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!

Aaron Seagraves, the city's public arts administrator, and Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, in the entryway atrium of city hall, which is still being renovated. Mosaics by the artist Gerry Kamrowski, formerly at the entrance to city hall, will be installed on the wall behind Chamberlin. (Photo by the writer.)

One of those updates included a report that Jeff Meyers, a commissioner who has launched a public mural program, no longer wants to take the lead in that effort. The pilot program has proposed creating murals at Allmendinger Park and on a retaining wall along Huron Parkway. Because of low turnout at two recent neighborhood forums about the murals, city staff now plan to post an online survey to solicit feedback about the locations.

The commission also got updates on several other projects, including a large water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl that’s on track for installation in August. Large bronze plates are being cast at a firm in Warren, Michigan, and site work is continuing in front of the municipal center, where the sculpture will be located.

The commission is also seeking members for a selection committee to choose additional artwork for the lobby of the justice center – the new building at Fifth and Huron that’s adjacent to city hall. (Together, the buildings are known in some circles as the “municipal center.”) A statement of qualifications/request for proposals for the lobby art has been issued, with a deadline for responses extended until Sept. 1. The previous May 31 deadline did not yield sufficient responses for the project, which has an artist’s budget of up to $150,000.

Mural Project

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin reported that Jeff Meyers – who did not attend Wednesday’s meeting – wants to step out of the role he’s had in championing the pilot mural program. She said he feels like the project has been stalemated – it was expected that two murals would be completed by September, and that’s not likely to happen.

The pilot program, developed by Meyers, was approved by AAPAC in November 2010, with the intent of creating at least two murals per year in the city. It has an estimated budget of $25,000 this year. Meyers formed a task force, which recommended two sites for the first murals: A building at Allmendinger Park, and a retaining wall along Huron Parkway. AAPAC approved those sites at a special meeting in March, but city staff later determined that the meeting hadn’t been properly noticed, so a second special meeting was called in April and the vote was retaken.

Then, city staff realized that AAPAC’s 2011 annual public art plan, which includes the mural program, hadn’t been officially approved by Ann Arbor city council. Though the plan was approved last year by AAPAC and forwarded to city staff, it was never placed on council’s agenda. [See Chronicle coverage: "What's Ahead for Public Mural Program?"] The council formally received the plan at its June 20 meeting, when it approved the clerk’s report of communications, of which the plan was a part.

Meanwhile, public meetings were held over the past few weeks to get feedback from residents near Allmendinger Park and Huron Parkway, but the meetings were not well-attended – five people showed up to the Allmendinger forum, and only one person came to the meeting for the Huron Parkway mural. City staff are now designing an online survey to get additional input. A statement of qualifications (SOQ) to start the artist selection process hasn’t yet been drafted.

Cheryl Zuellig called Meyers’ decision unfortunate. Elaine Sims said the original timetable had been overly ambitious. ”The world doesn’t work like that,” she said. Sims also noted that Meyers hadn’t attended the May or June AAPAC meetings, and wondered whether serving on the commission “isn’t working for him.” Chamberlin indicated that’s part of the reason for his decision. She said she hoped he’d come to AAPAC’s July meeting to give the group an update. Wiltrud Simbuerger said she hoped he’d reconsider.

In an email response to a query from The Chronicle later in the week, Meyers said he was still in discussions about possible changes, and deferred comment until an outcome is determined.

Municipal Center: Dreiseitl, Additional Art

Commissioners received a written report on the water sculpture designed by Herbert Dreiseitl. The report – prepared by Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects, the project manager for the municipal center construction and renovation – included photos of large bronze plates that were cast the week of June 13 at Wolverine Bronze in Warren, Michigan. Six out of 11 plates were cast, with the remaining five to be cast this week.

The first bronze cast plate for a water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl. (Photo courtesy of Quinn Evans Architects.)

Modifications are being made to the site where the sculpture will be installed, in front of the renovated city hall and newly built justice center – together known as the municipal center. One change – removing fill dirt that had been put into a channel during construction – was not in the project’s original scope of work. Responding to an email query from The Chronicle, Clein said he didn’t yet know how much the unanticipated dirt removal would cost, but the extra cost would be absorbed in the overall budget.

