said she “absolutely supports Clemente,” and that it is “saving kids’ lives and helping them become the wonderful citizens we all want them to be.” She pointed out that AAPS has had programs share buildings before, that she believes that having Clemente share space with A2 Tech is doable. She said she trusts the principals to work it out.

Baskett questioned, “What is our commitment to alternative education? We know it is important to us, and we know it costs more. So, if we are going to do it then we have to play the price for it, and I think our children are worth it.” She said that this proposal is “bigger than putting two groups of kids in a building” and that “for some of them, to take their building away is traumatic enough.” Finally, Baskett said that after the “transportation debacle” of last year, she did not trust administration to get the Clemente/A2 Tech restructuring worked out by the fall.

2012-13 Budget – Band and Orchestra Camps

The board is considering cutting $60,000 of funding to support band and orchestra camps. The district’s funds offset the costs of travel and staffing at the camps, and are complemented by funds raised by music students and their families to cover the camp costs.

Band and Orchestra Camps: Public Commentary

Five people spoke to the board regarding the proposed cuts to the district’s band and orchestra camps. David Baum, co-president of the Pioneer Band Association, asked the board not to cut funding for the band camps. He noted that more than 850 students attend the camps, and said that they are the springboard into the academic music program each year. Baum argued that cutting the camps would lower the quality of the band and orchestra programs, and will eventually lead music students to choose to leave the district.

Patton Doyle, an AAPS alum, credited the AAPS music program with teaching him problem-solving, and noted that the true power of the AAPS music program is not the success of one school, but the program as a whole. Doyle is currently studying physics at the University of Michigan.

Maggie Fulton, president of the Pioneer Orchestra Parents Society (POPS) asserted that many students don’t have the family resources for lessons, and that they would be disproportionately hurt by the elimination of this experience. She said music staff members have told her the program will not be able to happen without the district’s subsidy, and argued that the subsidy “provides a demonstrable return on the investment.”

Two current AAPS students spoke on behalf of the band and orchestra camps. Charlie Geronimous said band camp inspired him to work harder and be a better musician, and brought kids together in ways not seen anywhere else. Judy Pao added that orchestra camp helped her to transition to high school a lot easier, and that she felt like she was in a family on the first day of school.

Band and Orchestra Camps: Youth Senate Report

The Youth Senate is invited to give a report to the board each month. This month, the report focused entirely on the possible elimination of district funding for band and orchestra camps.

Youth Senator Enze Zing urged the board not to overlook the impact of smaller budget cuts in the face of needing to reduce the overall budget by $17.8 million for the coming school year. Zing, who is also the co-president of the Pioneer Symphony Band, reminded the board of Pioneer’s standing as the only two-time Grammy award-winning high school in the U.S. Zing argued that the rigorous music camps, which take place in August, encourage students to keep up with practicing over the summer, and that the music programs would “crumble” without them. She also suggested that the camps offer freshmen student an immediate social entree on the first day of high school, as well as giving upperclassmen a way to transition back into school after “a languid summer.”

Zing asserted that not having the music camps to adjust to school would cause students to experience higher stress levels, leading to lower grades. The falling grades, she continued, would lower the school’s overall success and cause some parents to pull their kids out of AAPS. The associated loss of funding from these departures will cause a vicious cycle of additional budget deficits and more cuts to programming, Zing said. She suggested asking students for alternative ideas before eliminating the music camps.

Band and Orchestra Camps: Board Discussion

Allen suggested that additional fundraising could be done to cover the cost of the camps. Thomas pointed out that there is no reason to think that the camps would need to be eliminated, and said that booster clubs may be able to help fundraise the $60,000, saying that works about to about $70 per student. “We can do this,” Thomas asserted, noting that scholarships exist for families for whom an additional $70 would be a financial hardship. Allen noted that students do already do some fundraising to pay for the cost of camp attendance, and that the $60,000 paid by the district has been used to fund the support staff, teachers, and administration who participate.

2012-13 Budget – Staffing

The proposed staffing budget reduction options discussed at this meeting were: reducing teaching staff by 32 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions ($3.2 million); and eliminating four counseling positions ($400,000).

Thomas said it is absolutely unacceptable for the district to cut 32 teaching positions after having cut 65 last year and more the year before that. “I don’t want to reduce by one teacher,” he said emphatically. Thomas suggested using more fund equity to be able to save the 32 teaching FTEs. Patalan said she shared Thomas’ feelings about losing teachers, and said that while making those cuts this year could be done, it would not be acceptable to cut more teachers every year.

Allen noted that the counselors are currently being staffed at 250 to 1, but could be staffed at 300 to 1. In response to board questions, he said the reductions would be for two middle school counselors and two high school counselors. Baskett asked how the new counseling and guidance program rolled out this February will be affected by the proposed reductions, and what other impacts the counseling reductions will have. “They do more than write college entrance letters,” she said.

2012-13 Budget – Tech Bond

On May 8, AAPS district voters will decide whether or not to pass a millage to fund a $45.8 million technology bond. The AAPS administration’s reasoning behind asking for the bond can be found in previous Chronicle coverage: “AAPS Pitches Case for Tech Improvement” A detailed description of what the bond would buy and how the millage would work to fund it can be found in “AAPS to Float February Tech Millage” [The board subsequently decided to put the bond on May's ballot instead of February's.]

During her report from the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council (PTOC), Amy Pachera thanked Allen for coming to a recent PTOC meeting and explaining the details of the proposed budget. She noted that schools across the state have their hands tied, and that “low-hanging fruit was cut years ago.” Pachera asked the community to vote on the upcoming tech bond as a way to have a real impact on the budget. She noted that 100% of the money raised by the bond will go to AAPS, unlike local tax dollars, of which only 30% are returned to the district.

Nelson and Stead each remarked on how the budget will be affected if the tech bond does not pass, noting that certain infrastructure within the district will need to be upgraded with or without the dedicated funding, due to changes in state law on data management and reporting requirements.

During items from the board, Mexicotte made a similar plea. She reported that she and Green had attended part of a recent state summit on education, and had found it disappointing. “It continues to be quite illustrative,” she said, “to go to Lansing and hear our leaders speak without ever acknowledging or connecting the dots between the desperate situation we districts find ourselves in and their lack of leadership in bringing us to this place.” Mexicotte pointed out that passing the tech bond is one way that AAPS can help itself, and closed the meeting by speaking directly to voters: “I want to urge you to take back that bit of control that we have over funding and our experience with our students… It’s a modest bond, but it’s one that will make a real difference… Vote yes – it’s local, it’s helpful, and it’s for our students.”

2012-13 Budget – Discretionary Budgets

The proposed budget would cut 5-10% from discretionary funds, for a savings of $250,000-$500,000. Allen explained that “discretionary” might not be the best term to describe these budgets, which are really building-level departmental budgets. Trustees asked for clarification about what was included in these budgets.

Green listed items included in these budgets as: dues and fees; paper; mail and postage; materials; office supplies; field trips; some textbook costs; hourly teacher rates; and printing. “There is discretion in there,” she said. “The discretion is in ‘Do I need all of these supplies, or this amount for postage?’” Allen added, “It’s really all those things you use when you run a building… The discretion is in how to balance them – all categories are needed things.”

Thomas argued that reducing discretionary budgets by 15% instead of 5% or 10% would net another $500,000, which he proposed could be used to keep Clemente going another year, and keep the middle school late bus, which all the middle school principals feel strongly about.

Lightfoot asked where programs such as Read 180, a reading support program, fall in the budget, and if they were at risk of being cut by lowering the discretionary budgets. Allen said software such as Read 180 is paid for out by the instructional department. Green added that there is absolutely no consideration being given to cutting Read 180 funding.

Patalan asked where the funds for School Improvement Teams are located in the budget, and Allen said those funds come out of the central budget. Deputy superintendent Alesia Flye added that most buildings use their money to pay for substitute teachers so building SIT team members can be brought together to meet.

Association and Student Reports

Five associations are invited to make regular reports to the school board: the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent Teacher Organization Council (PTOC), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). The Youth Senate is also invited to speak once a month, as are representatives from each of the high schools.

At this meeting, the board heard from the BPSSG, the AAPAC, the PTOC, the AAAA, the youth Senate and representatives from Skyline High School. Brit Satchwell, outgoing AAEA president, was present but passed in lieu of giving a report. The Youth Senate’s report was entirely related to the possible elimination of district funding for band and orchestra camps, and was presented above.

Student Report: Skyline

Skyline juniors Sam Keller and Hannah Lee reported on the activities of the Skyline’s Student Action Senate (SAS), and described how SAS delegates are chosen from the smaller learning communities within Skyline, and how the SAS is organized internally to work on issues of student concern or interest.

Patalan commented that it was great to have students have a voice and work in leadership positions. Nelson and Stead asked clarifying questions of the students regarding the delegate selection process and the key accomplishments and issues faced by the SAS.

Keller responded that the course fair held to introduce lower classmen to upper level electives had been very successful, but that getting the school to allow an open campus for lunch had not worked. Lee noted that a memorial to Skyline students who have died was an important achievement, but that attempts to change the dress code had failed.

Green commended the students on their presentation and asked if they would be interested in taking a leadership role in developing a leadership program called “Peaceable and Respectful Schools” to the elementary level. She also invited them to participate in the process of expanding student councils to a district-wide “house of delegates.” Keller and Lee said they were interested in being a part of the district’s new endeavors surrounding student voice.

Association Report: BPSSG

The BPSSG’s representative, Deborah Mitchell, noted a number of community collaborations between the BPSSG and other local organizations. In particular, Mitchell singled out the local teen center Neutral Zone as a group with which the BPSSG plans to increase engagement in the upcoming year.

Mitchell asserted that the 2012-13 budget, if passed as proposed, will disproportionally impact minority and low-income families, and noted the irony that this would occur as the district is focusing on reducing academic disparities related to race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Referencing the 2011-12 budget cuts, Mitchell said that the coming year’s cuts are “like deja-vu.” She encouraged the district to make special efforts to engage minority and low-income families other than “boilerplate forums.”

Association Report: AAPAC

Maria Huffman reported for the AAPAC, beginning with an announcement that Medicaid will soon begin to cover autism services in Michigan. She pointed out that this may cause a rise in consumer protection issues as new behavioral analysts begin to offer services, and urged everyone to keep the focus on the wellbeing of children.

She noted that the passage of the tech bond would increase the participation of students with disabilities, as well as provide better support of Excent Tera, software that is used in case management of students with special needs.

Finally, Huffman asserted that data collection to be used in assessing whether or not students qualify for Extended School Year (ESY) services is the responsibility of the district. She noted that state law requires that regression and recoupment, critical stages of learning, and the nature of the student’s disability all must be factored into the decision on whether a student qualifies for ESY.

Association Report: PTOC

Amy Pachera reported for the PTOC. In addition to the tech bond endorsement discussed above, she announced that the PTOC would like to see the 18 water stations of the first Ann Arbor Marathon, be worked by AAPS. Pachera also noted that $6 of every entry fee to the race, which also includes 5K and 10K components, will be donated to the AAPS educational foundation, and that other education non-profits can also use the race as a fundraiser.

Association Report: AAAA

Michael Madison reported for AAAA, saying that he was originally going to talk about budget cuts, but decided to share something more “upbeat.” He then proceeded to thank a number of AAPS staff and board members for jobs well done. He singled out director of community education and recreation Sara Aeschbach and assistant superintendent for secondary education Joyce Hunter, who are both retiring this spring, and led the board in a round of applause for each of them.

Board President’s Report

Mexicotte reported on the board’s April 18 committee of the whole meeting. She noted that the board had a preliminary discussion on the budget. She noted that the idea of moving to a balanced calendar was tabled for now in lieu of considering a variety of strategies to use instructional time more effectively that would fit into the district’s strategic plan and other plans. Stead added that AAPS needs to find a way to spend more time with students to be globally competitive.

High School Start Times

Assistant superintendent of secondary education Joyce Hunter gave a brief presentation to the board that reviewed the pros and cons of moving high school start times, based on academic literature studying districts that have implemented later high school start times. She noted that moving start times later aligns the school day with teens’ natural waking hours, and has been shown to decrease depression while increasing academic achievement, with the greatest benefits being seen in “at risk” students. On the flip side, Hunter pointed out that transportation logistics and the effect on extracurricular activities were complex issues that would need to be addressed to be able to start the high school days later. She also noted that in some districts, a shift to later high school start times has been initially contentious among stakeholders in the community.

Hunter proposed that AAPS establish a steering committee to study later high school start times, with representation from human resources, the teachers’ union, and transportation. She also suggested administering a Zoomerang survey to parents and students, and consulting with experts such as University of Michigan professors who have studied this issue.

Mexicotte said that she saw high school start times as “bound up” with issues of scheduling, transportation, and support for extracurricular activities. She suggested that perhaps AAPS could move “7th hour,” during which many elective classes take place, to 8-9:00 a.m., and then students could elect to attend that hour or not. She noted that Dearborn public schools have a similar two-tiered system. Basket also expressed interest in a “split schedule” and urged the district to “make transportation work for us, not the other way around.”

Trustees asked about the timeline, and Hunter said the committee would be charged with making a recommendation one way or the other in time to implement a change in start times for the 2013-14 school year if that was the decision made. Baskett warned against “analysis paralysis” and said the committee should be sure to adhere to its timeline for decision-making on this issue.

Stead expressed concern about the impact on extracurricular activities, and Green noted that she would like students to be involved in the study committee for that reason, as well as for the fact that many students also hold part-time jobs after school. Nelson suggested looking at the reasoning behind the decision of some districts to move back to an early start after having had a late start for high schools, such as those in Minneapolis.

Patalan said the board’s recent discussion on contradictory research regarding moving to a balanced calendar made her question the research. “What I want,” she said, “is to look at the research that says not to do this… I do want more information… I am grateful for a committee to study this further, more in depth.”

Mexicotte repeated that she is interested in looking at high school start times as one piece of possibly broader adjustments to the high school schedule, which might include other shifts as well. As an example, she said that if AAPS moved from 180 to 220 school days, high school days could start later, but end at the same time they do now.

This was a point of information for the board, and no action was taken on high school start times.

Bid Awards

The board briefly reviewed a series of bid award recommendations with little discussion. The bid awards under consideration include work on asbestos abatement, indoor air quality testing, integrated pest management, parking, asphalt paving, and ADA (accessibility) improvements.

The bid award recommendations will return to the board for a second briefing and vote at the next regular meeting.

Consent Agenda and Reimbursements

The consent agenda, which contained only gift offers, was passed by a voice vote. A set of trustee conference reimbursements was passed unanimously by roll call vote.

Awards and Accolades

Numerous students, staff, and schools were singled out for accolades at the April 25 meeting.

Awards and Accolades: Bill Browning Recognition

On the 50th anniversary of the AAPS environmental education program, the board honored longtime environmental educator Bill Browning, who coordinated the program for 28 years. Current AAPS environmental education consultant Dave Szczygiel and parent Nancy Stone noted that thousands of students and parents have benefitted from his work. The AAPS environmental education program provides enrichment for every AAPS student grades K-6 through field trips, many led by volunteer naturalists.

Stone announced that in addition to the years of passionate teaching and commitment to the district, Browning has recently made a $30,000 donation to the AAPS Science and Environmental Education Endowment Fund, managed by The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. Szczygiel and Stone presented Browning with a “local geologic treasure,” called a puddingstone, on which was affixed a plaque recognizing his contributions.

Browning accepted his honor with humility, saying that it was not him that deserved credit, but those that came before him who worked to get environmental education included in the curriculum. Browning thanked the district, saying, “I had a wonderful, wonderful career here in Ann Arbor – I’m grateful.”

Multiple trustees spoke fondly of their personal connections with Browning, and thanked him for his dedication and vision. Baskett, who is now a master gardener, said warmly, “I was one of those kids on the big, yellow bus… You showed me my first wildflower – a trillium.”

Mexicotte said the district was lucky to have had Browning on staff for so long, and said that the legacy he had created would be passed on for generations.

Awards and Accolades: Superintendent’s Report

Green recognized students who had scored highly on the ACT, sports champions, poetry contest winner, homebuilding program students, and robotics team members for their accomplishments, among many others. She noted that schools are engaging students in a number of service projects, such as kindergarten students at Eberwhite Elementary School who counted coins as a fundraiser for the Dexter tornado relief work. Green also noted the success of the local Washtenaw Elementary Science Olympiad, and a variety of staff accomplishments. Finally, she commended the district’s administrative professionals, who she said are “always there” for the school community.

Agenda Planning

Thomas requested a discussion of the partnership between Mitchell, Scarlett, and the University of Michigan.

Stead would like an update on the possibility of charging tuition to some SOC students.

Mexicotte suggested that the board should get as much non-budget-related work done at the next regular meeting as possible, and then have the “full, facilitated budget discussion” at the May 16 committee of the whole meeting, after the two community budget forums have taken place. (Which are now scheduled for May 7 and May 14.) She also suggested that the board should keep May 30 open as a date to add an extra board meeting if needed.

Items from the Board

The fact that it was after 2:30 a.m. did not dissuade trustees from reporting the following items at the close of the April 25 meeting, in addition to those comments noted above.

Thomas said that there are a few challenge grants on the table in the current One Million Reasons campaign of the AAPS educational foundation. He also noted that he recently attended the equity team meeting at Logan Elementary School and was impressed with their focused student approach. Finally, he invited everyone to the May 3 Life Sciences Orchestra concert in which he plays.

Nelson said he had stopped by the very successful college and career fair at Pioneer High School, and the University Musical Society partnership celebration. He also mentioned attending a couple of Neutral Zone events, and said they were a good reminder of the importance of the board’s community partnerships.

Patalan said that three people have told her there were delighted to have AAPS superintendent Patricia Green visit their school, and that they were grateful for the opportunity to get to know their superintendent.

Stead said that Green did a great job passing our awards to the 4th and 5th grade winners at the Washtenaw Elementary Science Olympiad, the largest elementary science Olympiad in the U.S. She noted that the event was more about participation than awards, and that all AAPS elementary schools will be participating next year. Stead also pointed out that it took 750 adult volunteers to make the event happen.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Simone Lightfoot, Glenn Nelson, and Christine Stead.

Next meeting: Wednesday, May 9, 2012, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 South Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

Robert Allen, AAPS deputy superintendent for operations (Photos by Monet Tiedemann)

Trustees discussed possible staffing cuts, reductions to transportation services and discretionary budgets, the restructuring of alternative high school programs, and the elimination of some extracurricular funding. AAPS administration is currently relying on $6 million worth of projected revenue enhancements to cover a chunk of the deficit. The remaining deficit is proposed to be covered through a combination of cuts and use of fund balance – summarized in three different plans: A, B and C.

Plan A has the least amount of cuts and the most use of fund balance, but still calls for a reduction in staff by 32 full-time positions, the elimination of some busing services, and the closure or merging of one of the district’s alternative high schools. Plans B and C have progressively greater cuts and less use of fund balance.

A formal presentation will be made on proposed budget reductions at the next regular board meeting, this Wednesday, April 25, with community forums and public hearings to follow in May. Board president Deb Mexicotte said at the meeting that the board will pass a finalized FY 2012-13 budget in June.

After the jump, the specifics of Plans A, B and C are laid out it detail.

Possible 2012-13 Budget Reductions, Revenue Enhancements

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green noted that the proposed 2012-13 budget follows years of massive budget reductions, and said “There are very few places to go where it’s not going to hurt very deeply.” She noted that AAPS has reduced its budget by roughly $55 million over the past five years, saying, “We are beyond the tipping point … We are hemorrhaging in some ways, because we do not have the kind of funding streams to keep us at the level we would choose.”

District deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen presented a tiered set of three alternative budget reduction plans (Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C) to address a projected $17.8 million deficit for the coming year.

Each plan assumes an identical set of four revenue enhancements totaling $6 million: Schools of Choice enrollment ($1.1 million); Medicaid reimbursement ($500,000); state retirement system offset ($1.8 million); and best practices incentive ($2.6 million). Allen pointed out that the Medicaid reimbursement estimate is conservative, and will likely be higher. But he cautioned that though the state retirement offset and best practice incentives are part of Governor Snyder’s budget recommendation, they have not yet been officially approved by the legislature.

AAPS trustee Andy Thomas

So the revenue enhancements assumed by all three plans would reduce the $17.8 million deficit to roughly $11.8 million. Each of the three plans cover that remaining $11.8 million deficit in different ways.

At the April 18 meeting, the board expressed the most interest in the core plan (Plan A) presented by Allen, which would reduce expenditures by $7.3 million and use $4.4 million of fund equity. Multiple trustees expressed appreciation for work of Allen and his staff in putting Plan A together. “I can tell from looking though this that some very sharp pencils were used in coming up with these figures,” said trustee Andy Thomas.

Plans B calls for deeper cuts than Plan A. And Plan C calls for even deeper cuts.  Plan B would reduce expenditures by $9.7 million and require the use of $2 million in fund equity. Plan C would reduce expenditures by $13.5 million, and actually add $1.6 million to the district’s fund equity. The additional cuts in Plans B and C, compared to Plan A would come in three areas – teaching staff, transportation, and district-wide discretionary budgets.

To summarize board discussion in this report, The Chronicle has grouped the suggested budget reductions into the following categories: staffing; transportation; secondary school programs; extracurricular activities; and other district-wide cuts. In each section, the list of recommended reductions is followed by administration’s descriptions and board discussion on each item. The final section on the proposed budget reductions covers board discussion and questions not related directly to any of the administration’s recommendations.

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Staffing

Proposed Plan A staffing reductions are:

• Reduce teaching staff by 32 FTEs, an average of one per building ($3.2 million);
• Eliminate four counseling positions ($400,000);
• Reduce police liaison contract for three school officers ($350,000);
• Outsource noon-hour supervision ($75,000);
• Reduce budget for substitute teachers ($200,000)
• Eliminate or consolidate middle school athletic directors ($37,500); and
• Require the Rec and Ed director and office professional positions to be funded by Rec and Ed, not the general fund, now that Rec and Ed can support them ($205,000).

If the board chose to move forward with Plan B, the above reductions would be amended as follows:

• Reduce teaching staff by 48 FTEs, an average of 1.5 per building ($4.8 million).

If the board chose to move forward with Plan C, the above reductions would be amended as follows:

• Reduce teaching staff by 64 FTEs, an average of 2 per building ($6.4 million).

Trustees requested clarification on how the reduction of 32 teaching FTEs would be achieved.  Allen explained that if the positions could be not eliminated through retirements and attrition, layoffs would have to be considered. He stressed that the plan for 2012-13 is not to “carry any surplus [teachers]“. This is unlike the situation this year, he noted, when AAPS planned to eliminate 64 positions, but was only able to eliminate 50, and the board “carried” the remaining 14 teachers rather than lay them off. These teachers have been used primarily as long and short-term substitutes throughout the district this year, and the cost of their positions has been added back into the budget with the second quarter budget amendment, Allen explained.

Trustee Andy Thomas asked about the current number of anticipated retirements. AAPS director of finance Nancy Hoover said that at this time, 31 teachers have announced their retirements, but reminded the board that their positions might not line up with the district’s needs – as state law requires each teacher to be “highly qualified” for the subject area and grade level they teaching.

Thomas said the proposed reductions to teaching staff was the one part of Plan A that would cause him “not to sleep at night,” and said he would feel comfortable being more aggressive in the use of fund equity to reduce or eliminate the need to reduce staff, because fund equity would have shrunk only $800,000 since 2010. He noted that the district ended FY 2009-10 with fund equity of $16.9 million, ended FY 2010-11 with fund equity of $20.5 million, and would end FY 2011-12 with fund equity of $16.1 million if the board passed budget reduction Plan A.

Trustee Glenn Nelson requested that Allen provide a three-year projection, saying he believed it would be helpful for deciding the degree to which fund equity should be used. Allen said that such projections would be part of the formal budget presentation on April 25.

AAPS Trustee Glenn Nelson

Trustee Irene Patalan said she would be open to a compromise that would use more fund equity to preserve teaching staff. But she was not sure how much of the fund equity she would feel comfortable using: “Everyone wants to give kids everything they can…What really is the right amount? What makes our security blanket not secure?”

Trustee Christine Stead noted that education funding from the state is projected to decrease again in FY 2013-14. “This is not our rainiest day,” she argued, pointing out that the MPSERS rate will rise from 27% to 31.2%, and that the MPSERS offset and best practices funding will likely be reduced, while the foundation allowance stays stagnant.

Stead asked Green if 32 FTEs can really be taken out of our education program and not have a negative impact on students. Green allowed that yes, there would be an impact, and said it would be dishonest of her to say otherwise. Stead said it did not seem realistic to reduce teaching FTEs, and that she did not think that would support the mission and core purpose of the district. Thomas agreed, saying, “I am concerned about taking a big hit on teacher FTEs this year after [doing so] last year.”

Allen noted that the rationale for reducing counseling staff is that counselors are not “staffed to ratio.” The teachers’ union contract, which also covers guidance counselors, allows each counselor to be responsible for 350 students. But Allen said counselors currently have fewer than 350 students. Mexicotte expressed concern about the impact of cutting counselors on building climate. She compared the proposed reductions in counseling staff to the proposed reductions in police liaison positions. “When I look at the cost, I want to have an impact on safety and climate, and I’d rather have better resources to build climate in the buildings.”

Stead said the issue is one of student safety, and noted the recent bomb threats at Skyline and Forsythe. “I am a little concerned that removing [the police liaisons] will cause students to feel less safe,” she said.  Mexicotte responded that having police liaisons is not the norm for schools in the district. “I agree that climate and safety are real issues, but I’d rather have actual safety and good climate than perceived safety and good climate.” Trustee Susan Baskett added that the police liaisons were added in the 1970′s because of racial fights at the high school level. When she looked at the suspension and discipline issues, she said, she wondered if the liaisons have made things better or worse.

Allen also said he did not think most of the individuals working as noon-hour supervisors were doing so for the retirement benefits. He suggested that hourly wages for the positions might be able to increase if the board outsourced those jobs through a management company instead of maintaining them as AAPS positions, because AAPS would not have to pay into the state retirement system for those employees. Public school districts in Michigan currently pay an amount equal to 27% of employees’ wages and salaries to the state to support the Michigan Public School Employee Retirement System (MPSERS).

Allen argued that substitute teacher costs could be reduced if the individual building administrators managed their own costs instead of doing that centrally. “It’s a way to help control costs where they are actually occurring,” he said. Mexicotte agreed that giving building administrators control over these costs could give them a sense of empowerment, but cautioned that there needs to be “the right balance of accountability.” She offered the example of a building running out of money for substitute teachers in March, and questioned what central administration would do in that case.

A few trustees asked about the role of middle school athletic directors. Allen explained that athletics at the middle school level is essentially “district-wide intramural.” The middle school ADs, he said, schedule all events between schools, as well as hire and monitor coaches. Allen explained that the ADs at this level are already full-time district employees, who then receive supplemental pay for their AD duties. Rather than have five middle school ADs, he said, those tasks could be consolidated into one or two positions.

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Transportation

Proposed Plan A transportation reductions are:

• Combine bus runs for Bryant and Pattengill ($16,560);
• Change Skyline’s schoolday starting and ending times by 15 minutes to streamline bus use ($266,400);
• Eliminate 4 p.m. middle school bus ($85,284);
• Eliminate midday shuttles from Community High School to comprehensive high schools ($230,184); and
• Eliminate all transportation of choice (i.e., Ann Arbor Open, Skyline, and Clemente) ($266,400).

If the board chose to move forward with Plan B, the above reductions would be amended as follows:

• Eliminate all high school busing ($545,000).

If the board chose to move forward with Plan C, the above reductions would be amended as follows:

• Eliminate all busing, except for special education busing ($3.5 million).

Allen said he anticipated that combining bus runs to Bryant and Pattengill would be well-received by the community, as many parents have already asked for such changes. He also pointed out that changing Skyline’s schoolday start and end times would not impact the length of its day or periods – but the earlier end time would allow the second tier buses to be used more effectively. (AAPS uses a three-tiered busing system, with staggered starting and ending times for elementary, middle, and high schools.) Allen also noted that changing Skyline’s starting and ending times would require an adjustment in a memorandum of understanding in the teachers’ contract.

AAPS trustee Susan Baskett

Baskett argued that eliminating the midday shuttles from Community High School would prevent Community students from taking classes at the comprehensive high schools. Patalan disagreed, saying that Community did not always have mid-day shuttles, and that while Community students would certainly play sports at other schools, they did not often take classes at the comprehensive high schools. Baskett countered that the shuttles have “enhanced the quality of education” at Community.

Thomas asked if Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) services could be used to transport Community students to other schools, and Allen said it would not be as easy as using the current shuttles, which run every 20 minutes throughout the school day.

Baskett also expressed concern about the elimination of transportation of choice. “The way we sold Skyline – that bond,” she said, “was that we would support the students who opted in or won the lottery. We are not supporting them now…We sold that to the community, and now we are backing off on our promise.” Baskett said she would love to hear from parents with children at Ann Arbor Open or Skyline about how removing transportation of choice would alter their experience at those schools. She also asked how the district’s discussions with AATA were proceeding.

By way of additional background on AATA,  CEO Michael Ford’s written report to his board for April 2012 includes an optimistic update on collaboration with AAPS:

Discussions [between AATA and AAPS] have yielded a preliminary agreement to replace three high school bus routes with the use of existing AATA service, with minor modifications; one route each for Huron, Pioneer and Skyline High Schools.  This would permit AAPS/WISD to completely eliminate three buses and reduce costs.  AATA would provide passes which AAPS would distribute to eligible students.  Each time a student boards a bus AATA would charge AAPS.  It is hoped that agreement can be reached in April for implementation in the fall of 2012.

Thomas reiterated a suggestion he had first introduced during last year’s budget discussions. “As an alternative to eliminating high school busing, why not pay for busing services in the morning, and then leave it to [students] to figure out how to get home.” He noted that during after-school hours, it’s light outside, temperatures are higher, and public buses are running. Thomas requested that Allen provide an estimate of the cost of providing half-day bus service at the middle and high school levels. Nelson supported Thomas’ suggestion.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot suggested that the district talk to students directly about the potential elimination of all transportation services, saying, “I want to make sure that we have a sense of who these children are that we are impacting… I want us to be extra vigilant as a board that these cuts fall in line with our strategic plan and our rhetoric about kids standing in the [achievement] gap.” She argued that it is a slippery slope to go down the list of non-mandated service when considering cuts.

Lightfoot also noted that the board has not yet heard an update from the Washtenaw Intermediate School District regarding the transportation services AAPS has been receiving. [A transportation services review from the WISD is on the agenda for the April 25 board meeting.] She argued that transportation should be looked at holistically. “I’d to see us have the right conversation and the right plan. We are almost operating on feeling or thought rather than data regarding transportation.”

Mexicotte said she has been struck by the different perceptions people have had of the fairness of bus services offered this year. “I thought some busing was better than no busing, and that might be true,” she said. “But, I have had some conversations with people about how eliminating busing [would have been] psychologically less difficult than changing busing.” She noted how now there are “busing winners” and “busing losers.”

Another perspective on transportation that Mexicotte said she has been mulling is the balance between social justice and parental responsibility. “Of course those with the least resources are the most impacted – can they still get to school?” she asked. On the other hand, Mexicotte pointed out, the expectation from the state is that it’s the parents’ responsibility to get their children to school.

“Both have been on my mind – the fairness doctrine and the question of social justice versus parental responsibility,” Mexicotte said. “Whatever we do with busing to preserve our educational mission, I’m going to be thinking about transportation from that fairness standpoint, and also thinking about the mandate that parents have to get their kids to school.”

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Secondary School Programs

Proposed Plan A reductions to secondary school programs are:

• Restructure or close A2 Tech or Roberto Clemente ($400,000); and
• Reduce secondary summer school costs by consolidating program locations ($80,000).

Regarding the restructuring or closure of A2 Tech and Roberto Clemente, Allen said there were a number of options that could be undertaken to achieve the targeted savings. One would be to move Roberto Clemente into the A2 Tech building.

Trustee Christine Stead directs a question to Robert Allen.

That’s an option because capacity at the A2 Tech building is over 400 students and the combined student population of the two programs is under 250 students, he said. Another option Allen suggested would be to move both programs into the comprehensive high schools.

Stead asked what was included in the cost savings estimate. Allen told her it reflected the closure of one building, including administrative salaries and building operating costs.

A few trustees asked what would happen to the building itself, and Allen replied the building could be considered for revenue enhancement opportunities.

Thomas said he really liked the alternative programs offered at A2 Tech and Roberto Clemente, and requested more detail about how $400,000 would be eliminated. Baskett encouraged trustees to visit each of the programs and talk to administrators there. “We need to see what we are looking at impacting or changing.”

Baskett cautioned against moving alternative programs into the comprehensive high schools, saying “There is a reason why some students do not go to comprehensive schools.”

Baskett also expressed concern about folding Roberto Clemente’s summer school program into the broader secondary school summer program, and suggested having a discussion with students and staff about the potential impact of doing that.

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Extracurricular Activities

Proposed Plan A reductions to athletic and music budgets are:

• Eliminate district funds to support band/music summer camps ($60,000);
• Reduce athletic entry fees, such as for invitational/optional meets ($58,000); and
• Change lacrosse to a club sport ($93,000).

Baskett asked what costs the district covered related to the summer music camps. Allen explained that it was mostly the cost of staffing and travel. Baskett asked if this reduction would impact student scholarships available for these camps, and Mexicotte noted that some of the scholarship money came from booster organizations. Allen added that AAPS will have time to find another way to fund these camps.

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Other District-Wide Cuts

Other proposed district-wide Plan A reductions were:

• Restructure Information and Technology Division (ITD) services ($200,000);
• Eliminate the early notification retirement incentive ($40,000);
• Eliminate site-based budgets ($250,750);
• Reduce discretionary budgets by 5% ($250,000);
• Reduce health care costs ($100,000); and
• Proceed with Phase V of the energy savings capital improvement performance series ($500,000). [This item was approved by the board during the regular meeting portion of the April 18 agenda.]

If the board chooses to move forward with Plan B, the above reductions would be amended as follows:

• Reduce discretionary budgets by 10% ($500,000).

Allen noted that the ITD efficiencies noted above would be met by the technology bond if it is approved by district voters on May 8. Green emphasized that this budget assumes passage of the tech bond. Allen added that if the bond millage does not pass, the district will need to spend an additional $3 million to $4 million on technology out of the general fund within the next year or two. Nelson and Patalan each stressed to the community how passing the tech bond will preserve the general fund to pay for teachers and other operating expenses. Green also singled out Steve Norton, treasurer of the Ann Arbor Citizen’s Millage Committee, who was at the meeting, thanking him and all the other volunteers for their public service in advocating for this bond.

AAPS trustee Irene Patalan

Regarding the early notification incentive, Allen explained that staff members are given a monetary incentive to announce their retirements early, and that there are three dates at which incentives are offered. Nelson said that hiring later causes the district to lose good candidates, and argued that the incentives ensure more quality candidates are available during the hiring process. Allen suggested more analysis could be done.

Allen pointed out that site-based budgets are used to support the activities of buildings’ school improvement teams (SITs), and that the building school improvement plans should be reviewed to see how that money is being used. Baskett said that reducing SIT funding doesn’t seem fair to schools who are using the money well, and argued that the same percentage should not be taken from all schools. Mexicotte expressed concern about how SIT budgets are being used across the district.

Allen noted that the discretionary budgets being recommended for reduction do not include utilities. Mexicotte asked what is included in these budgets.  Allen explained that they include travel, conferences, supplies, and hourly personnel. In response to a question from Thomas, Allen said these funds are also the source for district-hired consultants, such as Pacific Education Group.

Mexicotte pointed out that if 5% of these budgets is $250,000, then they total $5 million: “That’s a big chunk of discretionary money.” She suggested that perhaps $3.2 million could be taken out of this line item to pay for the suggested 32 FTE reductions in teaching staff.

Allen noted that one of the assumptions made last year was that health care costs would increase by a greater rate than they actually did, which is what accounts for the health care cost savings.

Washtenaw Alliance for Education (WAE) is considering pooling health care costs among Washtenaw county districts. So Nelson asked if the district’s involvement in WAE would have any impact on the district’s health care costs in the next year.  Allen said it would not have any impact. Allen explained that while AAPS is open to the idea, it’s not likely that AAPS would be able to garner much savings from pooling with other districts. Responding to a question from Stead, Allen indicated that AAPS is planning to study its own health care utilization pattern so that the district is able to make an informed decision if the WAE does invite AAPS into a health care consortium. Allen reiterated that AAPS is “not in the same ball park” in terms of health care costs – due to the size of AAPS and the fact that its union contracts cap costs.

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Other Board Discussion and Questions

Nelson asked what the proposed budget assumes about the county’s reimbursement rate for special education services. Allen responded by saying the budget assumed a 66% reimbursement rate for 2012-13, but that AAPS has just received notification that that special education services will be reimbursed at 67%, which translates to a difference of roughly $250,000.