Last year, the city council approved a budget of $737,820 for the piece. The city had previously paid Dreiseitl $77,000 in preliminary design fees. Funding comes in part from the Percent for Art stormwater funds, because the sculpture is designed as part of the site’s stormwater management.

The sculpture is expected to be installed in August. Marsha Chamberlin said that AAPAC’s public relations committee would be working on a dedication ceremony for the piece, possibly in September. They plan to coordinate with the city’s grand opening of the entire municipal center, which hasn’t yet been scheduled.

Elaine Sims said the casting looks lovely, but she didn’t recall that it was part of the design that AAPAC had approved. [That approval took place in October 2009. See Chronicle coverage: "Dreiseitl Project Moves to City Council"]

During Wednesday’s meeting, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s new public arts administrator – reported that the statement of qualifications/request for proposals has been reposted for art in the justice center lobby. [.pdf of justice center art SOQ/RFP] From that document:

As visitors and staff enter the lobby of the AAJC, they will pass through a security check point and into the large open lobby area. A blue glass wall spans the length of the entire right side of the lobby area and floor to ceiling windows are on the remaining three walls. The artwork will be located in the southwest corner of the lobby. This corner currently has a public seating bench with a carpeted floor area underneath. Public traffic for the AAJC will be for the 15th District Court, Probation Office and Police Services.

Specific attention needs to be given to the type of piece that can sustain a high traffic volume. This artwork should be a ceiling mounted or suspended piece that will be visible and make an impression looking in from both North Fifth Avenue and Huron Street (southwest corner) during the day and at night with either incorporated or reflected lighting. The artwork should complement the building and surrounding site environment. The artwork should speak to the public purposes of the building, which include public safety, justice, equality and security.

The project has an artist’s budget of up to $150,000 – the deadline for responses to the SOQ/RFP is Sept. 1. A total of $250,000 had been budgeted for that piece, plus additional artwork in an outdoor courtyard behind the municipal center, facing Ann Street.

Sims reported that the municipal center public art task force had met and agreed that they would also serve as the selection committee for art in the lobby of the justice center (also known as the police/courts building) at Fifth and Huron, as well as for art in the outdoor courtyard. However, they’ll also be adding additional people to the selection committee, she said. Individuals have been suggested, and Seagraves is contacting them.

Cheryl Zuellig asked whether they’d be getting a “Joe Resident” to serve on the selection committee. When Sims indicated that Ray Detter fit that description, there was general laughter, and a consensus that he wasn’t an average resident. [Among other things, Detter chairs the city's downtown area citizens advisory council.] Sims noted that Detter does live downtown, as does another task force member, Doug Kelbaugh. [Kelbaugh is former dean of the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning, and is currently proposing his services to help the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority with a downtown planning project.]

The person doesn’t have to be a resident, Zuellig said. She had in mind someone who might have cause to use the municipal center – to pay a parking ticket, for example – or someone who worked in the area. The same kind of person is needed for the mural committee, she said. Especially for the Huron Parkway project, nearby residents aren’t necessarily the ones who’ll be most affected – there are many others who drive by that location every day on their way to and from work, she said.

Sims suggested soliciting volunteers on AAPAC’s website, or having a sign-up at the July 18 Townie Party. At that, Zuellig cautioned that they need to think it through – will they select anyone who signs up? Be careful what you wish for, she said. Marsha Chamberlin said they might want to ask people who work at downtown businesses. She noted that Bank of Ann Arbor, for example, has an office just a block away from the municipal center – some of those employees might be interested.

Other Projects: East Stadium Bridges, Townie Party

Several brief updates were given during the meeting from members of the projects, public relations and planning committees.

Other Projects: East Stadium Bridges

Cheryl Zuellig reported that she and Wiltrud Simbuerger had discussed how to move forward on the public art component for the E. Stadium Boulevard bridges construction. They plan to meet with city engineer Michael Nearing to find out about the project’s schedule, and to get more details about funding. [Under the city's Percent for Art program, 1% of any capital project is set aside for public art, with a cap of $250,000. Given the multi-million budget for the East Stadium bridges project, it's likely that the full $250,000 will be available for public art.]

Zuellig said they hope to have enough information by August so that the planning committee can evaluate it and decide whether to move forward.