2012-13 Budget Timeline

Now that the board had expressed some of its concerns and noted areas about which it would like more detailed information, Mexicottte explained that the administration will prepare for a more formal presentation on the proposed 2012-13 budget. That presentation will come at the board’s next regular, televised meeting. Following that, she said, there will be two public hearings in May, and the final budget will be passed in June.

Lightfoot asked if the district would be taking this plan to the community, and Allen said there would be community forums held after the first formal briefing to the board.

Stead asked if it would be possible to approve the final budget before June, so the district would have more time to work with parents to address changes [such as those affecting busing for next fall] before school gets out for the summer.

Green noted that the final state budget needs to be set before the district can set its budget. She said that Gov. Rick Snyder has said the state budget would be set by June 1. Nelson noted that that possible reforms to the state retirement system could also have a large budgetary impact, and that reforms might not follow the budget timeline.

Thomas agreed with Stead that AAPS should not put itself in the same position as last year, when the district spent all summer trying to communicate changes to the busing plan after school was out.

Mexicotte acknowledged her colleagues’ concerns, and said the board would move as quickly as possible through the remaining steps in the budget process. She said by mid-May, everyone should be clear which reductions the budget will likely include.

Balanced Calendar

Green and AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye addressed the board about moving to a balanced calendar. Green summarized some of the history. She said that the idea of moving from a traditional academic calendar to a balanced calendar came about as part of the UM/Mitchell/Scarlett partnership. After community concerns rose with the initial presentation of the idea, it was tabled, and AAPS administration underwent significant turnover. This winter, Green and her new team revisited the issue, and discovered that the research supporting a move to a balanced calendar is much less clear than had been initially presented to the board last year.

Balanced Calendar: Review of Data

Flye walked the board through a detailed presentation on the research she had reviewed, which revealed a lack of consensus among educators about the effectiveness of a balanced calendar in most settings. Flye noted that the UM/Mitchell/Scarlett partnership is going strong, and that it is working to focus all of its efforts within the school improvement goals already set by the buildings.

Alesia Flye, deputy superintendent for instructional services, addresses the topic of the balanced calendar while Amy Osinski, executive secretary to the board of education, looks on.

Flye characterized a balanced calendar as spreading the 180 days of a typical school year across more weeks of the year, shortening vacation periods, and interspersing “intersessions” between sections of the school year.

She noted that proponents of a balanced calendar say it increases student achievement, but that the research is inconclusive and contradictory. Flye added that most research does show consistent academic gains for at-risk students when schools have switched to a balanced calendar.

Flye said that a balanced calendar would not save the district money, but would in fact add costs to the budget. She also noted many potential challenges – including a lack of support from the community, teachers, and local businesses, which depend on students for summer labor.

Flye suggested that AAPS form a committee, including union leadership representation, to continue to discuss the impact that a balanced calendar would have on AAPS specifically, and to develop a draft calendar for discussion. She listed some aspects of the committee’s work, which would include: site visits to districts with a balanced calendar; parent meetings; parent surveys; and the invitation of guest speakers to address the community. She requested that the board provide the committee with parameters for a balanced calendar, such as whether opting-out would be allowed. Other parameters would be whether the balanced calendar would apply to the whole district, clusters of schools, or only specific buildings.

Balanced Calendar: Board Response

The board expressed mixed responses to Flye’s presentation.

Given that the data are inconclusive and the costs or retrofitting air-conditioning at all buildings could be prohibitive, Thomas suggested that AAPS should focus on expanding summer school in some buildings rather than moving to a balanced calendar across the district. He also suggested that the district could create meaningful opportunities for learning during instructional breaks, such as the “intersessions” described as part of the UM/Mitchell/Scarlett partnership. Patalan also liked the idea of expanding intersessions across the district.

Stead noted that Flye’s research did not distinguish between balanced calendar programs that added actual instructional time and those that merely spread out the 180 days that are already part of the traditional calendar. “Somehow we need more time with our students,” she asserted, and noted that countries with more instructional time score higher on international tests of student achievement.

Lightfoot and Baskett each expressed frustration at the additional study being undertaken by the current AAPS administration. Lightfoot said, “I’m not so sure that the back and forth of studies should inform us. We can do it right.” Baskett agreed, saying that Flye’s presentation seemed like a total dismissal of the work of previous administrators. She said she would like to see AAPS implement a balanced calendar as part of the UM/Mitchell/Scarlett partnership, and allow families to opt-out if they did not want to participate. Baskett also said AAPS could be a place where researchers could study how a balanced calendar could be effective.

Nelson said he had been swayed by the presentation, having been ready to fully support a balanced calendar if it make sense educationally – but was now feeling unsure how to proceed. He expressed concern that the board was asking the administration to study too many specific big initiatives at one time, and suggested the board have one discussion, perhaps as part of a retreat, that would prioritize the district’s focus on different initiatives. Those initiatives needing prioritization include: a balanced calendar; high school start times; moving to more K-8 schools; changing attendance boundaries; closing a building; and other possible strategies toward raising student achievement. Nelson said it was hard to work through these issues in a linear fashion, at sequential meetings. “I don’t want to say ‘yes’ to everything, but I don’t want to say ‘no’ either. I want [the administration's] feedback.”

Green responded saying that the administration is spread thin with the number of initiatives the board has asked it to pursue at once. She urged the board to allow the administration to focus on what it can do and do well, which is focusing on instructional delivery and maximizing learning time. Green also emphasized that the district’s strategic plan, achievement gap elimination plan, and discipline gap elimination plan are “very comprehensive and structured to bring about results.”

Mexicotte suggested to her colleagues that the right approach might be to direct administration to continue to work on whatever they think will improve instructional time. She pointed out that a balanced calendar is just one strategy that could be used to do that. “This is not a hill we should die on,” Mexicotte said. “We can’t do everything.” Maybe the board should not be so directive in suggesting agenda items, but focus on the plans mentioned by Green and allow strategies to support those plans to come forward from administration more “organically,” she said.

Baskett said the board owed the community “closure” on the balanced calendar issue. She said there may be other issues that require similar focus. Lightfoot said that any changes to the upcoming board agenda should be made transparently, and Mexicotte agreed.

Spring Grant Awards and Energy Savings Plan

The “regular meeting” portion of the April 18 agenda was extremely brief. Without any discussion, the board approved two items on a consent agenda – the 2011/12 spring grant awards, and Phase V of the energy savings capital improvement performance series.

Both issues were briefed at the previous regular board meeting on March 21, 2012.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan (until 9:30 p.m.), and trustees Simone Lightfoot, Glenn Nelson, and Christine Stead.

Next meeting: Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 South Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education. 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!

Before the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority's April 9 budget presentation to the Ann Arbor city council, DDA executive director Susan Pollay rolls up her sleeves as she chats with councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). (Photos by the writer.)

The meeting took place against the backdrop of the DDA’s budget presentation to the city council the following week – on April 9 – and various other ongoing projects. So the board’s agenda consisted of a collection of regular committee updates and status reports.

Those included an update on the Connecting William Street project – an initiative to explore alternative uses of a limited set of city-owned parcels currently used for parking. The DDA embarked on the project at the direction of the Ann Arbor city council in a resolution it approved about a year ago – on April 4, 2011. The DDA had wanted the ability to lead that exploration, partly in exchange for renegotiating a contract under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system. That new contract was finally settled on May 31, 2011, and features a clause that provides the city of Ann Arbor 17% of gross revenues out of the public parking system.

Total parking revenues for fiscal year 2013 are projected at around $18 million in the budget approved by the DDA board at its meeting the previous month, on March 7, 2012. That budget was presented by the DDA at a city council work session on April 9. The budget presentation featured a review of the DDA’s history of infrastructure investment and impact on the downtown district since its formation in 1982 – over $100 million of DDA investment, accompanied by $300 million in private investment and an increase in taxable value from $89 million to $386 million.

Another work session highlight was a series of questions posed by councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) about compliance with Ann Arbor’s ordinance that regulates how the tax increment finance (TIF) tax capture works for the DDA district. Last year, the city’s financial staff pointed to Chapter 7 of the city code, which appears to limit the amount of taxes the DDA can “capture” from the other taxing units in the district. The DDA board agreed with the city’s interpretation, and returned $473,000 in combined TIF revenues to the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College and Washtenaw County.

Subsequently, the DDA reversed its position and gave a different interpretation to Chapter 7. Responding to Kunselman at the work session, DDA board chair (and retired Washtenaw County administrator) Bob Guenzel told Kunselman that the DDA had informed other taxing units of the DDA’s revised position, which was not to say they agreed with the DDA, he said.

Also the focus of TIF monies captured by the DDA is a proposed development at 618 S. Main, which received a positive recommendation from the Ann Arbor planning commission on Jan. 19, 2012. The 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles. The developer of the project, Dan Ketelaar, has estimated that the tax on the increment between the current valuation of the property and the final built project would yield around $250,000 a year in TIF revenue to the DDA.

Ketelaar is was initially asking that in addition to reimbursement of certain costs (at around $1.4 million) within six months of the project’s completion, the DDA pledge 80% of its TIF capture money for six years – an additional $1.3 million – to support certain aspects of the project in connection with the state’s Community Revitalization Program. But subsequently, Ketelaar revised the request to include just the TIF reimbursement. So the total request, over six years, is $1.3 million. The CRP is the successor to the brownfield and historic preservation tax credit program. In order to approve the tax credit, the state would like to see a commensurate commitment from local units – and Ketelaar is proposing that it take the form of the DDA’s support.

Ketelaar has pitched his idea to the DDA board on several occasions now – first at the full board meeting on Feb. 1, 2012, and at three subsequent DDA partnerships committee meetings. DDA board members are cautious about the precedent that such a pledge might set, and the appropriateness of the DDA’s role at this early stage in the project. (Ketelaar has not yet acquired the land.) At the March 28 partnerships committee meeting, DDA board member Newcombe Clark expressed concern that, depending on the precise role defined for the DDA’s participation, the DDA could effectively be artificially inflating land values.

This report takes a look in more detail at Connecting William Street, the DDA’s April 9 budget presentation to the city council, the lingering TIF capture issue, and the 618 S. Main project, as well as odds and ends from the April 4 DDA board meeting.

April 4, 2012: DDA Board Meeting

The board’s meeting featured its usual updates related to the parking system, as well as one item that involves a project meant to find alternative uses to parcels currently used as parking facilities.

DDA Board Meeting: Parking System Report

An update on the performance of Ann Arbor’s parking system is a point of every DDA board meeting agenda. The DDA operates the public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. The following week, on April 9, when Roger Hewitt presented the DDA budget to the Ann Arbor city council, he was asked about the parking system performance. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted to know the basis of Hewitt’s assertion that there was increasing demand for parking in the public parking system.

Hewitt appealed to the two data points that the DDA tracks for the parking system, and which had been presented at the DDA board meeting the previous week: Revenue is up, and hourly patrons are up. Revenue has increased around 16% ($1,362,989 in February 2012 compared to $1,173,568 in February 2011) and the number of hourly patrons is up around 5% (174,492 in February 2012 compared to 165,778). Hewitt told Taylor that the revenue increase outpaced the parking rate increase. Over the last two and a half years, here’s the data on parking revenues and patrons:

Ann Arbor public parking system revenue. Compared to February 2011, February 2012 showed a 16% increase in revenues. (Charts by The Chronicle from DDA data. Image links to higher resolution file.)

Ann Arbor public parking system hourly patrons in structures. Compared to February 2011, February 2012 showed an increase in the number of hourly patrons of about 5%. Due to leap year, there was one more business day for February 2012. (Charts by The Chronicle from DDA data. Image links to higher resolution file.)

DDA Board Meeting: “Library Lane Parking Structure”

During Hewitt’s presentation to the city council on April 9, he showed a slide referring to the new underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue as the “Library Lane Parking Structure” – picking up on the name for the new mid-block cut-through between Division Street and Fourth Avenue, which has been called “Library Lane” from the beginning of the project.

View from the bottom floor of the underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor – the light is sunlight filtering down. The garage is nearly completed and is expected to be open at the end of June or the beginning of July. (Image is from a DDA slide presentation to the Ann Arbor city council on April 9, 2012.)

What’s somewhat new is the extension of that name to the structure. Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, told The Chronicle after the work session that for now the DDA will call it the Library Lane Parking Structure, but they would be sensitive to modifying that name depending on what people wind up calling it, after construction is complete and people start to use it.

At the April 4 DDA board meeting, John Splitt led off the regular update on the new underground parking garage with an allusion to the nice weather: “It’s a beautiful day to apply waterproofing.” He said the construction is moving along nicely – the concrete pours for the walls are complete, which means that the structural parts are now done, he said.

The surface waterproofing started a couple of weeks ago, Splitt said, and that’s the next step toward getting the surface concrete poured. Elevators have been installed, and the other mechanicals continue to be installed.

Splitt reported that the target date for re-opening Fifth Avenue is still May 20 – but he’s still saying Memorial Day (May 28). The garage itself is expected to be open by the end of June or the beginning of July.

DDA Board Meeting: Connecting William Street

At the April 4 board meeting, Joan Lowenstein gave an update on the Connecting William Street project – an initiative to explore alternative uses of a limited set of city-owned parcels currently used for parking. The DDA embarked on the project at the direction of the Ann Arbor city council in a resolution it approved about a year ago, on April 4, 2011. The DDA had wanted the ability to lead that exploration, partly in exchange for renegotiating the contract under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system. That new contract was finally settled on May 31, 2011.

Scenario development process being used by the DDA for the Connecting William Street project. (Image links to larger resolution file.)

Parcels included in the area are: the Kline’s lot (on Ashley, north of William), Palio’s lot (at Main & William), the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure, the old Y lot (Fifth & William), and the top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage, which is nearing completion.

Lowenstein reported that a survey circulated to solicit input had generated around 2,000 responses whereas only 1,000 had been expected. Lowenstein characterized the clear message from the results as indicating a strong desire for a vibrant sidewalk experience in the William Street area, with attention to good building quality and design. She also said the results indicated a desire for economic development, housing and open plaza space. The full set of responses, including free responses, is available on the DDA website: Connecting William Street survey responses.

[By way of illustrating the responses to the survey (not meant to cover the range or complexity of the answers given) when asked to share additional extremely important goals for the project area, responses included: "MORE FRICKING PARKING!!!!!" and "Provide natural (i.e., 'green') open space as part of a broader design for public activity and use downtown."]

The DDA is partnering with Concentrate to host a speaker series, Lowenstein said, to explore ways to achieve some of the goals of the project. She called the first event a big success. The speaker was Dan Gilmartin, from the Michigan Municipal League, who has authored a book called “The Economics of Place.” She said the event was very well attended, with practically standing room only at Conor O’Neill’s on Main Street. The next speaker event will be on April 19 at 5:30 p.m. also at Conor O’Neill’s, she said, and will focus on activating sidewalk space. [The speakers will be Kirk Westphal, a member of the city of Ann Arbor planning commission, and Bob Gregory, president of the Detroit 300 Conservancy.]

Lowenstein also reported that the DDA’s leadership and outreach committee had worked with land-use economist Todd J. Poole of 4Ward Planning, who has already made a visit to Ann Arbor. Poole’s work is being funded by the grant that the DDA has obtained for the project, as part of a larger federal grant from the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to Washtenaw County.

Of the $100,000 Connecting William Street project budget, $65,000 will come from a community challenge grant awarded recently as part of a larger $3 million HUD grant received by Washtenaw County. The remaining $35,000 will be made up by DDA cash (no more than $20,000) and DDA in-kind contributions of staff time.

At the DDA’s partnership’s committee meeting on April 11, DDA planning and research specialist Amber Miller indicated that the report from Poole would be received around mid-May. She also described how the steps forward will include focus groups and the use of the survey results to start creating an initial iteration of scenarios. That work will take place in the context of understanding the significance of anchor institutions in the study area – the Ann Arbor District Library and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s Blake Transit Center.

A final recommended scenario is expected sometime in August, Miller said, and that will be forwarded to the city council.

April 9, 2012: DDA at Council Work Session

At the DDA board’s April 4 board meeting, John Splitt noted that DDA board member Roger Hewitt would be delivering a budget presentation to the Ann Arbor city council at a work session the council was holding on April 9. Splitt encouraged other board members to attend.

By way of background, the DDA has in recent years not made such a budget presentation to the council. However, at a March DDA partnerships committee meeting, Ward 2 city councilmember Jane Lumm had asked about a possible presentation by the DDA to the council on its budget. Lumm serves as a city council representative to that committee. There was also support from other councilmembers for having such a presentation from the DDA. The DDA board had already approved its budget for fiscal year 2013 in March.

Council Work Session: DDA Background and Budget

The budget that Roger Hewitt presented to the city council at the work session was the same one that the DDA board had approved over a month earlier, at its March 7, 2012 meeting. It was prefaced by several slides reminding councilmembers of the impact the DDA has had on downtown Ann Arbor since its formation in 1982.

That includes over $100 million in investment by the DDA in various infrastructure, according to the DDA’s presentation. Also since 1982, the private sector has invested more than $300 million in downtown construction, which has added more than 3 million square feet of floor area. The DDA district’s taxable value grew from $89 million to $386 million over that period, Hewitt told the council.

Hewitt highlighted the fact that since the DDA took responsibility for management of the public parking system in 1996, two structures had received major repairs or renovations (Maynard, and Fourth & William) and another two had been demolished and rebuilt (Fourth & Washington, and Forest).

To that list Hewitt added the First and Washington structure, which needed to be demolished because it was failing structurally. The site is currently under construction by the developer Village Green, and will include a parking deck on the bottom floors of the City Apartments residential project – a parking deck the firm is developing in partnership with the DDA.

Highlights of the budget itself include:

FY 2013 DDA Revenues
===========
$ 4 M TIF Capture
$18 M Parking Revenue
-----------
$22 M Total

FY 2013 DDA Expenses
===========
$ 6.7 M Debt Service
$ 7.5 M Parking Operations
$ 3.6 M Capital Costs
$ 1.5 M Grants & Transfers
$ 0.7 M Administration
$ 0.4 M Professional Services & Insurance
$ 0.5 M City Municipal Center Grant
$ 3.1 M Parking Revenue (17%) to City
-----------
$24 M Total

-
That difference in revenues versus expenditures means that the DDA will be tapping its fund balance reserve for around $2 million in the next fiscal year. As Hewitt explained to the council, this was a planned use of the fund balance and reflects the fact that the DDA is a capital-project driven organization. The pattern is to build up a fund balance in preparation for a project, which is then drawn down as projects are built. Hewitt told the council that the long-range planning is accomplished through a 10-year plan, which is updated quarterly.

Factoring in coverage of this year’s (FY 2012) use of fund balance and next year’s planned use of $2 million, the DDA will have a total fund balance of $4.38 million at the end of FY 2013, or an amount equal to about 18.2% of expenses [.pdf of FY 2013 budget]. Asked by Jane Lumm when the “floor” of the fund balance reserve will occur, Hewitt indicated that it would be this year or next.

By way of background, in the context of last year’s renegotiation of the contract under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system, part of the DDA’s negotiating strategy was to point to its fund balance. The DDA warned that the contract terms the city wanted would lead to a precariously low fund balance in its 10-year forecast. The DDA board only agreed to the final term – a payment to the city of 17% of gross revenue from the public parking system – when the city of Ann Arbor agreed to backstop if the DDA’s fund balance fell below $1 million.

Council Work Session: Other Council Questions

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted to know when the parking demand management, which the DDA had talked so much about, would be implemented. Hewitt told her that to some extent the DDA had begun to implement the pricing-by-demand model, but that it had really taken a backseat while the DDA completed the new underground parking structure on Fifth Avenue.

Briere also expressed her hope that the DDA would transition all the on-street parking meters to the kiosk-style electronic meters. Hewitt told Briere that if it were up to him, it would be done tomorrow. [The DDA had envisioned completing the transition, based on the positive results for the initial rollout of new meters in several locations. However, partly due to terms of the new parking contract with the city, the DDA has indicated that it does not have financial resources to make the upfront capital investment right now.]

Hewitt noted that about 70% of the payments made by new meters is via credit and debit cards.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) expressed some dissatisfaction that the budget forwarded to the city council by the DDA did not include the “actuals” from prior years – like every other component of the overall city budget. Kunselman felt including those actual expenditures and revenues from prior years was a requirement of state law – that everything be in the same format. Ann Arbor’s chief financial officer Tom Crawford came to the podium and provided an assurance that the DDA figures from prior years could be provided.

Council Work Session: TIF Questions

Of the questions put to representatives of the DDA by the city council, those posed by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) about TIF capture were the most pointed. The basis of his questions can be traced back to an issue that arose a year ago, when the city of Ann Arbor financial staff pointed out the impact of the city ordinance that lays out how the DDA’s TIF capture is determined.

Council Work Session: TIF Questions – Background

A tax increment finance (TIF) district is a mechanism for “capturing” certain property taxes to be used in a specific geographic district – taxes that would otherwise be received by the entity with the authority to levy the taxes. So in the DDA’s TIF district, the DDA doesn’t levy taxes directly. Rather, a portion of the property taxes that would otherwise be collected by taxing units (like the library, community college and the county) is instead used by the Ann Arbor DDA for improvements within a specific geographic district, covering about 66 city blocks downtown.

What is the portion of the property taxes that is captured by the DDA? The captured tax is only that which applies to the difference between (1) the baseline value of the property when the district was first formed, and (2) the value of the property after new construction or improvements to the property. That difference is the “increment” in “tax increment finance.” Subsequent appreciation of property value due to inflation, after it’s been constructed or improved, is not included in the Ann Arbor DDA’s TIF capture.

Chapter 7 of the city of Ann Arbor’s city code lays out how the tax capture of the Ann Arbor DDA is limited, or capped. The mechanism used to cap the amount of tax that can be captured by the Ann Arbor DDA is the projected value of the increment in the TIF district, as laid out in the TIF plan – a required document under the state enabling legislation for DDAs (Act 197 of 1975). From Chapter 7 [emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed. [.pdf of Ann Arbor city ordinance establishing the DDA]

The TIF plan includes a table that lays out the projected valuation of the increment in the district, starting in 2003. The table includes three scenarios for the projected valuation: “realistic,” “optimistic” and “pessimistic.” They’re each based on a constant percentage increase each year. So the three different scenarios are generated from three different estimates of the percentage increase each year. [.pdf of DDA TIF plan appendix]

In May 2011, the DDA initially agreed that based on Chapter 7, the excess TIF money needs to be reimbursed to taxing authorities in its district, for excess TIF that had been captured since 2003. Those taxing authorities include the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County and Washtenaw Community College, and they were reimbursed a total of $473,000. The city of Ann Arbor was due to be reimbursed for $712,000, but the city council waived that amount.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority: Bond payments and TIF capture. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Subsequently, the DDA reversed its legal position, and currently contends that Chapter 7 does not indicate a clear limit on its TIF capture and that the money it returned last year need not have been returned.

The DDA’s position on the Chapter 7 issue is reflected in a chart included in Roger Hewitt’s budget presentation to the city council.

The chart plots the DDA’s bond payments against its TIF revenues. The DDA contends that as long as its revenues from TIF capture (unlimited by Chapter 7) do not exceed its bond payments, it’s not required to apply the calculations in the ordinance – which last year were interpreted to place a limit on the amount of TIF money the DDA captured in the first place.

The DDA’s position relies on a subsequent portion of the ordinance, which reads [emphasis added]:

Tax funds that are paid to the downtown development authority due to the captured assessed value shall first be used to pay the required amounts into the bond and interest redemption funds and the required reserves thereto. Thereafter, the funds shall be distributed as set forth above or shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies.

Complicating the issue is the fact that the bonds the DDA has historically used to finance parking structure construction and renovation have relied on revenue from the parking system – not TIF capture – to ensure that the debt service can be covered. [Editor's note: But see Comment 3 below] And it’s not the DDA that issues the bonds, but rather the city of Ann Arbor, which issues the bonds on behalf of the DDA. So in the DDA’s accounting system, the DDA itself does not maintain bond reserves. The DDA’s annual reports consistently show $0 for “bond reserve.” [.pdf of DDA annual reports from past years]

If Chapter 7 is interpreted to mean that any bond payments are first in line to be paid – before any other use can be made of TIF revenues – that could have an unintended impact on the DDA’s payment of roughly $500,000 a year to the city to support the new police/courts building, now called the Justice Center. The city uses that contribution from the DDA to help make payments on bonds it issued to build the Justice Center.

When Newcombe Clark was appointed to the DDA board in 2009, one of the first things he insisted on was to classify that police/courts payment to the city as a “grant” and not a “bond payment.” If it’s not a bond payment, then on the DDA’s current interpretation of Chapter 7, it’s not clear how the DDA could make that payment to the city out of its TIF revenues – because there would be other, outstanding debt that would have to be paid first, and there would not be any left over to make the $500,000 police/courts payment out of the TIF fund. However, the DDA could conceivably make the police/courts contribution from parking system revenues.

At the city council’s April 2, 2012 meeting, Kunselman had brought forward a resolution – which he could not persuade enough of his colleagues to pass. It would have directed the city financial staff to analyze the TIF capture according to Chapter 7, based on last year’s interpretation of the ordinance.

Council Work Session: TIF Questions – How Does this Work?

With that as background, Kunselman led off by asking whose responsibility it is to calculate the TIF. Hewitt told Kunselman that the DDA does not calculate the TIF capture.

Before the start of the April 9 DDA budget presentation to the Ann Arbor city council. Foreground: DDA board member Bob Guenzel talks with Ward 4 councilmember Margie Teall. Background: Ward 3 city councilmember Stephen Kunselman talks with assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald.

Kunselman ventured that he had a different understanding, based on conversations with the city treasurer’s office. Hewitt deferred to Bob Guenzel, who is now chair of the DDA board. Guenzel served many years as Washtenaw County administrator until he retired in May of 2010.

In broad strokes, Guenzel explained that the DDA receives a check from the city of Ann Arbor treasurer’s office. Joe Morehouse, deputy director of the DDA, confirmed that’s how it works, from the DDA’s vantage point. Kunselman went on to raise the possibility that the DDA might need to be prepared to receive a different amount than the full TIF capture it had used to plan its FY 2013 budget – if the city treasurer were to reach a different conclusion than the DDA about how Chapter 7 applies.

Guenzel responded to Kunselman by summarizing the DDA’s legal position. As a legal matter, he said, the DDA believes that as long as there’s outstanding debt that exceeds the amount of the full TIF capture [as in the "DDA TIF and Bond Payments" chart], there’s no obligation to distribute TIF back to the other taxing units. Guenzel noted that the DDA had advised the taxing units in the district of the DDA’s position, which was not to say that those taxing units agreed with it.

618 S. Main Street

Related to TIF capture is the 618 S. Main project. Developer Dan Ketelaar is asking that the DDA use part of the TIF capture that would come from the new project to pay for certain elements of the project that he contends have a public benefit.

618 S. Main Street: Background, Proposal

The 618 S. Main project is a 7-story building, which would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles. It received a unanimously positive recommendation from the Ann Arbor planning commission on Jan. 19, 2012. The developer of the project, Dan Ketelaar, has estimated that the tax on the increment between the current valuation of the property and the final built project would yield around $250,000 a year in TIF revenue to the DDA.

Ketelaar is was initially asking that in addition to reimbursement of certain costs (at around $1.4 million) within six months of the project’s completion, the DDA pledge 80% of its TIF capture money for six years – an additional $1.3 million – to support certain aspects of the project in connection with the state’s Community Revitalization Program. But subsequently, Ketelaar revised the request to include just the TIF reimbursement. So the total request, over six years, is $1.3 million. The CRP is the successor to the brownfield and historic preservation tax credit program. In order to approve the tax credit, the state would like to see a commensurate commitment from local units – and Ketelaar is proposing that it take the form of the DDA’s support. The costs for which Ketelaar is seeking reimbursement include various standard infrastructure components, green infrastructure components (for example, a rain garden for stormwater cleansing) and streetscape improvements from Mosley to just south of William Street.

Ketelaar has pitched the idea to the DDA board on several occasions now – first at the full board meeting on Feb. 1, 2012, and at three subsequent DDA partnerships committee meetings. Two of those committee meetings took place in March. Ketelaar and his team also discussed his proposal at the April 11 meeting of the partnerships committee. Ketelaar has a purchase option on the land through July, so he has an interest in seeing the financing for the project come together in the next few months. Based on partnerships committee discussions, the city council would prefer not to vote on the project until the issue of the state tax credits is finalized.

At the DDA’s April 4 board meeting, in reporting out from the downtown citizens advisory council (CAC), Ray Detter expressed support for the project, noting that both the CAC and the Old West Side Association strongly supported it. He said they wanted the project to be built. However, he cautioned that the CAC also supported consistent and careful planning. And he expressed caution about the DDA offering its support in the form that Ketelaar is requesting.

Detter pointed out that the CAC had been involved in creating the partnership process that the DDA has used in the past – for the first time in 1999. That had included support to Syndeco Realty, the development arm of DTE Energy, for the Ashley Mews project on Main Street. In all of the cases when the DDA had provided support, Detter said, the DDA had made sure to follow rules and procedures that were consistent and applied equally to all applicants. All those projects also involved some public benefit that might not otherwise have been achieved. So Detter stressed that the DDA should continue to insist that all DDA decisions on supporting 618 S. Main should be made based on the principles that the DDA has always supported. He wanted to make sure that no unfair precedent was set.

618 S. Main: History of DDA Project Support

By way of background, the board approved a $589,800 grant for the construction of pedestrian improvements associated with the Ashley Mews project, located at Main and Packard streets. The grant was for streetscape improvements along South Ashley and South Main streets, as well as on the pedestrian walk-through from Main to Ashley. The board also approved a $75,000 grant from its housing fund, to support affordable housing as a part of the project. [.pdf of Oct. 6, 1999 board minutes]

In his remarks to the DDA board at the April 4 meeting, Detter recalled the DDA’s support of the Ashley Mews project as well as other projects. Those include some that were eventually built, as well as some that were not ever built, he said. He mentioned the Village Green City Apartments project [which just recently started construction at First and Washington], Liberty Lofts [which completed construction in 2006 at First and Liberty] and Kingsley Lane [which was never built]. From a handout provided at a March DDA partnerships committee meeting, here’s a quick overview of the history of support to different developments made under the DDA’s partnerships program:

• 1999: Ashley Mews – $589,800 and $75,000. Reason: affordable housing/help the city of Ann Arbor sell Main & Packard.
• 2004: Kingsley Lane [not built] – 20% of the TIF for 10 years. Reason: first downtown residential project after greenbelt millage approval.
• 2005: Liberty Lofts – $600,000 ($300,000 for stormwater management, $250,000 for pedestrian improvements, $50,000 for parks). Reason: historic preservation/dense residential.
• 2006: William Street Station [not built] – 20% of the TIF generated over 10 years (maximum $500,000), waive meter bag fees (up to $100,000). Reason: help to preserve 100 very affordable housing units.
• 2007: Tierra on Ashley [not built] – 25% of the TIF generated over 10 years waive meter bag fees (up to $18,000). Reason: Platinum LEED construction.

In 2008, the DDA discontinued the partnerships grant program, because the board believed that development interest in downtown Ann Arbor was strong enough that such grants were no longer needed to help spur investment. [.pdf of March 5, 2008 DDA board resolution] From the board’s resolution:

Whereas, Development interest in the downtown is currently very strong, and the Partnerships Committee no longer believes that DDA Partnerships Grants are needed to foster development;
RESOLVED, The DDA resolves to eliminate its DDA Partnerships Grant Program, but will retain its other economic development tools to support downtown development including its facade loan program, provision of parking contracts, provision of parking assistance to lessen pedestrian impacts during construction and support for public infrastructure expansions.

Before discontinuing the grant program, the DDA has offered some support to two other projects, but not through that partnerships grant. And since the discontinuation of the program, the DDA has offered substantial support to one project – the Zingerman’s Deli expansion project at Detroit and Kingsley. The DDA voted on July 7, 2010 to support that project with an amount equal to the estimated amount of taxes on the increased value of Zingerman’s property, that the DDA would receive through its TIF capture for the first 15 years after the project is completed. That amount is $407,000.

The board approved the request from Zingerman’s by passing a resolution that specified “improvements to sidewalks and sidewalk curb ramps in the area near the Deli, providing additional wayfinding, providing funding for actual LEED certification costs, and providing contractor parking and staging …”

Here’s a summary of non-partnerships grant support to downtown projects:

• 2005: Denali/322 E. Liberty – 11 spaces in the South Fifth Ave. lot for 1 year (~$50,000).
• 2007: Mayer Shairer – reimbursement of $40,000 (fire hydrant).
• 2010: Zingerman’s Deli brownfield – $407,000 (for sidewalks, wayfinding, etc.). Reason: Jobs, anchor business, national attention.

618 S. Main: Review of DDA Board Discussion

At the DDA board’s April 4 meeting, Sandi Smith (co-chair of the partnerships committee and a Ward 1 city councilmember) reviewed the request that Ketelaar was making. She reported that there’d been a need to clarify how the DDA TIF capture works for Ketelaar’s project team. In calculating the total dollar amounts of TIF capture that the DDA would be pledging, the project team had factored in inflationary increases as a part of the increment on which the DDA could capture tax. The Ann Arbor DDA, in contrast to many other downtown development authorities, captures taxes only on the initial increment between the property value before improvements and the value after improvements. The DDA does not capture taxes on the additional value the property might accrue through inflationary pressures of the real estate market.

At the March 14 meeting of the DDA partnerships committee, Dan Ketelaar pitches his proposal for the DDA to support his 618. S. Main project.

Smith noted that the committee had reviewed the history of support that the DDA had given to projects and discussed whether 618 S. Main was an “extraordinary” project that the city needed and offered a specific public benefit. That discussion would continue, Smith said, at the next partnerships committee meeting. Part of the discussion, she noted, involves the project’s location in the South Main Street corridor.

At the partnerships committee meetings in March, as well as the committee meeting on April 11, after the board meeting, Ketelaar has stressed the location of the project as a key reason that the DDA should support it. It anchors the edge of the DDA district, could serve as a gateway to downtown, and has the potential to spur the revitalization of Main Street between Mosley and William along Main, Ketelaar says.

At the March 28 partnerships committee meeting – convened as a special meeting just to discuss Ketelaar’s proposal for 618 S. Main – Smith noted that the part of the proposal that resonated with her was the idea that the strip between Ashley Mews southward to the 618 S. Main location would become more attractive through making streetscape improvements. However, she expressed some hesitation about the timing, saying that she wished the DDA could take the time to make a plan for what that road should look like, so that it doesn’t get “piecemealed” together.

Also at that meeting, Newcombe Clark expressed concern that the “urgency” of the issue was being placed upon the DDA by the fact that Ketelaar’s purchase option for the land went only through July. He said he’d feel differently about it, if the land had already been acquired. Given that the land had not yet been purchased, Clark was concerned that the DDA’s support of the project could translate to artificially increasing the cost of real estate in downtown Ann Arbor. If Ketelaar’s project did not go forward, Clark wondered if there could be other developers lined up behind Ketelaar who’d be willing to purchase the land – perhaps for less than Ketelaar was offering – and to build a different project that did not require the kind of support Ketelaar was requesting.

There’d been some question about whether streetscape improvements for the entire stretch between Mosley and just south of William would be considered as a “local match” from the perspective of the state’s Community Revitalization Program. At their April 11 meeting, Nathan Voght, of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development, indicated to the DDA partnerships committee that based on a conversation with a state official, he believed that the streetscape improvements would count for local match purposes.

Also at the April 11 partnerships committee meeting, DDA board members concluded they’d need to schedule another special meeting to continue the discussion of the 618 S. Main proposal. It will take place on April 25 at 9 a.m. The April 25 meeting will mark the fourth partnerships committee meeting that has featured the 618 S. Main proposal on its agenda.

Present (April 4 board meeting): Nader Nassif, Bob Guenzel, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Newcombe Clark, Russ Collins, John Hieftje, Roger Hewitt.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, May 2, 2012, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. 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!

Left to right: Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje and Ann Arbor downtown development authority board members Leah Gunn and Nader Nassif. (Photos by the writer.)

The difference will be covered from the existing fund balance. The use of fund balance, in the current year and in the coming year, was planned as part of the construction of a new underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue, and a new contract with the city of Ann Arbor, ratified in May of 2011. The contract, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, pays the city of Ann Arbor 17% of gross revenues from the parking system.

At the end of FY 2013, the DDA expects to have a total fund balance of $4.38 million, or an amount equal to about 18.2% of expenses.

In its other main business item, the board authorized a budget of $100,000 for its Connecting William Street project, which it’s undertaking at the direction of the Ann Arbor city council. The council passed a resolution on April 4, 2011 that gave the DDA direction to explore alternative uses of city-owned parcels – currently used for surface parking – in a limited area of downtown. The area is bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets.