Other Projects: Townie Party

Commissioners continued a discussion that they’d had at their May meeting about plans for the July 18 Townie Party, an event for local residents held by the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair. The party takes place before the official start of the Ann Arbor art fairs. This year, the art fairs run from July 20-23.

AAPAC will have a table at the Townie Party, and Marsha Chamberlin gave an update from the public relations committee, which is organizing activities and handouts for the event. They’re hoping to have some kind of interactive element, she said. One idea is to take digital photos of people who stop by, and use a software program to insert people’s faces into works of famous art, like the Mona Lisa. Those photos would then be posted on AAPAC’s Facebook page. They’ll also be distributing buttons and bumper stickers promoting public art.

Elaine Sim noted that last year, AAPAC’s table was located next to the University Musical Society, which Sims said had great giveaways. AAPAC needs something to really grab people’s attention, she said.

Cheryl Zuellig urged them to think big. They’re all about public art, she said, so they should have the most visual, thought-provoking presence. If they simply hand out brochures, they’re missing an opportunity. If they’re going to have handouts, she suggested perhaps having performing artists circulate in the crowd to pass out information. Chamberlin said they are somewhat constrained by the event’s organizers.

Commissioners discussed other possibilities, such as having a large screen at the table to display images of the digitally transformed faces-into-artwork images. The public relations committee will continue to take the lead on planning for the event.

Other Projects: Golden Paintbrush Awards

Chamberlin gave a brief update on the annual Golden Paintbrush awards, which honor local contributions to public art. Seven or eight nominations were received, she said, and commissioners will be voting using an online interface. [No additional information was provided on the nominations at Wednesday's meeting.] Winners will be recognized at an upcoming city council meeting.

Administrator’s Update, Percent for Art Budget

Aaron Seagraves attended his first AAPAC meeting last month, but has now settled in to his part-time job as the city’s new public art administrator and gave his first report to the commission on Wednesday.

He presented a budget summary for the Percent for Art program, showing that the program has an estimated $969,219.73 available for new projects in FY 2012, which begins July 1, 2011. [.pdf of Percent for Art budget summary] Commissioners praised the summary as being more readable than previous reports, but they raised some questions, too. For example, the summary lists $240,000 as an estimate for public art at the proposed Fuller Road Station, to be taken out of existing funds that have accumulated in the public art program. However, commissioners indicated that the public art for Fuller Road Station would be funded from public art money that Fuller Road Station generates itself, which would be an additional $250,000 (assuming the project – a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station – is given final approval by city council).

They also had questions about the amount budgeted for remaining administrative costs – $72,355.15. Elaine Sims suspected that the amount represented the admin budget for two years. Seagraves said he’d check on it and report back.

Seagraves also noted that the city council had formally received AAPAC’s annual art plan earlier this month. [.pdf of FY 2012 art plan] He reminded commissioners that AAPAC’s annual report is due by the end of August – per the city’s ordinance, it’s due 60 days after the end of the fiscal year, which falls on June 30. [.pdf of last year's annual report]

The group discussed the difference between the annual art plan and the annual report, as defined in the Percent for Art ordinance. [.pdf of Percent for Art ordinance]

From the ordinance:

1:837. Oversight Body.
(1) The oversight body shall be the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission as established by section 1:238 of chapter 8.
(2) The oversight body shall:
…
(G) Present an annual report to city council within sixty (60) days after the end of each fiscal year containing:
(i) A report on the status of all public art incorporated into or funded by capital improvement projects in progress or completed during the preceding fiscal year;
(ii) A maintenance report on each work of public art presently under city management detailing maintenance costs for the preceding fiscal year, anticipated maintenance costs for the next fiscal year, and any significant future maintenance concerns, including prioritized recommendations for the maintenance, repair or renovation of particular works;
(iii) A review of the city’s public art with regard to the purposes stated in this chapter;
(iv) A report on the oversight body’s efforts to promote awareness of public art;
(v) A report on donations of art and where such art was placed;
(vi) A report on additional funds raised and how such funds were used; and
(vii) Any other matter of substantial financial or public importance relating to the public art in the city.

Commissioners discussed how to draft the document. Chamberlin said she thought it should include a tribute to Margaret Parker for her years of service. [Parker, who didn't attend Wednesday's meeting, was a driving force behind the creation of the Percent for Art ordinance, and served as chair of the commission before stepping down from that post at the end of 2010.]

Commissioners present: Marsha Chamberlin, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Elaine Sims, Cheryl Zuellig. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public arts administrator.

Absent: Connie Brown, Cathy Gendron, Margaret Parker, Jeff Meyers, Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, July 27 at 4:30 p.m., in the fourth floor conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The economic development fund was established on June 18, 2007 by a unanimous vote of the city council by transferring $2.18 million from the general fund to the new economic development fund. It was set up to meet the city’s commitment made to Google to pay for up to 400 parking spaces for its employees, for up to four years for an estimated total cost of approximately $2,029,017. Google’s hiring was not as rapid as it had initially projected, and that left a bit under half of the money untapped.

The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) No. 54 has also changed the definition of what funds qualify as special revenue funds – the city’s economic development fund was established as such a fund, but no longer qualifies under the new GASB 54 definition, and thus needs to be blended back into the general fund.

The council’s resolution also amended the current fiscal year 2011 budget in some other ways as well, so that expenditures from funds that exceeded budgeted amounts are appropriately covered. Among those expenditures covered were: the International City/County Management Association fire protection study ($54,000); higher maintenance costs for Superior Dam ($35,000); higher snow removal costs and cleanup from the recent Plymouth Road mudslide and pavement markings ($500,000).

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The $183 million budget went through many iterations since originally proposed in April, before the board approved it on Wednesday evening on a 5-2 vote. Trustees Simone Lightfoot and Christine Stead dissented.

Details on the board deliberations that led to the split vote on the budget will be included in The Chronicle’s forthcoming meeting report, along with the other board business transacted that evening.

This brief highlights the key elements of the approved budget.

Instructional Staff Reductions and Associated Impacts

The new budget will decrease the number of teaching positions by 62.3, which will save the district $5.6 million, but cause an increase of class sizes of approximately two to three students per classroom across the district. Class size targets will be 23-25 students in grades K-2, 26-30 students in grades 3-5, and an average of 30 students in grades 6-12.

The original budget proposal brought to the board in April suggested cuts to 70 teaching positions, but at a study session on the budget held last week, administrators suggested adding back 7.7 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. The rationale for adding those positions was primarily to address some “uncomfortably high” class sizes and multi-grade classes in early grades, according to Lee-Ann Dickinson-Kelley, AAPS interim deputy superintendent of instruction.

Assistant superintendent of secondary schools, Joyce Hunter, explained at Wednesday’s meeting that the reduction of approximately 48 secondary level FTEs will impact the number of course offerings.  For example, she said, classes with lower enrollment, such as higher-level world languages, will be offered at a single location instead of at each high school. Trustees suggested making use of distance learning technology, instead of shuttling, to ensure that all students are able to take advantage of these consolidated classes.

Dickinson-Kelley reminded the board that “staffing is an enormously complex process,” and that class enrollment can change dramatically over the summer.

Other cuts to instructional services included a reduction of seven administrative and central office FTEs, for additional savings of $600,000.

Transportation Service Reductions

The budget passed this week will significantly modify bus service offered by the district, for a total savings in transportation costs of $1.3 million.  The largest change will come in high school busing: Instead of being picked up at traditional bus stops, high school students will be picked up at a fewer number of centralized pick-up points throughout the district.

Most of these common pick-up sites will be elementary schools, which are concentrated primarily in the center of the AAPS district area.  A small number of common pick-up sites might be added in areas of the district where there are concentrated numbers of high school students who live too far out to walk to the nearest elementary school pick-up site.

Liz Margolis, AAPS director of communications, said Wednesday that routes would be set by the end of July, and that families will be notified of the transportation service changes as soon as possible.

The approved budget also eliminates 7th hour busing at the high schools, eliminates after-school shuttles at the middle schools, and requires consistent implementation of board policy on distances between bus stops.

Other cuts to operations include the elimination of 3.75 FTEs in information technology, human resources and support positions, and a reduction of maintenance costs, legal fees, and gas costs, for an additional savings of $660,000.

Changes in Revenue

District interim superintendent Robert Allen reported at Wednesday’s meeting that AAPS had attracted only 130 additional students through Schools of Choice (SOC) instead of the targeted number of 170. That lowered revenue by $300,000.  However, Allen noted that enrollment numbers could still increase, and pointed out that during the last two weeks of August last year, over 160 students joined the district.