Parcels included in the area are: the Kline’s lot (on Ashley, north of William), Palio’s lot (at Main & William), the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure, the old Y lot (Fifth & William), and the top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage, which is nearing completion.

Of the budgeted amount, $65,000 will come from a community challenge grant awarded recently as part of a larger $3 million grant awarded to Washtenaw County by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. The remaining $35,000 will be made up by DDA cash (no more than $20,000) and DDA in-kind contributions of staff time.

Toward the end of Wednesday’s meeting, the board also entertained some discussion about parking meter bags. The bags placed over on-street parking meters to designate the spots as unusable, so that streets are free of parked cars for construction projects or special events. The meter bag discussion came in the context of a request on behalf of FestiFools and conveyed by mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board. The request was to waive fees ordinarily associated with the meter bag placement for the April 1 FestiFools parade in downtown Ann Arbor.

One possible approach includes the creation of a parking meter puppet.

FY 2013 Budget

At its March 7 meeting, the board was asked to approve its fiscal year 2013 budget. Across all funds, the budget shows anticipated expenses revenues of $22,097,956 against $24,101,692 in expenditures – for an excess of expenditures over revenues of $2,003,736. The difference will be covered from the existing fund balance.

The shortfall was planned. It’s in the context of construction of a new underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue, and a new contract with the city of Ann Arbor, ratified in May of 2011, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system. That contract pays the city of Ann Arbor 17% of gross revenues from the parking system, which are budgeted in FY 2103 at $18.1 million. The 17% translates to a ballpark figure of $3 million.

Factoring in coverage of this year’s (FY 2012) use of fund balance and FY 2013′s planned use of $2 million, the DDA will have a total fund balance of $4.38 million at the end of FY 2013, or an amount equal to about 18.2% of expenses. [.pdf of FY 2013 budget]

FY 2013 Budget: Deliberations

John Splitt reviewed the budget for the board, relying on the combined fund summary. [.pdf of FY 2013 DDA budget documents]

By way of background, the DDA’s accounting system includes four funds: the TIF (tax increment finance) fund, the housing fund, the parking fund and the parking maintenance fund. The TIF fund receives revenue from the taxes that are “captured” in the tax increment finance district defined in downtown Ann Arbor. The DDA receives taxes on the increment between the baseline value of property and the value of property after new construction. The DDA does not capture increases in value due to inflation. The housing fund receives revenue through transfers from the TIF fund.

The parking fund receives revenues from Ann Arbor’s public parking system, which the DDA manages under contract with the city. The contract, which was renewed in May 2011, calls for the city of Ann Arbor to receive 17% of gross parking revenues. The DDA contracts for day-to-day operations of the parking system with Republic Parking. The parking maintenance fund receives revenue through transfers from the parking fund.

Highlights of Splitt’s budget review included TIF income of $3,957,012. On the expense side, salaries and fringe benefits paid out of the TIF fund are basically split evenly, he explained, between the TIF and parking funds. That comes to roughly $152,000 for salaries and $95,000 for fringe benefits from each fund. [The DDA has four full-time employees– an executive director, a deputy director, a planning and research specialist, and a management assistant.]

Administrative expenses – $157,119 for the TIF fund and $90,292 for the parking fund – were described by Splitt as all the “office costs.” The professional services of $155,000 for the TIF fund and $85,500 for the parking fund will pay for architects, attorneys and consultants. Holiday lights and sidewalk repairs are budgeted for $130,000 of the TIF fund – it’s something the DDA does every year, Splitt noted. Another TIF fund line item is $508,000, which is an annual amount that the DDA pays toward the bond payments for the city of Ann Arbor’s new police/court building. The budget also includes $100,000 for the DDA’s energy grant program.

Another TIF fund line item for $200,000 – labeled “capital costs” – was described by Splitt as including sidewalk ramp installation for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Of the $3,081,896 in bond payments to be made out of the TIF fund, $2.25 million is for the new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue, due for completion sometime this spring.

For the housing fund, Splitt highlighted the two $400,000 line items (for a total of $800,000) that would be spent on Avalon Housing’s Near North project on North Main Street, and Village Green’s City Apartments project at First and Washington. In addition to support for the affordable housing units that are part of the City Apartments project, the DDA is financing the construction of the first two floors of the development, which will contain a public parking deck. The deck will be owned by the city of Ann Arbor.

Splitt said he didn’t know how likely it would be that those grants would need to be paid during the FY 2013 year, but it’s not impossible, he said, so the items are being included in the budget. [Neither project has begun construction, but the City Apartments project is poised to begin, with construction equipment on site.]

For the parking fund, the revenue estimate for FY 2013 is $18,104,916. That’s based on essentially flat growth but some additional usage, Splitt said – perhaps 1/4 or 1/3 usage of the new underground parking garage, set to open this spring. There will also be a parking rate increase set to take effect in September, he said, so the budget factors in 10 months worth of that rate increase. He characterized it as a “reasonable and conservative” estimate.

Out of parking revenue, it’s anticipated that the contract with Republic Parking will cost $6,298,423. The 17% of gross to be paid to the city of Ann Arbor is estimated to be $3,139,795. Also paid out of the parking fund is a $500,000 transfer to the parking maintenance fund and $590,060 to support alternative transportation in the form of the go!pass program.

A capital cost for the parking fund of $1,588,235 was described as a downpayment for parking at the First and Washington development. Bond payments from the parking fund total $3,613,759 across all the various parking structures, Splitt said. Of that amount, $700,000 is for the First and Washington structure. It’s not clear whether that amount will need to be paid in this budget year, he said.

For the parking maintenance fund, Splitt pointed to the $1,696,350 estimated expense, an amount derived from an estimate of the DDA’s parking structure engineering consultant, Carl Walker. The structures are in such outstanding condition, Splitt said, that it’s not anticipated that all the money would be spent, but it would be budgeted nonetheless.

Summarizing across all funds, Splitt said, the DDA is spending roughly $2 million more than its anticipated revenues. Estimated balances for each of the funds at the end of the year are: TIF – $2.9 million; housing – $0.3 million; parking – $0.735 million; and parking maintenance – $0.465 million. That leaves a total fund balance of $4.387 million at the end of FY 2013, Splitt concluded.

Russ Collins commented that FY 2013 is the “nadir” of the projected financial picture. He was alluding to the fact that the DDA anticipated tight budgets for a certain period, in the wake of the new parking garage construction and the new parking contract with the city of Ann Arbor, but after that the DDA would be in less of a financial crunch.

Sandi Smith sought some clarification of the arithmetic for the fund balances – the numbers included in the budget sheet show existing fund balances from June 30, 2011, but did not show the use of fund balance for the current fiscal year, FY 2012.

Newcombe Clark noted that there are conservative “hedges” built into the budget – the need to pay out $800,000 from the housing fund and the estimate of usage for the new parking deck. He wanted to know if the operations committee had thoughts about how to proceed if the scenarios underlying those hedges did not materialize in a year or so. Would the advice be to pursue additional projects or to let that accumulate to the fund balance? Splitt indicated that he felt it would be better to hold on to the reserves at this point, until the DDA is very comfortable with its reserve level.

Mayor John Hieftje asked if the forecasted TIF revenues included new projects that were anticipated being built within the DDA district, which would increase the amount of tax captured by the DDA. Joe Morehouse, deputy director of the DDA, explained that the DDA uses a standard 2% increase per year projection for forecasting. Once taxes begin to be captured after a project is complete, they’re added in to the total.

Hieftje said he felt it’s important to say that the use of fund balance that the DDA is making this year has been planned for a long time. Splitt concurred, saying that the money the DDA is using from its reserves is what it expected to use.

Outcome: The DDA board voted unanimously to approve its FY 2013 budget.

Downtown Parcel Planning Budget

The board was asked to establish a budget of $100,000 for its Connecting William Street project, which it’s undertaking at the direction of the Ann Arbor city council.

Downtown Parcel Planning: Background

The council passed a resolution on April 4, 2011 that gave the DDA direction to explore alternative uses of city-owned parcels – currently used for surface parking – in a limited area of downtown. The area is bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets.

Parcels included in the area are: the Kline’s lot (on Ashley, north of William), Palio’s lot (Main & William), the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure, the old Y lot (Fifth & William), and the top of the South Fifth Avenue underground parking garage, which is nearing completion.

Of the budgeted amount, $65,000 will come from a community challenge grant awarded recently as part of a larger $3 million grant awarded to Washtenaw County by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. The remaining $35,000 will be made up by DDA cash (no more than $20,000) and DDA in-kind contributions of staff time.

The committee that has been shepherding the project along since the summer of 2011 recently released an online survey to solicit initial community feedback.

Downtown Parcel Planning: Deliberations

Joan Lowenstein reported on the Connecting William Street project, saying it’s pretty much on schedule. The survey has 1,500 responses so far. With the passage of the resolution, the project could move to its next phrase, to look at the land use and economics.

Newcombe Clark wanted to know if the $100,000 figure was matched to proposals from consultants. He was concerned that when the $100,000 figure is put out there, suddenly the cost of consulting becomes $100,000. Lowenstein indicated that the consultant had been selected already. [The consultant identified is SmithGroupJJR.] She noted that the DDA cash amount is “not to exceed” $20,000.

Amber Miller, planning and research specialist with the DDA, explained that the project budget was the same one used in the application that the DDA had made in coordination with Washtenaw County for a community challenge grant awarded by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development.

Clark noted that the resolution the board was being asked to consider authorized negotiation of the consultant contract at the committee chair level:

RESOLVED, The DDA Partnerships/Economic Development Committee Chairs are authorized to negotiate and approve contracts relating to this project including a grant contract with the County and the selection of consultants as needed.

Clark wanted to know if the consulting contract had been signed – no, he was told. Clark offered a “friendly set of eyes” to look at the contract before it’s signed, which seemed amenable to Lowenstein and other board members.

Earlier in the meeting, during his report from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, Ray Detter said that the CAC always respects and supports careful community planning. So at the CAC meeting the previous evening, he reported that members had participated in the Connecting William Street survey. The CAC had been joined by Skyline High School students who were satisfying a course requirement – in connection with the survey, they’d made a plea for more stuff for young people in the downtown.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the Connecting William Street project budget.

Parking

Parking is common topic for every DDA board meeting, even if there is no board business requiring a vote on it.

Parking: Monthly Numbers

In Roger Hewitt’s absence, John Splitt gave commentary on monthly parking numbers. Comparing January 2012 to January 2011, Splitt noted that revenue-wise it was a good month this year – up 17% [$1,358,935 in January 2012 compared to January 2011 at $1,161,632]. Splitt attributed the change to a rate increase and outstanding weather. He hoped for the same kind of results for February.

Not discussed by the board was the performance of the parking system measured by the number of hourly patrons – it was also up compared to a year ago. In January 2011 the parking system had 169,653 hourly patrons, compared to 179,037 this year, an increase of about 5.5%. Systemwide there were about the same number of spaces available, 6,918 in January 2011 compared to 6,895 in January 2012. [.pdf of January 2012 monthly parking report]

Ann Arbor public parking system hourly patrons. (Image links to larger file.)

Ann Arbor public parking system revenues. (Image links to larger file.)

Parking: Underground Garage Construction Update

Splitt said his report on the new underground parking garage would be much like it had been for the last two months, because it’s winter. Work is being done inside the deck on mechanical systems and lighting. Walls are being poured, he said, inside the structure. He expected that wall pours would be done at the end of March. They’re shooting to get South Fifth Avenue re-opened by the end of May, but hopefully it will be open before that, he said.

Newcombe Clark asked if there might be staging potential for the art fair (July 18-21) on top of the deck? Splitt said that if work stays on schedule, the surface work might be complete by the time of the art fairs. He also indicated that the garage might be opened in phases, with the first couple of levels opened before the lower levels.

During his report from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, Ray Detter said he’d visited the lower floors of the new underground parking garage under construction, and it could only be described as “awesome.”

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council.

Comm/Comm: FestiFools – Parking Meter Puppet?

At the end of the meeting, during the time for other DDA business, mayor John Hieftje told the board that FestiFools is facing a dilemma. [Festifools is an annual street festival in downtown Ann Arbor – this year held on Sunday, April 1 – involving very large puppets. The event has expanded to include FoolMoon, a procession of luminaries, which takes place this year on Friday, March 30. Workshops to create luminaries are being held every Sunday in March from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Workantile (118 S. Main Street).]

Hieftje described the event as an innovative, quirky and fun project and they were hoping that the DDA could waive a $1,000 parking meter bag fee associated with closing streets.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, was asked for clarification of the meter bag fees. [The fee per meter was raised from $15 to $20 effective Feb. 1, 2012.] She explained that the parking rate increases authorized in January 2012 also made other changes to meter bag fees. Now, what’s required is a reimbursement of actual costs incurred (from Republic Parking) to place the meter bags on Sundays and holidays. After the meeting, Pollay told The Chronicle that Republic Parking’s labor contract with its workers requires a minimum call-out time of four hours.

From the set of parking policy changes authorized by the DDA board in January 2012, for February implementation:

Meter bag requests for Sundays and Holidays will incur a fee for meter bag installation fee of $160 for up to 100 bags and $320 for more than 100 bags.

What’s different this year compared to last year, Pollay told Hieftje, is the reimbursement of actual costs on Sundays and holidays – FestiFools falls on a Sunday. Hieftje asked that one of the DDA board committees talk about waiving the fee.

Keith Orr commented that often when the DDA does nice things, it doesn’t get recognition for that. He suggested that the Sunday actual cost fee be waived in exchange for FestiFools creating a parking meter puppet, or a meter-bag puppet.

DDA board member Keith Orr suggested that the DDA's fee waiver for FestiFools be tied to the creation of a parking meter puppet.

Sandi Smith weighed in on the importance of not doing something retroactively – it needs to be addressed now. She allowed that FestiFools is a great event. But she noted that there are more and more events downtown, and she noted that the DDA would get similar requests from other organizations. She pointed out that there’s a community events fund, which the city of Ann Arbor administers. It sounds simple and like a no-brainer to waive the fee for FestiFools, she said, but she had concerns about making a judgment for one event and not another.

Newcombe Clark followed up on Smith’s point by noting that the board heard a lot of “You’re not doing enough!” but this would create another opportunity for people to say, “Why not me?” He weighed in against waiving the fee in the absence of a policy.

Leah Gunn made a formal motion, which she would subsequently withdraw, that the DDA waive the $320 Sunday fee in exchange for a puppet in the parade. Hieftje said he supported that motion, but would like to go further than just the $320 and to waive all the meter bag fees, saying that the event is still really just getting started. He said the issue had come up quickly and caught FestiFools by surprise.

Clark suggested that it would be a better approach for now to have Pollay handle it within her discretion as executive director. John Mouat also indicated he was concerned about any approach that sets precedent for piecemeal solutions. Gunn was amenable to having Pollay handle the issue and withdrew her motion. Russ Collins weighed in supporting that approach, saying he would have suggested simply amending Gunn’s motion to provide direction to Pollay to handle the issue administratively.

Comm/Comm: LED Lights

Ted Williams and Jaspreet Sawhney of Falcon Innovations Inc. both attended the March 7 meeting, although it was Williams who gave a presentation to the board during public commentary.

Ted Williams of Falcon Innovations Inc. showed the DDA board an example of the kind of LED light bars his company manufactures.

The pair had previously paid the board a visit back on July 6, 2011 to introduce board members to their company’s LED lighting technology, which is sold under the brand name BLUECOLT. Williams showed them an LED light bar, which he described as revolutionizing lighting for many different applications. He showed the board slides of interior lighting applications, and illuminated exterior signs including some for Domino’s Pizza and the University of Michigan block M (at Glick Field House).

The main idea that Williams wanted to get across to the board regarded potential applications to lighting in parking structures. In most typical parking structure lighting applications, Williams explained, the light is up in the rafters and bounces around, which wastes energy – because the light is trapped there, and it’s not near the surface that needs to be lit.

Another issue specific to parking structures, Williams explained, is that typically large chunks of light are spaced out every 30 feet or so – that can cause alternating dark spots and glare for drivers. The concept that Williams showed the board would use light bars mounted under the beams of the parking structure, which would use “little bits of light spread out evenly.”

From a slide presented by Falcon Industries Inc. to the DDA board, illustrating an under-beam placement of LED light bars in a parking structure.

Williams told the board he’d be attending the third in the series of sustainability forums to be held at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library, starting at 7 p.m. on March 8. The forum will cover Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, climate impacts, renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation.

After Williams’ presentation, board member Newcombe Clark asked Williams if he’d been in touch with DDA executive director Susan Pollay. Williams indicated that he’d been in touch, partly as a result of the previous visit to the board.

Mayor John Hieftje wanted to know if the LED lights manufactured by Falcon could be dimmed – yes, he was told.

Comm/Comm: 1320 S. University

During his report from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, Ray Detter said he was pleased that the planning department and the planning commission had recommended denial [on Feb. 7, 2012] of the owner’s request to rezone the property at 1320 S. University from D2 to D1. However, he continued, he was disappointed that the owners of the property have nevertheless submitted a proposal to the city council that the property be rezoned. Detter described that upcoming vote [probably in April] as a test for the city council.

Comm/Comm: DishFish

Joel Verdun addressed the board during public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, pitching DishFish, which he described as a fundraising coupon and community currency. The free coupons cost businesses no money, he said, and the coupons go back into circulation. He said he’d like to work with the DDA’s economic development and partnership committee to put the DDA logo on the coupons.

Present: Nader Nassif, Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Roger Hewitt.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, April 4, 2012, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. 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!

Randy Trent, AAPS executive director of physical properties, gave the board an update on the technology bond millage and gave bid recommendations to the board. (Photos by the writer.)

Trustees approved moving the technology bond millage vote from February to May 2012, and passed a set of resolutions opposing pending state legislation.

A packed consent agenda passed unanimously.

Among other items on the consent agenda, one made official the board’s shift from maintaining two standing committees to meeting monthly as a committee of the whole.

Notable in light of the board’s organizational change was the increase in use of the agenda planning section of the Nov. 16 meeting.

The board’s meeting agenda is now set by the whole board – instead of by an executive committee consisting of the board chair and the committee chairs.

Budget Planning Update

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green and AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen gave their perspectives on two recent community budget forums, and the board offered a few questions and comments. [Chronicle coverage of the forums: "AAPS Seeks Public Input on Budget" and "AAPS Budget Forum Feedback"]

Budget Planning: Community Forums

Green noted that a total of more than 220 people participated in two budget forums sponsored by the district – on one Nov. 10, and another on Nov. 14. Green said the district will continue to engage the community. Saying the richness of the community was obvious, she thanked everyone for coming out “to give input and give testimony and talk about what’s valued and what the needs are.”

Green reported that the AAPS website will incorporate a suggestion box to gather additional input on the budget. She also thanked Allen for spearheading the district’s efforts, and asked him to share his perspective.

Allen confirmed that attendance at the budget forums was high, and summarized their format.

He also concurred with Green that “many excellent ideas were brought forward,” and stressed that the district has not yet drafted a budget reduction plan. First, he said, the administration wanted to know what was important to the community, and what other information the community might want to see.

Allen said summaries of the table discussions, along with budget suggestions the district has received via email will be available on the AAPS website. The budget presentation made at the forums is also available, he said.  [.pdf of AAPS budget presentation]

As far as next steps, Allen said the administration will present a draft budget plan to the board in March or April, then hold additional forums to discuss the proposed reductions, projected to total $14 million. Based on forum input, the budget will likely be adjusted, and then formally presented to the board in April.

Budget Planning: Board Comments, Questions

Trustee Susan Baskett asked when the board will have an opportunity to suggest budget ideas in an open and transparent way, saying she would like to be a part of the feedback loop before the administration gets too deep into drafting a proposed budget.

Trustee Christine Stead suggested that the board should hold a study session to have a more focused discussion on the budget in March 2012, after the state revenue conference is held in January, and after the house and senate fiscal agencies issue their reports. She also noted that the former planning committee had vetted the budget thoroughly, and suggested that budget development should be a standing item at every meeting until the budget is passed.

Christine Stead, AAPS board of trustees

Board president Deb Mexicotte said trustees are welcome to give input at each meeting as individuals or as a whole board.

Trustee Glenn Nelson, who had attended both forums, said he had found the discussion useful, even when he did not agree with it. Nelson also asked whether best practices funding was included in the projected deficit, and Allen said it was not. Allen explained that AAPS does expect to receive $1.6 million in one-time funding, with the first installment coming this month.

Nelson also asked whether the MPSERS offset had been included, and Allen said the offset of approximately $146 per pupil had been included on the revenue side. The effect of the increased retirement rate on MPSERS contributions had also been included on the expenditures side.

Annual Financial Audit

The district’s auditors, from Plante and Moran, discussed the results of the 2010-11 financial audit of AAPS. Explaining that the goal of the audit is to form an opinion regarding the district’s financial processes to see if they are functioning properly, the auditors produced an “unqualified opinion.” This is like getting a “5” on an AP [advanced placement] test, they said. Praising AAPS for putting forth rigor and extensive preparation regarding the 2010-11 audit, the auditors also noted that AAPS has a history of scoring well on its audits.

The audit was reviewed in brief, highlighting future uncertainties such as: the state retirement rate increases; a decrease in federal funding; a decrease in state foundation allowances; the cost of capital improvements without a new bond issue; rising health care costs; and a variable pupil count. In summary, the auditors stated, “It’s a difficult time to be in school finance.”

Trustee Christine Stead produced a list of variances on which she had questions, and asked for feedback specifically on the variance the district experienced in transportation service. The auditors suggested that the fact that the district’s transportation service has the most “layers” of the districts in the WISD transportation consolidation. That made it hard to anticipate the savings that might be gained. Auditors also noted that it’s hard to get a concrete picture of how such a consolidation will look until it is up and running, and suggested, “it will take a while to settle in.”

Board chair Deb Mexicotte suggested that the board might like to explore all variances above or below a certain benchmark, such as 3% or 5%. Stead noted she was mostly interested in looking at large-dollar items.

Andy Thomas noted that in the past, the board had used the [now former] performance committee to review the audit more closely and that such an opportunity had been lost with the shift to the committee-of-the-whole model.

Allen noted that overall, the district is under budget. A number of adjustments will brought to the board as a first quarter budget amendment. He responded to the board’s questions by saying he would prepare answers to specific line item questions for the financial audit’s second briefing.

Glenn Nelson noted that the impact of the increasing retirement rate is huge, and reported that by his calculations, the district is netting $105 less per pupil than it was in FY 2002, if the retirement rate is factored in, and that’s not adjusted for the cost index. Mexicotte added that the amount represents over $1.6 million dollars.

Nelson also asked the auditors to respond to “allegations of ‘fat’ in the staffing of the district [administration],” to which they replied that AAPS administration is not overstaffed, and pointed out that “certainly at mid-management levels, they are working a lot harder to get everything done than they have in the past.”

Finally, the board revisited its ongoing discussion about appropriate fund balance levels, on which trustees have very divergent opinions. Nelson suggested that AAPS should not be cutting teachers or programs to add to its reserves, and Mexicotte responded that the board did not make cuts anticipating that the money would be added to savings, and it was unexpected that the district would come in under budget.  Stead agreed with Mexicotte, saying that it was hard not to take Nelson’s comment offensively. She reminded her colleagues that fund equity can swing significantly from quarter to quarter, and that if the district’s fund balance drops under the amount of cash on hand needed to operate over the summer, it would incur interest charges to borrow the additional funding.

Outcome: The 2010-11 financial audit was a first briefing item. It will return to the board for a second briefing and a vote, tentatively scheduled for the Dec 14 regular meeting.

Tech Bond Millage

For some months now, the board has been discussing the possibility of requesting voter approval of an additional millage to fund a technology bond. At the board’s Nov. 16 meeting, superintendent Patricia Green reviewed the millage strategy being developed by the administration in concert with the board.

Green said she had asked the administration to develop a document to explain how each one of the eight strategies of the AAPS strategic plan is linked to the technology plan and incorporated into the technology bond proposal. Green said the administration is developing a list of FAQs, and asked Randy Trent, AAPS executive director of physical properties, to give a brief overview of what had been developed so far.

Tech Bond Millage: Strategy

Trent reported that the administration has developed an initial set of FAQs and their answers, and said that the FAQs will become a living document on the district’s website, with new questions and their answers getting posted as they come in from the public.

He briefly reviewed the timeline for the millage strategy as the board had discussed at their November committee meeting, and turned the presentation over to Liz Margolis, the district’s director of communications.

Margolis recommended that the board consider moving the vote on the technology millage to the May 2012 election date instead of holding it in concert with the Republican primary in February 2012, and briefly reiterated the reasoning as had been discussed by the committee.

She explained that holding a vote on the tech bond in February would be complicated since the Republican presidential primary is a closed primary. This would mean, Margolis explained, that citizens who declare themselves as a Republican would need to complete two ballots in order to vote in the primary and on the tech bond. Voters in the city of Ann Arbor who do not declare as Republicans would only have one ballot (the tech bond), and voters from precincts in other municipalities who attend AAPS could require up to three ballots – one for the Republican presidential primary, one for the AAPS tech bond, and one from their local municipality. Taken together, these possible permutations could cause significant voter confusion, Margolis said, and urged the board to reconsider the election date.

Margolis also noted that for many years AAPS used the May election date for school board elections and other votes, and said that might help achieve a favorable turnout. She added that there are community members lined up to help in an advisory capacity with a May millage, but said that she cannot reveal their names until the board commits to an election date.

Tech Bond Millage: Board Questions, Discussion

Andy Thomas asked Green whether the district was losing an opportunity to improve technology in a timely manner if the millage vote were to be delayed. Green said there would be no impact on purchasing. This point had been discussed by the district’s bond counsel during a previous regular meeting of the board, along with other details about what the tech bond would buy and how it would work. For details, see: “AAPS to Float February Tech Millage.”

Simone Lightfoot was not present at the Nov. 16 meeting, but sent questions to be discussed in her absence, which were read aloud by Mexicotte.

Lightfoot (via Mexicotte) asked how Barton Malow had been selected as the contractor for the tech bond work, whether their $1.5 million project management fee is standard, whether the bond includes money for training and warranties on equipment purchased, and what the connection is between planning for the tech bond and planning for the possibility of moving to all-day kindergarten.

Trent explained that Barton Malow and Granger had both submitted bids for the technology upgrades if the millage is approved, and that both have done technology work for AAPS before. Barton Malow was selected based on their proposal, he said, and their management fee is not standard. It does include warranties, but the allowable training is limited since the bonds would be issued only for capital improvements.

Trent explained that the research for the tech bond and the research for the possible kindergarten expansion were being done separately, but at the same time. Barton Malow, he said, was “going through server rooms and dusty attics” in all buildings to prepare for the technology work, and Trent himself was walking all the buildings with the principals to assess space for all-day kindergarten.

Green added that the question of whether to ask voters for a millage to support a tech bond was originally coupled with the question of whether the district would need to raise funds for capital improvements related to all-day kindergarten. She said though the board was not actively discussing all-day kindergarten, she did not want to lose sight of the possibility that the district might still want to move in that direction.

Nelson said he really appreciated the follow-up Trent had begun on space considerations for all-day kindergarten. Saying he was “amongst the group that let it slip out of my mind,” he acknowledged that “it could come up suddenly.”

The impetus for possibly moving to all-day kindergarten is a signal from the Michigan legislature that they intend to cut kindergarten per-pupil funding by half for all students enrolled in a half-day kindergarten program, though such legislation has not yet been passed. For more on the discussion to proceed with a tech bond only, see previous Chronicle coverage: “AAPS Board Hands Off Athletic Cuts”

Outcome: As part of the consent agenda, the board unanimously approved moving the technology bond millage vote to May 2012 from February 2012. 

AAPS Response to State Actions

With little discussion, the board passed three resolutions in response to pending state legislation. One resolution was to express opposition to the elimination of personal property tax – Senate Bill 34, which would lead to an additional loss of revenue for AAPS of $5.3 million, while increasing homeowner taxes by .48 mills.

The second was to oppose Senate Bill 618, which would lift the cap on the number of charter schools in Michigan, including those owned by private, for-profit companies.

The third was a resolution to oppose Senate Bill 137, which was amended to allow bullying if it is “a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.” Mexicotte noted that Green had written a strongly-worded statement about the legislation that was sent to parents district-wide. She also noted that after great uproar, the State House of Representatives had removed that language from the bill, but that the bill as amended had been passed by the State Senate.

All three resolutions will be forwarded to school and government officials across the state.

Outcome: All three of the resolutions opposing state legislation were passed unanimously as part of the consent agenda.

Consent Agenda: Miscellaneous

In addition to items described above, the consent agenda for the Nov. 16 meeting contained two items that were open for second briefing, but on which the board had little or no discussion: (1) the addition of a link to an Arab-American parent support group from the district’s website; and (2) an extensive set of policy amendments to formalize the board’s new committee structure.

The consent agenda also included two items that were entertained as special briefing items by the board at the Nov. 16 meeting, meaning they would be voted on the same day as first presented: (1) a revision of board policy 1250 to add wording for the use of the “call the question” parliamentary procedure; and (2) a resolution to waive intellectual property rights for an addition to the FASTT (Fluency and Automaticity through Systematic Teaching with Technology) Math program created by AAPS.

Calling the question is a parliamentary procedure used during a meeting, essentially to end debate and bring the matter to a vote. Mexicotte highlighted the fact that only someone who had not just spoken on the issue at hand could move to close discussion on that issue, and that any votes to call-the-question [or, put the question to a vote] would need to have a supermajority of at least five trustees to pass.

Regarding the waiver of intellectual property rights, AAPS assistant superintendent for human resources and legal services Dave Comsa reported that the board had held a closed session on Oct. 12 to discuss this issue, and noted only that “the royalties cannot be paid because it’s not a revenue-producer for Scholastic [the maker of FASTT Math].” He added briefly that the addition to FASTT Math created by AAPS is a small part of the program, and that Scholastic only pays royalties to long-time employees.

Noting that there will be no further modifications to the program, Comsa recommended that the board waive their intellectual property rights to the addition, and asked that the resolution be considered as a special briefing item. Trustees expressed skepticism about Scholastic’s claims, but supported Comsa’s recommendation.

Outcome: The consent agenda, which also included the approval of draft minutes, was approved unanimously.

Bid Award Recommendations

Randy Trent, AAPS executive director of physical properties, presented two bid award recommendations to the board. One was to approve a one-year contract with The D. M. Burr Group from Flint, MI for HVAC journeyman services totaling $93,025 per year. The other was to approve a one-year contract with Johnson Controls, an international corporation headquartered in Glendale, WI, for control service for $333,281 per year.

Trent noted that in the past, AAPS had combined these services in to one bid, but that it had separated them this time around in an attempt to save money.

Bid Award Recommendations: Public Comment

Two local skilled trades union representatives spoke at public commentary, both against the awarding of physical properties bids to non-local, non-unionized workers.

Tom Yax, representing local plumbers and pipefitters, asked, “Why can’t we use our people?” He said that out-of-town contractors pay sub-par wages, and that out-of-town workers don’t give back to the community. Yax pointed out that his union members support many school causes, including orchestra and athletics, and also train many AAPS students through an apprenticeship program. Urging the board to think about these contributions when they consider bids, Yax contrasted local workers with out-of-towners, saying, “These people take the money and leave – that’s not a savings, that’s a loss!”

Ron Motsinger, a representative of Washtenaw County skilled trades workers, added that in addition to offering training and apprenticeship programs, local building trades union members have endorsed AAPS bond projects and millages. Saying that local building unions believe in partnering with the school district, Matsinger noted that local union leaders had done mailings to their members, encouraged people to vote, and gone door-to-door to build support for the last bond [that built Skyline high school, among other projects.] He admonished the board for “shopping that bid all over,” and choosing a contractor who doesn’t pay its workers the prevailing wage.

Bid Award Recommendations: Bid Process Clarification

Though the board did not employ its new “clarification” agenda option after public commentary, Green did request that Trent go over the process for bidding as part of his presentation.

Trent reviewed that all bids are advertised on the AAPS and State of Michigan websites. In brief, he explained that the district puts out specifications its looking for, takes bid results, determines which are “well-qualified” bidders, and checks their references. As purchasing requirements specify, Trent said, he is recommending the lowest qualified bidder.

Baskett questioned how D. M. Burr Group was able to come in $65,000 lower than the next qualified bidder, and Trent confirmed it was because they likely “use a non-union type of pay scale, and are able to select people who maybe don’t need benefits.”

The board had some discussion over the state requirement to honor the lowest qualified bidder with the contract in lieu of awarding bids based on local commitment to community. Susan Baskett asked if the board was monitoring locality, along with other metrics the board had deemed important, such as whether the bidders represented historically underutilized businesses (HUBs).

Trent said that companies’ commitment to using local workers was not part of the bid, and that HUB status was requested, but is optional. Comsa added that, in his view, “it might be problematic” to request additional information from contractors (such as HUB status) that is not specified in the bid.

Christine Stead suggested that there might be a way to “math out” the economic contribution that one vendor might be able to make to the community, and wondered if there was a legal way to award bids that also honored local workers. As a counter to that line of thought, Nelson said that while he is very much in favor of programs that extend bidding opportunities to firms that represent underrepresented groups, he is apprehensive of trying to use models of economic impact. He argued that such models are difficult to apply in a careful way, and would “chew up” staff resources.

Andy Thomas also pointed out that the $65,000 difference between D.M.Burr and the next lowest bidder for HVAC journeyman services is roughly the cost of a salary for one teacher, minus benefits. So, he continued, “in an era of budget consciousness, we can either go with lowest qualified bidder, or we can reduce our teaching staff by one position.”

Susan Baskett argued that when the district undercuts local contractors, it takes away their trust. She noted that community trust will be necessary to gain support for the upcoming technology bond and any other future millages. She reminded the board that the union members who spoke during public commentary have supported the community, and that contractors from outside the community will not be paid a prevailing wage.

Outcome: These bid recommendations were presented at first briefing, and will come before the board for a second briefing and a vote at the next regular board meeting.

Grant Awards

Linda Doernte, AAPS Director of Purchasing, Grants & Business Support Services reviewed changes to 2011-12 grant funding totaling $4.8 million. She highlighted that amounts of federal grants are somewhat variable, and that the district cannot control exactly the amount it receives.

Trustees asked whether local students would lose Head Start completely if Washtenaw County no longer manages the program. Green noted that the local superintendents all agree it’s a valuable program, but that no definitive action has been taken to retain it, such as transferring it to the Washtenaw Intermediate School District.

Glenn Nelson thanked the PTO Thrift Shop and AAPS educational foundation for their continued support of the district.

Deb Mexicotte added a question from Simone Lightfoot, who was unable to be at the meeting. She asked if the district’s new grant writer was helping to coordinate grant requests to ensure consistency and that buildings most in need are participating and benefiting. Liz Margolis, the district’s communications director, explained that requests were being coordinated, and that the grant writer has held workshops at the Balas administration building. The grant writer has been working closely with the AAPS educational foundation, she said.

Outcome: These grant awards were presented at first briefing, and will come before the board for a second briefing and vote at the next regular board meeting.

EASE Team Update

Randy Trent reported on the Energy Awareness Sustainability Education (EASE) program at work in AAPS, which he said has produced steady savings in the area of utilities. The EASE program works with changing human behavior, and is coordinated by Johnson Controls.

Trent noted that the EASE program includes a booth for use in individual schools, an email campaign, and meetings with custodians. He said it created $671,000 in savings, which was $347 beyond the target of $324,000, and that every building saved energy with the exception of Skyline, which added 400 new energy users.

The program also includes a “plug survey,” that is, an annual survey of what is plugged in to every plug in every room across the district in order to have a clear idea of where energy is being used, complete with pictures. “What we’re not spending on energy, we can spend on the classroom,” Trent asserted, noting that an energy policy would be coming the board in the future.

Patricia Green noted that she was very impressed by the savings generated by the EASE program, and that she had directed Trent to explore the possibility of returning a percentage of the savings to the source of the savings – such as specific buildings.

Christine Stead thanked Johnson Controls for the program, praising the company for being a “great community partner.”

Andy Thomas asked about the information included in a recent EASE email that explained how plugging appliances into power strips and then turning the strip off could save money. Trent referred Thomas to the district website, which he said provides more detail on this phenomenon, known as “phantom load.” The Johnson Controls representative added that controlling the phantom load on the district’s electric devices would save the district an additional $7,000 per year.

Susan Baskett said she sees this program as an addition to the current district curriculum, and asked how much it costs. Trent answered that it costs $320,000 per year for four years.

Nelson invited an AAPS graduate, who works for Johnson Controls on the EASE progam in the district, to describe how she attained the position. She said she graduated from Pioneer in 2005, completed a bachelors and masters in environmental engineering at Cornell, and then became connected to Johnson Controls through work on a solar home. Nelson said that AAPS is very proud of its graduates.

Association Reports – AAPAC

Though the board invites reports from six associations at its board meetings, the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee (AAPAC) was the only association present to report at the Nov. 16 board meeting.