Allen also pointed out that the budget had been adjusted to include a one-time disbursement of $2.4 million in aid from the state to the district to offset the state-mandated increase in employer retirement contributions.

Parking fees will also bring the district an additional $100,000 in revenue this coming year – fans choosing to park at Pioneer High School to attend University of Michigan football games will be charged $40 instead of $35.

Decreases in Wages and Benefits

Savings in wages and benefits totaling $2.6 million were part of the budget as originally proposed, and saw no amendments during the budget deliberation process on Wednesday.  Those savings include negotiated freezes in teacher pay, savings in health care costs, and reductions in supplemental pay for after-school activities.

District-Wide Reductions

All AAPS departments were instructed to cut 7% of their budgets without entirely eliminating any program, for a total savings of $500,000.

Two former students spoke during public commentary at Wednesday’s meeting to ask the board to maintain funding of  the district’s creative writing program, as well as to continue the support it offers to the literary arts programs of the Neutral Zone, a local teen center.

Allen confirmed at Wednesday’s meeting that while the district will continue to support a number of initiatives through the superintendent’s account or other discretionary budgets, the support will be at a lower level.

There was no discussion on other remaining district-wide savings measures totaling nearly $1.4 million, which include reducing noon-hour supervision and substitute costs, and lowering building and athletics budgets.

Fund Balance

Though board policy requires AAPS to maintain a fund balance equal to at least 15% of its operating budget, again next year the district is projecting a fund balance below that target .

The projected beginning balance of the district’s fund equity next year is $19.6 million.  The initial budget proposal called for using $1.73 million in fund equity during the next school year to supplement revenue.  However, the budget as eventually approved is projected to use only $810,000 in fund equity, keeping it just above $19 million, or 10.4% of the budget, at the end of the 2011-12 fiscal year.

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the Ann Arbor Public Schools. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Left to right: Roger Hewitt, mayor John Hieftje, Leah Gunn. Hewitt, a DDA board member, had just handed over a check for $1 million to the mayor. It was the second half of a payment the DDA had agreed to make last year, which had not been required as part of the DDA's parking contract with the city. (Photos by the writer.)

At Wednesday’s meeting, the board also recapped the previous night’s session of the Ann Arbor city council, which had been a continuation of the meeting that began on May 16. At that meeting, the council had finally ratified its side of a new contract under which the DDA would continue to manage the city’s public parking system.

Key elements of that contract include a transfer to the city of Ann Arbor of 17% of annual gross parking revenues, reporting requirements by the city to the DDA about parking enforcement and street repair, and the ability of the DDA to set parking rates and hours without a city council veto.

The DDA board will likely schedule an extended board meeting in September to prepare for a contractually-required joint working session with the city council, which will include a discussion of parking rates and hours of enforcement.

Included in the usual range of the DDA’s reports from its committees was a review of a recent partnerships committee meeting, when DDA board members began to consider how they would handle the responsibility to plan future uses of city-owned surface parking lots downtown. The DDA was given that responsibility in a city council resolution passed at the council’s April 4, 2011 meeting.

Budget Revisions for FY 2011

By way of introducing the resolution on the agenda to revise the budget, Roger Hewitt observed that the DDA passes a budget every year, but is required by state law to amend the budget to reflect actual income and expenses. That’s what the resolution was about, he said.

Many of the changes are due to the South Fifth Avenue underground parking garage construction and the ratification of the new parking agreement with the city. While they are significant changes to the budget, Hewitt said, these were all items the board had previously discussed, voted on and planned for. [.pdf of DDA FY 2011 budget revisions]

Budget Revisions: TIF

Hewitt ticked through the line items that accounted for revisions in the TIF (tax increment finance) fund budget. One item was an added employee. Another line item requiring revision was for energy grants – it had been increased from $200,000 to $381,000 due to unspent money from previous years. The interest payment on the former YMCA lot was shifted out of TIF and into the parking fund. The payment to the city for the municipal center was reclassified as a grant instead of bond payment. There’s an added expense for the real estate consultant – The Roxbury Group – in connection with the Library Lot request for proposals (RFP). The Zingerman’s Deli brownfield program is a $207,000 item, and the return of excess TIF capture to taxing units in the DDA’s district amounted to $473,000.