The AAPAC representative applauded the administration’s foresight in embracing positive behavioral support, and said it can succeed in the district, despite difficulties. She also said the AAPAC is pleased to hear about peer-to-peer mentoring taking place in many of the district elementary schools, noting that these programs teach social skills, and are a win-win for special needs and general education students alike.

She said that the PAC was encouraged to hear from superintendent Patricia Green that the district is committeed to finding actionable ways to close the achievement gap among all students, including the 2,200 students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and several hundred more with Section 504 plans. [Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires federally-funded schools to create a written plan to meet the needs of students who require extra accommodations, but who do not qualify for a special education IEP.]

The AAPAC representative noted that the Disability Awareness Workshops held this fall have been very successful, and invited trustees to attend and experience any part of the two upcoming workshops.

She acknowledged that “this year will be very challenging” in terms of the budget reality, and asserted that parents of children with special needs are used to “thinking outside of the box” and are ready to help keep AAPS strong for all children.

Agenda Planning

The board suggested work to be done on: revenue enhancement, superintendent evaluation, AATA, equity, math support, legislative action, and board functioning.

Agenda Planning: Revenue Enhancement

Christine Stead suggested a renewed focus on revenue enhancement, specifically on increasing AAPS enrollment. She noted that the former planning committee had studied ways to increase enrollment, as well as other revenue enhancement strategies including increased philanthropy, business partnerships, and grants.

Agenda Planning: Superintendent Evaluation

Susan Baskett suggested that AAPS partner with other local districts to study approaches to meeting state-mandated changes in superintendent evaluation. She noted that Scott Morrell, vice-president of the Centerline Public Schools Educational Foundation would be available in January to provide professional development on this issue.

Stead questioned how Morrell developed expertise in this area, since the legal changes to employee evaluation were new to all Michigan school districts this year. Baskett said it was a fair concern, but that Morrell has worked closely with the Michigan Association of School Boards on this issue, and that MASB in working on a suggested model for superintendent evaluation, because the new law requires that student growth be included as a factor.

Deb Mexicotte noted that the superintendent would be informally evaluated in February, and formally evaluated in May or June. She suggested enlisting the WISD to convene a professional development session for all local districts on this topic. She said doing that would be a good opportunity to consolidate efforts.

Green added that she had asked the district’s legal counsel, Dave Comsa, to research how the law affects current contracts. She noted that there is no consensus among superintendents across the county about which takes precedence in an evaluation – the new law, or a superintendent’s employment contract.

Agenda Planning: AATA, Equity, Math Support

Baskett asked about the status of possible meetings with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to develop ways the AATA could be of more assistance to the district. Green said that she had requested that the district’s next meeting with Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers and his top staff include the AATA.

Baskett also requested a status report on current or future work on equity, and math support, saying she was hearing a lot of concern from the community about math support at the middle school level as all students prepare to take algebra in the 8th grade.

Agenda Planning: Legislative Action

Baskett reviewed the board’s recent actions surrounding legislative advocacy, and suggested the board should consider what else it can do to lobby and raise awareness.

Mexicotte said that the board should consider forming a task force or auxiliary committee on legislative matters. Nelson said there is a group forming through the Washtenaw Association of School Boards that could complement any AAPS board committee.

Stead asserted that the legislative work that lies ahead will require a state-wide ballot initiative, and suggested that the board needs to “put that on the radar.”

Agenda Planning: Board Functioning

Mexicotte reminded the board that part of the service they had received from the superintendent search firm last year was to take the board through an evaluation tool to determine how well it was functioning. She suggested the board may want to revisit that tool to compare its current functioning with how it was working before. She said she is thinking about how to propose that work formally.

Awards and Accolades

Various individuals, entities, and events were highlighted by the board and administration.

School Board Election

Nelson, Mexicotte, and the AAPAC representative congratulated Thomas and Lightfoot on being re-elected to the board. Mexicotte also commended the other four candidates who had run for bringing constructive discussion to the campaign. She encouraged the former candidates to bring their passion to the district in other ways, saying, “Your service didn’t end to the students in this district if you didn’t want it to.”

NAACP Freedom Fund Dinner

Green reported that on Nov. 5 the local NAACP held its annual Freedom Fund dinner, which honored over 100 students earning a 3.2 GPA or higher – the largest number of students ever. Green added that it had been an honor for her to participate. It was noted throughout the meeting that Baskett, Mexicotte, Nelson, Lightfoot, and Thomas also attended.

During items from the board, Nelson commented that the event was “really impressive in terms of honoring the young people,” and that the stories of the Raymond Randolph Jr., the keynote speaker, were courageous and moving.

Phantom of the Opera

Green also congratulated Pioneer on their recent production on Phantom of the Opera, saying it was “phenomenal.” Thomas added as an “item from the board” that this production “didn’t just happen,” but that it developed as a result of sustained support of the visual and performing arts throughout the district’s K-12 experience.

Superintendent’s Report

In addition to some items noted above, Green also commented on a wide array of honors and awards received by schools, programs, students, student-athletes, staff, and teachers throughout the district.

The district's newly hired assistant superintendent of elementary education, Dawn Linden.

Green also welcomed the newest member of her executive cabinet – assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden.

Green noted that she had been a guest narrator for the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra’s opening of a family musical series.

Items from the Board

Andy Thomas noted that AAPS has been given an A- rating by the Sunshine Review, a non-profit that evaluates the openness and transparency of public organizations, whereas Michigan as a whole received a C.  Thomas said he “just wanted to point this out because we continually hear that we need to improve our transparency, but at least one unbiased group is of the opinion that we are doing a pretty good job.” Thomas thanked Patricia Green and Robert Allen for their work in making this happen.

Thomas also pointed out how he had been surprised to discover that his recently-won 4-year-board term had just been extended to include a fifth year. He explained that there is another piece of legislation coming out of the state that will move all school board elections to Novembers of even-numbered years. Thomas stated, “I find this just an incredibly bad idea. The amount of money that it will take to run for school board will quadruple as a result of this – it’s going to make it much harder for people to run … What this will inevitably do will force people who want to run for school board to run in slates.” He noted that in the 2011 election, an odd-numbered year, six candidates ran for two seats. The year before, in an even-numbered year election with five open seats, there were only five candidates.

Glenn Nelson reported that the spirit shown at the 50th anniversary of Allen School was wonderful, and gave kudos to all schools that create community in their neighborhoods. He also noted that the recent Challenge Day at Huron High School was a bug success, and that in decision-making, everyone should follow the mantra from that day: “notice, choose, act.”

Baskett thanked state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-18) for holding a town hall on charter schools, which was valuable and efficient. She also congratulated AAPS sports teams, including the team on which board secretary Amy Osinski’s son plays. “It was hard work,” Baskett said, “and there’s always next year for bringing home the trophy.”

Noting “marked improvement,” Mexicotte expressed her appreciation for the Ann Arbor District Library and Community Television Network staff who had done some “awesome work and fine-tuning” on the microphones and audio quality at the board table.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice-president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, and trustees Glenn Nelson and Christine Stead.

Absent: Treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustee Simone Lightfoot.

Next regular meeting: Dec. 14, 2011, 7 p.m., at the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education. 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 Public Schools board trustee Glenn Nelson (light blue shirt), listening to parents at the AAPS budget forum on Nov. 10. (Photos by the writer.)

The forum served two distinct purposes: (1) to educate the public on school funding issues, including its specific challenges for crafting next year’s (2012-13) budget; and (2) to solicit ideas from the public on how the district can reduce its budget by $14 million.

The current fiscal year’s approved budget is $183.62 million.

The district typically schedules budget forums in the spring, but this year wants to involve the community earlier than that.

A second forum will take place Monday, Nov. 14 at 6:30 p.m. in the cafeteria annex at Pioneer High School.

At Thursday’s event, Allen said that the district is projecting a $14 million deficit for the 2012-13 school year. Over the past five years, the district has made a cumulative total of nearly $50 million in cuts.

How the Budget is Developed

Green led off the forum with a review of the main strategies of the district’s strategic plan. That was followed by a brief overview from Allen on how the district is funded, including restrictions on specific funds.

Budget Development: Strategic Plan

Green introduced her cabinet members and other administrators present. She then read the district’s mission statement, and reviewed the eight core strategies of the AAPS strategic plan, noting that the budget will be linked directly to these strategies.

Budget Development: Fund Restrictions

Allen explained that the budget he would be discussing that night is the district’s general fund, or “operating budget.” He contrasted the general fund with a set of other funds that have more restricted uses. Funds with restrictions include: grant funds (Title 1 and special education funds); bond funds (capital projects such as building construction, technology, bus purchases); debt service (to fund debt service on bonds); sinking fund (capital projects such as land acquisition, remodeling current buildings); and special revenue funds (food service, Rec & Ed).

Allen added that a proposed revision to the legislation governing sinking fund dollars could greatly help AAPS because it would allow the district to spend the sinking fund more flexibly, for example, on upgrades to technology.

Budget Development: How AAPS Is Funded

Allen then described how Michigan school districts are funded, which is primarily through each district’s foundation allowance from the state. The allowance is a per-pupil allocation determined by blending student count data from September of each year with the student count data from the previous February, in a 90-10 ratio. Proposal A legislation, which was enacted in 1994, stipulated that state revenue is also factored into the foundation allowance at a variable level, Allen said.

AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen (standing), meeting with participants of the AAPS budget forum on Nov. 10.

He the explained how the district’s foundation allowance is calculated. The district’s allowance in 2011-12 was $9,020 per pupil.

Of the $9,020, Allen began, $3,310 comes from local non-homestead property taxes (commercial, industrial, rental, seasonal homes, etc.). The state contributes another $4,476 ( from a combination of state homestead taxes, state non-homestead taxes, sales tax, income tax, lottery revenue, etc.). And, the final $1,234 comes local homestead property taxes.

Though Proposal A’s intention was to equalize school funding across Michigan, Allen expressed frustration that the state had “broken its promise” by not allowing wealthier, “hold harmless” districts to continue to fund schools at a higher level than the base foundation allowance. “Hold harmless” funding was eliminated in 2009, costing AAPS $233 per student.

Budget Considerations

Allen then outlined a number of factors that will affect the 2012-13 budget in more detail: the structural funding deficit, administrative costs, the state retirement rate, incentives funding, and fund equity. Community questions and Allen’s answers have been included in each subsection, though at the forum, questions were held until the end.

Budget Considerations: Structural Deficit

Due to the variable nature of the state contribution to the foundation allowance, Allen said, “As the economy goes, so goes our funding.” With property values and other state revenue decreasing, and the consumer price index rising, Allen explained, Proposal A has caused a structural deficit in the district’s funding allocation of $6-7 million annually.

He suggested that the public should be able to look to the state School Aid Fund (SAF) to see how healthy the state budget is. However, he pointed out that the state has recently begun to use SAF surplus to fund other things, even though the intent of the SAF, as created under Proposal A, was exclusively to fund K-12 education. What should have happened to the SAF surplus, Allen argued, was to be added to the per-pupil allocations of the roughly 1.6 million students across the state.

Budget Considerations: Administrative Costs

Allen then showed a few slides summarizing categories of the operating budget as percentages of the total FY 2011-12 budget of $183.5 million.

One of the slides broke out expenditures as a percentage of the total budget as follows: Instruction and Support – 79% (includes principals, teachers, teacher assistants, counselors, social workers, psychologists, media specialists, secretaries, and custodial and maintenance staff in buildings); Operations and Maintenance – 11%; Central Administration – 5% (includes superintendent, executive administration, directors, supervisors, and executive support staff in finance and human resources); Transportation – 3%; and Other – 2%.

In response to a forum attendee’s question, Allen noted that “executive administration” refers to the superintendent’s cabinet.

Regarding the slide showing categories of expenditures, one attendee suggested it might be helpful to see the instruction budget broken out by school. Allen was asked if the budget allocation for all high school students is the same – for example at Community versus Pioneer versus Huron. Allen responded by saying that there is no material difference between those schools and that the district spends about $8,000 per high school student. He added that AAPS spends in the mid-$6,000s on each middle school student, and about $5,000 on each elementary student.

The forum attendee then asked how the allocations for central administration and administration have changed. Allen answered that they have both decreased.

At the AAPS board’s first Committee of the Whole (COTW) meeting on Nov. 2, Allen reviewed a draft of the presentation to be presented at the budget forums, and trustees suggested adding a comparison of AAPS administrative costs with those of districts of similar size.

The Nov. 10 budget forum presentation included a slide based on that recommendation, which showed data taken from the 2009-10 Bulletin 1014, a state report available on the Michigan Department of Education website. Bulletin 1014 ranks districts on a number of financial data points, student count, and average teacher salary, among other metrics. It includes traditional public schools (551 of them) as well as charter schools (232 of them) in its rankings.

Allen pointed out that while AAPS is the seventh-largest school district in the state, it ranks 363rd in terms of per-pupil business and administrative expenses.

One forum attendee asked how AAPS administrative costs compare to similarly-sized districts, such as the 21 districts (as noted on the slide) with student populations between 10,000 and 19,999 students. Allen said he did not know.

Another forum participant asked whether the “business and administrative expenses” as defined by Bulletin 1014 included administration costs for individual school buildings, and Allen said no, that it refers only to AAPS central administrative costs. A third participant commented that if all the charter schools were removed from the rankings, AAPS would look even more conservative with respect to administrative spending.

Budget Considerations: State Retirement Rate

Allen highlighted the state retirement rate as “one of the biggest obstacles” in setting the budget. He stated that one of the stipulations of Proposal A was to pass on the cost of funding the state retirement system to school districts. He also noted that the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS) is a defined benefit plan (not a defined contribution plan).

School districts are mandated to contribute to MPSERS at a rate set by the state, Allen explained. When Proposal A was first enacted, the state retirement contribution rate was 4%, he said. To calculate the district’s obligation, that percentage is applied to the district’s total employee salaries.  This year, the rate is 24.46%, and is projected to increase to 27.37% in FY 2012-13, and 28.87% in FY 2013-14.

Allen added that staff reductions across the state are compounding the problem, because there are fewer employees left who are contributing to MPSERS. Contributions from fewer employees means a higher rate of contribution is required, in order to fund the defined benefits of the retirement system.

Allen stressed that the district has no control over this cost at the local level – there is no opportunity to negotiate with bargaining units for a lower rate. “This is an area where the legislature needs to make some changes,” Allen said, pointing out that every 3% increase in the state retirement rate adds $3-4 million to the district’s structural deficit.

A forum attendee asked for further explanation of the district’s obligation to MPSERS. Allen clarified that AAPS is required to contribute to MPSERS an amount equal to 24.46% of the total amount the district spends on salaries. Again, he stressed that the rate is non-negotiable, and that the mandated retirement contributions are above and beyond the salary costs themselves.

Budget Considerations: Incentives Funding

One forum participant asked if the district applied for and received the one-time “best practices” incentive funding being offered by the state. Allen said the district had applied, was approved, and that the first payment would come this month.

The participant then asked whether that money had been factored in to the projected budget deficit, and Allen said no. He explained that the 2011-12 budget will be amended three to four times throughout the year, and that the incentives funding will be included in the first budget amendment.

Budget Considerations: Fund Equity

Allen explained that the district’s fiscal year and the state’s fiscal year are on different calendars, meaning that there are two months in which AAPS does not receive state aid. Because of this, he said, AAPS needs to have $16-18 million saved to operate for those two months. If it did not have that money reserved, it would need to borrow money from the state and incur interest expenses.

Even if the interest were only $200,000, Allen noted, “that’s two teachers.” He also pointed out that having had money in fund equity two years ago, when the state reduced school funding mid-year, meant that AAPS did not need to lay-off teachers in the middle of the school year, as many surrounding districts were forced to.

Budget Suggestions

Forum participants formed smaller groups at individual tables. But before opening up the table discussions, Allen offered his own view on ways to address the budget. He stressed that the problem of the structural deficit needs a permanent fix, and encouraged everyone to lobby the state to change the ways schools are funded.

Allen also suggested that the district should focus on: increasing student enrollment; exploring additional opportunities for consolidation or collaboration with other schools and universities; and exploring new revenue options as well as cost savings. Finally, Allen emphasized the importance of considering the effect of any budget cuts on equity among all students.

Allen said that the AAPS bargaining units have worked collaboratively, and that the district has controlled health benefits costs. But, he said, “There are only so many cuts you can make, before your community looks elsewhere.” If students leave the district, the district loses funding, which causes more cuts and more transfers out of AAPS, Allen said. “It creates a downward spiral.”

Community participants then met at round tables in groups of four to six, with one member of AAPS administration (or AAPS board member Glenn Nelson in one case) present at each table to facilitate and take notes. Allen pointed out the summarized audit data on the table for review, as well as the five-year history of budget reductions by category included in the table packets, and thanked people for coming.

Community suggestions on the budget, as reported out by administrators present at each table, addressed the following areas: additional information requested; how to better include parents in the budgeting process; suggestions for budget reductions and priorities; and suggestions for revenue enhancement.

Suggestions: Additional Information Requested

• More detail about what created the structural deficit
• A handout of legislative contacts
• More concrete information about what to say and how to say it to legislators
• A list of what is “off the table,” or things the district has decided already to keep intact
• What other districts have done to reduce their budgets that has been successful
• How much it costs to run Skyline
• Administrative costs broken down by building
• Instructional costs broken down by building
• More “narrative” about revenue streams such as grants – how can we get grants
• Link dollar amounts to items on the strategic plan
• Amount spent on mandated programs versus amount reimbursed for such programs
• Budget breakdown by smaller categories with more detail
• Explanation for inequities regarding transportation
• List of contracted services and associated costs
• More information from a taxpayer perspective
• Re-create “user-friendly budget” document
• The value of property held by AAPS
• How AAPS compares to other districts in terms of cuts being made

Suggestions: Inclusion of Parents in Budgeting Process

• Post this budget presentation on the district’s website
• Explain that legislative reform to MPSERS needs to be done carefully – some proposals be considered would be detrimental to teachers
• Communicate with parents via the neighborhood centers
• Give specific information sooner in terms of what cuts would mean
• Get the PTOC more involved
• Contact school PTOs and PTSOs directly
• Include budget information in e-mails from the school – parents would be more likely to read it
• Attend school coffee hours to discuss the budget and get ideas
• Be more proactive in getting budget information out – send it as an e-mail with a link to the budget
• Put a budget survey online
• Explain the information better
• Address lack of trust (related to last year’s principal-sharing proposal  and the  2009 county enhancement millage)
• Address feeling that cash from parking fees is being “siphoned off”
• Trust parents to be more helpful in a volunteer capacity
• Engage Michigan Parents for Schools, which has many tools and direct e-mail contacts

Suggestions: Budget Reductions and Priorities

• Don’t touch teacher benefits – neighboring districts spend much more
• Remove instrumental music from 5th grade, for possible funding by the AAPS educational foundation
• Be mindful of equity – lower income students are more affected by all cuts
• Cut varsity athletics to keep class size down
• Continue collaborations with local universities
• Close elementary schools that are not at capacity
• Protect teachers and transportation – they were already cut
• Consider closing one or more of the six high schools
• Combine or close Clemente or Ann Arbor Tech
• Close Mitchell, then run Scarlett as a K-8 magnet school
• Consider principal-sharing
• Don’t get substitutes for absent high school teachers – just have a big study hall for all students whose teachers are out
• Don’t rely on lobbying – timeline is not soon enough to get action this budget cycle
• Adjust start times to combine transportation geographically
• Cut high school busing and work with AATA to provide transportation
• Ask parents to bring in supplies to buildings
• Reduce administration
• Reconfigure schools with small populations
• Pool health care costs with districts throughout the county
• Bring in more student teachers to increase collaboration with universities
• Don’t duplicate high school class offerings – hold classes at only one location, and bus students around as necessary
• Be careful of reducing class choices at high schools, as it may reduce enrollment
• Consolidate human resources and information technology with other local districts
• Do not share principals at Title 1 schools
• Do not close buildings this year – not feasible without more planning
• Cut the glossy brochures
• Possibly cut curriculum coordinators or others in central administration
• Figure out how to bring back students who leave for charter or private schools
• Help business community understand that we are educating the work force

Suggestions for Revenue Enhancement

• Lobby the state – the School Aid Fund should be used only to fund K-12 schools
• Help parents to lobby the state more effectively
• Encourage alumni to give back by donating to the AAPS educational foundation
• Ask AAPS educational foundation to lobby for funding change [Another participant ventured that 501c3 organizations are legally prohibited from lobbying.]
• Try to get students from Greenhills
• Offer in-district choice between high schools to increase enrollment
• Open up more Schools-of-Choice seats to increase enrollment
• Open up high schools to Schools-of-Choice enrollment
• Increase grant funding
• Rent out AAPS facilities (pools, planetarium, theater) without interfering with instruction
• Increase volume of parent communications with legislators
• Encourage the AAPS educational foundation to raise more money
• Make better case for tech bond
• Need more active grant searching
• Rent or long-term lease district-held property
• Increase user fees for field trips, athletics
• Increase football parking fees on Pioneer’s lot
• Conduct a better energy analysis – the heat is on at buildings in evenings
• Increase pay-to-play

Next Community Forum on the Budget

Allen closed the forum by inviting all members of the community to a second budget forum on Monday, Nov. 14 at 6:30 p.m. in the cafeteria annex at Pioneer High School. Green thanked everyone for coming and for sharing their thoughts.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public Schools. 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!

The budget calls for expenses of $30,410,616 against only $29,418,995 in revenues, for a deficit in the coming year of $991,621. That shortfall will be made up by drawing on the fund balance. According to the budget resolution, the AATA’s fund balance policy requires it to maintain reserves equal to at least three months’ worth of operating expenses. And the AATA expects to have $1.2 million more in its fund reserve to start the year than that minimum fund balance policy requires. So the projected deficit – which the budget resolution attributes partly to one-time expenses associated with the transportation master plan – is within the $1.2 million excess beyond the minimum three-month reserve, which the AATA holds in its fund balance. [.pdf of AATA 2012 operating budget]

During  deliberations, the four board members present stressed the unique, one-time nature of the deficit budget.

In the most significant categories, the AATA’s revenues break down percentage-wise as follows: 31.4% local transit tax; 29.4% state operating assistance; 18.6% passenger fares; 12.8% federal operating assistance. The AATA also receives some revenue from surrounding municipalities that get transit service through purchase of service (POS) agreements. [2012 AATA revenue pie chart]

In the most significant expense categories, the AATA’s expenses break down percentage-wise as follows: 54.7% employee compensation; 18.2% purchased transportation from other providers; 9.3% other purchased services; 5.7% diesel fuel and gasoline. [2012 AATA expenses pie chart]

In a separate vote, the AATA board also approved the 10-page work plan for the fiscal year. Highlights include reconstruction of the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. In terms of increased service, the work plan includes a focus on: establishing the AATA as a vanpool service provider; establishing service to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport; improved work-transportation connections between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; and continued work on commuter rail.

The plan also calls for continued work on the AATA’s information technology, including its website as a communication tool and improved point-of-sale systems to allow people to pay for their fares. [.pdf of work AATA 2012 work plan]

This brief was filed from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library, where the AATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Chronicle file photo from September 2010 of the control room adjoining the CTN television studio, located on South Industrial Highway. On the screens are images from a local League of Women Voters city council candidate forum.

The Chronicle subsequently obtained an audio cassette recording of the Feb. 17 meeting made by the city clerk.

In relevant part, we report the contents of that city council cassette tape in a separate article. For this article, we take a view of CTN as an organization that’s broader than a missing DVD. But we still begin with a city council meeting.

In May 2009, former cable communications commissioner Paul Bancel addressed the city council during the time allotted for public commentary. He suggested that when councilmembers looked at the city budget, they’d see a $1.5 million allocation to community television. “It’s up to you to make it relevant,” he said.

Is it relevant? For 38 years, Community Television Network has served Ann Arbor. “There will always be cable providers or video providers,” said CTN manager Ralph Salmeron in a recent Chronicle interview.

But how does CTN fit within that media and communications landscape?

CTN’s Beginnings

In October 1973, Ann Arbor began broadcasting community television. After fighting for the creation of “public access television,” a group of local activists began running one public access channel – Channel 6. It would not be called “community television” until years later. They initially set up shop at 403 S. Fifth Ave., but by 1974 had moved to the Old Union Hall, located at 208 W. Liberty. The operation was known as Ann Arbor Public Access.

In February 1978, five years after public access television began broadcasting, the city of Ann Arbor took over the control of Ann Arbor Public Access. The city’s relationship with public access television, and the monetary support that followed through franchise fees, was not finalized until the start of 1980. By then, the name had been formally changed to the Community Television Network (CTN).

By the time current manager of CTN Ralph Salmeron took that position with the organization in 1989, CTN had expanded to include three channels – one each devoted to public, educational, and municipal programing. CTN continued to receive federal funding and franchise fees.

In reflecting on the network’s initial years, Salmeron observed in conversation with The Chronicle, “The roots of the organization are as a public access center … [A] center that makes training and resources available to citizens of Ann Arbor.”

The necessary connection between public benefit and cable companies’ use of the public resources is reflected in Ann Arbor’s city ordinance on cable communications and franchise fees (Chapter 32 of the city code). From the city code [emphasis added]:

Chapter 32, 2:100
The city council finds that the further development of cable communications may result in great benefits for the people of the city. Cable technology is rapidly changing, and cable plays an essential role as part of the city’s basic infrastructure. Cable television systems permanently occupy and extensively make use of scarce and valuable public rights-of-way, in a manner different from the way in which the general public uses them. The city council finds that public convenience, safety, and general welfare can best be served by establishing regulatory powers vested in the city to protect the public and to ensure that any franchise granted is operated in the public interest.

Part of operating a cable franchise in the public interest means providing “access channels”:

Chapter 32, 2:101
(1) “Access channel” means any channel on a cable system set aside by a grantee for public, educational, or governmental (“PEG”) use.

Of the different purposes for access channels, it’s public use that was CTN’s initial focus. “That’s our legacy,” says Salmeron, “and that’s where initially probably 75% of our resources went.” Now, CTN’s resources are divided across four cable channels:

• Channel 16 – GovTV (government meetings)
• Channel 17 – A2TV (public access)
• Channel 18 – EduTV (educational, informational)
• Channel 19 – CitiTV (original local programming)

The public access channel, A2TV, gets roughly one-quarter of CTN’s resources, Salmeron estimates – there’s a roughly even distribution across the four channels. Compared to the 75% of resources devoted to public access in the early days, it’s clear that CTN’s priorities have evolved in the last 30 years.

The Financial Picture

In reflecting on the value of CTN to Ann Arbor, one way to frame the question is in terms of dollars and cents. How much does Ann Arbor invest in CTN? The short answer this year is about $1.8 million – it’s increased in the two years since Paul Bancel addressed the city council.

Where does that $1.8 million come from? Cable franchise fees constitute CTN’s only significant source of funding. Cable operators (in Ann Arbor, it’s Comcast) pay to the city 5% of their yearly gross revenue from operations within Ann Arbor. And by city ordinance, the franchise fee goes directly into funding the activities for which CTN is responsible.

Chapter 32, 2:111
(7) The franchise fee revenues received by the city shall be directed to the cost of franchise administration, operation of PEG access television, and communications and media operations of the City.

That has more or less insulated CTN from discussion during the city council’s yearly budget talks, even during budget retreats in recent years when councilmembers have been encouraged by city staff to put everything on the table. CTN’s funding will be stable unless cable franchise fees were to be eliminated by the state legislature, or the city ordinance were changed to direct franchise fee revenues in some other way.

The percentage breakdown of the roughly $1.8 million in expenses varies from year to year. But staff compensation, like most city departments, consistently makes up the biggest single category of the CTN budget. Of the $1,843,116 in the current 2012 fiscal year CTN budget, $1,020,426 is for employee compensation. [.pdf of FY 2012 budget book for city administrator service area ] [.pdf of detailed CTN expenses]

The CTN budget funds the city communications manager, half the salary of the city’s communications unit manager, the CTN manager, two CTN assistant managers, three producers, two programmers and two training/facility coordinators for a total of 11.5 positions.

Given the technology- and hardware-based nature of operating a cable television network, equipment costs might be expected to be a large part of the budget. But compared to employee costs, equipment costs for CTN are not nearly as great.

In two out of the last three years, CTN has spent around $100,000 on equipment – in the other year, equipment expenses dipped to around $40,000. But the 2012 budget includes $326,616 for equipment, with almost $200,000 projected for FY 2013. The increase is due to additional capital outlays required to convert equipment to digital format.

The city of Ann Arbor leases space for the CTN offices on South Industrial Highway. It’s a 10-year lease, which began in 2008, with an annual cost of around $100,000.

CTN’s Current Programming

What kind of programming will $1.8 million support?

Part of Ralph Salmeron’s vision of the network is this: “What we try to bring to Ann Arbor is very much a local flavor. If we’re covering a story for our news magazine, it has to have some depiction of the community and some importance to the community.”

The news magazine Salmeron means is For Your Information (FYI), which airs on CitiTV, Channel 19. This past February, CTN aired the 500th edition of the show. A recent edition of FYI included segments on a theatre production in West Park, Ypsilanti’s Heritage Festival, and breastfeeding awareness month. Other Channel 19 programs include Ward Talk (interviews with city council members) and Conversations (interviews by Jim Blow with public figures). Recent programs aired on CTN’s Channel 19 are available online.

In seeking that local flavor on other channels, CTN fulfills two very separate functions.

The first coincides with the network’s history as a public access center. Channel 17, the public access channel, provides a venue for citizens. As Salmeron notes, “[A]ny citizen can step up and comment … [L]iterally, our programs are a soap box to get themselves heard.” One example of that is the CTN-produced Access Soapbox on Channel 17, a program that allows Ann Arbor residents to get in front of a camera and say their piece by expressing an opinion, announcing events, or raising any issues they think should be of concern for other Ann Arbor residents.

An example of a regular program airing on Channel 17 that is not produced by CTN staff is Other Perspectives, a public affairs interview show hosted by Ann Arbor resident Nancy Kaplan.

While it receives just one-quarter of CTN’s resources, a commitment to public access remains an integral part of CTN’s mission. That’s reflected in part by a recent effort to create a kind of online clearinghouse for video material related to Ann Arbor with a CTN Miro Community. In addition to hosting Channel 17′s public access material online, the Miro Community provides a way for Ann Arborites to add videos they’ve already uploaded to other online platforms – like YouTube, Vimeo, Blip.TV or Google Video – to CTN’s clearinghouse. Searches of those platforms for videos described with the term “Ann Arbor” currently return more than 10,000 results.

A second function of CTN’s other channels is described by Salmeron as “providing that window of transparency for government.”

Salmeron notes the growth of CTN’s meeting coverage on Channel 16 – a channel that began by airing only eight or so monthly meetings has grown to cover regularly 15 or 16 monthly meetings, Salmeron says. That works out to upwards of 210-220 live meetings a year, he estimates.

Over the last two years, the boards of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority have begun videotaping their meetings and making the recordings available through CTN’s online video on demand service. Earlier this year, the board of the Ann Arbor District Library considered, but ultimately rejected a proposal to videotape its meetings.

The Future of CTN

What if sometime in the future, a resident wants to review one of those government meetings that was previously broadcast live? And more generally, what is CTN’s future role in Ann Arbor?

The Chronicle followed up with Paul Bancel, who had addressed the city council back in May 2009 challenging the council to make CTN relevant. Bancel is a former member of the cable communications commission.

By way of background, the commission is an advisory board to CTN that Salmeron says “helps us work through policy issues and budgeting.” One of the key recommendations from a study of CTN, undertaken by then-University of Michigan student Matt Hampel, was to eliminate the commission in favor of an information technology advisory board.

Bancel offered two recommendations concerning CTN’s changing role in the future.

His first suggestion is to revise the city’s ordinance on cable franchise fees so that the franchise fee revenue would be directed to the city’s general fund.

Bancel argues that because this would make budgeting for CTN the same as other general fund activities, “the relevancy of CTN will soon become apparent.” Currently, Bancel says, CTN “gets an ‘Advance to Go’ card and collect your $200 at budget time.”

While acknowledging that cable franchise fees could be directed to purposes other than local cable programming, Salmeron argues that CTN’s mission includes fulfilling a community role that is noticeably absent in broadcast stations of major cities such as Detroit.

Another suggestion from Bancel to ensure the relevancy of CTN is to measure the viewership of every program. To guarantee a sense of accountability, Bancel says, “we recommended that CTN monitor and track the quality of the broadcasts.”

CTN has, to some extent, adopted that kind of approach. CTN does not have viewership data for its four broadcast channels, though it is possible to record the statistics for its online video-on-demand service. Here’s a sample of the viewership for May 2011 government meetings online:

 10 Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Board
  4 Cable Communications Commission
232 City Council
  2 Disabilities Issues
 13 Energy Commission
  2 Environmental Commission
  5 Greenbelt Advisory Commission
  2 Historic District Commission
  9 Human Rights Commission
 11 Park Advisory Commission
  9 Planning Commission
  5 Zoning Board of Appeals

304 MAY 2011 TOTAL VIEWS

-
[Note: Salmeron clarified that CTN is unable to identify the breakdown of IP addresses for each viewing, which means that theoretically the data could be skewed if, for example, one person decided to watch the zoning board of appeals meeting five times. But as Salmeron noted, “[T]hese are municipal meetings, and I would be surprised if there were more than a handful of people (excluding reporters) who watched the same meeting more than once.”]

Bancel also noted in conversation with The Chronicle that during his time on the cable communications commission, CTN did not have specific, measurable goals: “Goals were general, like improve communication with the university.”

In the FY 2012 city of Ann Arbor budget book, the kind of goals and metrics that are now indicated for the city’s communications unit (which includes CTN) are outlined as follows:

Service Unit Goals
A. Increase by 15 percent information distributed to internal and external audiences about Ann Arbor municipal news, innovative programs, awards and services from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012.
B. Develop and assist in the implementation of new technology resources to engage citizens and employees and enhance understanding of city services and initiatives from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012.

Service Unit Measures Status
A. Track the number of information pieces distributed monthly and highlight up to three hot topics via the Communication Office Matrix (information pieces include print/online newsletter, news releases, events, public information meetings, Gov Delivery notifications, CTN programs, social media tools, website page updates/development) by June 30, 2012.
B. Track status of technology resource project implementations each month. These new resources include integration of new media, such as Podcasts and live web streaming of city meetings to promote City information and CTN services, applications to monitor effectiveness of communication messages/vehicles (Google Analytics, GovDelivery subscribers and click throughs, A2C report, Survey Monkey, VOD views) by June 30, 2012.
C1. Track the number of new training participants, clients, and PEG programs (detailed information to include specific training classes, participants, and clients) via the CTN monthly report as a result of new trainer position/programs by June 30, 2012.

The 210-220 yearly government meetings aired live on CTN represent an archiving challenge, even in the digital age. CTN’s current online archiving policies encourages medium, but not long-term, preservation of government meeting material. City council meetings are archived online for two years, and all other meetings are stored for six months.

Salmeron says that a single factor dictates CTN’s online archiving policy: server space. He says, “It will all come down to the amount of space and what we can afford to build.”

CTN buys its server space for online streaming and video on-demand from Leightronix, a company based in Holt, Mich. CTN has two PEG Central accounts, a service offered by Leightronix, that costs $5,677 per year. Each account has 500 hours of storage, so CTN has 1,000 hours total of online storage available. If CTN wanted to increase its storage capacity, it could do so in 500 hour increments by adding additional PEG Central accounts.

CTN is still working on its archiving system. Only in 2009 did CTN start to convert its videotapes to DVD and begin to capture meetings on DVD. When The Chronicle was interested in reviewing the Feb. 17, 2009 Ann Arbor city council meeting, we first noted that the previously available online recording was no longer accessible – it had been a casualty of storage space limits. When we followed up with a request for the corresponding DVD, CTN staff reported that the disk was not in the slot in the binder where it was kept.

Salmeron says of the incident, “What we have determined is that that was a meeting where there were technical difficulties, so there’s no way to retrieve a recording that doesn’t exist.” He is also quick to note, “Our recordings are not the official record for documents. For council or for any of the other commissions or boards, the documented record is the clerk’s notes.”

However, the official written minutes made by the city clerk are “action minutes,” which record the outcome of all votes, but do not depict discussion among councilmembers, even in summary form. And the audio recordings made by the clerk’s office on cassette tape are not freely accessible to the public. No other organization besides CTN systematically makes visual recordings of government meetings. So CTN’s video is in some sense irreplaceable if it goes missing.

When asked where CTN’s online services and archiving policies are headed 10 years from now, Salmeron says, “We have to keep changing with the media that changes …  Unfortunately, we don’t have the type of budget to stay on the cutting edge with the national broadcasters … We’re just trying to keep up with the media as best we can.”

About the writer: Hayley Byrnes is an intern with The Ann Arbor Chronicle. The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. 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!