Some items that are under budget include lower expenses on the Fifth and Division streetscape improvement project. For the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure, the entire bond payment will be made out of TIF fund for the first five years – after that, the parking fund will take over, said Hewitt. For the bottom line, the TIF fund expenses are $850,000 lower than originally budgeted.

Budget Revisions: Parking Fund

In the parking fund, the budget revision reflects about $800,000 less revenue – due to a delay in new rates going into effect. The rate increases had been delayed from July 1 to Sept. 1 due to concerns about the negative impact on summer business. Legal fees had increased due to work on the new parking contract. About $200,000 had been saved by having Republic Parking staff do information technology work instead of contracting it out to a different entity. Overall expenses for Republic Parking were down this year. Bond payments for the underground parking garage are reduced, because the TIF fund will pick up that cost for the first five years.

Hewitt touched briefly on the other two funds in the DDA’s budget – the parking maintenance fund and the housing fund. The parking maintenance fund didn’t get its usual $2 million transfer this year. Actual parking maintenance expenses had been reduced from $1 million to $600,000. Maintenance costs had been deferred, but over the 10 years in the DDA’s 10-year plan, Hewitt said, the maintenance fund would remain whole. The deferred schedule was based on recommendations from the DDA’s engineering consultant. The DDA had elected not to go ahead with installation of additional e-park stations, saving $1.3 million in the short term.

Russ Collins confirmed with Hewitt that the $2 million reduction in parking fund expenses had been achieved primarily by deferring maintenace.

Outcome: The DDA board voted unanimously to approve the changes to its FY 2011 budget.

May 31 City Council Meeting Re-Cap

Board chair Joan Lowenstein invited Roger Hewitt to make the report out from the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee by saying that she hoped this is the last time the board ever has to ask for such a report. Hewitt reviewed recent events, including the special meeting the board had convened on May 27 to ratify the final version of the new parking contract under which the DDA would continue to manage the city’s public parking system.

Hewitt reported how the previous evening, the contract had been considered by the Ann Arbor city council, and had provoked a two-hour debate – an hour and a half of which he’d spent answering questions from councilmembers. Some of the questions Hewitt described as “relevant,” and some had not been so relevant. Hewitt reported that an amendment on restoring a council veto to the contract was defeated 9-2, and the vote on the contract was approved 11-0. So now there’s a new parking contract, Hewitt said. It begins July 1, 2011 and lasts for 11 years – there’s an option for both sides to renew it.

The contract will allow the DDA some flexibility for parking demand management. For their work on the contract Hewitt thanked the DDA staff – Susan Pollay and Joe Morehouse. Pollay had been invaluable in making sure the contract gives the DDA the tools it needs, he said. The contract language is much more clear, so there will be no misunderstanding about what it means. He said that Morehouse had repeatedly been given a new set of numbers to run – he’d cranked out an enormous amount of data to help come up with an agreement the DDA can live with.

Lowenstein said a big advantage of the contract is greater stability. She said the DDA didn’t want to give up as much money as the contract calls for, but that the DDA will move on and will be better for it. She thanked Hewitt for his work and mayor  John Hieftje for “steering the discussion” at the city council meeting.

Hewitt returned Lowenstein’s thanks for helping to work out the politics with the city council and “getting it to the finish line.”

Russ Collins described the contract negotiations as a long process. But he said that “we need to ask ourselves: Did we do right by the voters, taxpayers, citizens?” Collins said he appreciated some of the dialogue about the parking contract generated by city council. He may not have appreciated it immediately when he heard it, but he did appreciate it, he said. He also added that he hoped the city council appreciated the DDA’s dialogue.

Sometimes people get whipped up in the controversy without stepping back and understanding what the accomplishment is, Collins said: The parking system is excellent. Parking, he continued, is an emotional issue that transcends logic. Miraculously, Collins said, both the DDA board and the city council had unanimously approved the parking contract – they can’t lose that point. That makes all the “Sturm and Drang” worth it, he said. Collins thanked Lowenstein and Hieftje.

Hieftje noted that the council had also passed another resolution recognizing the issue of excess TIF capture, and councilmembers had agreed to waive the $712,000 in excess taxes that had been captured from the city of Ann Arbor since 2004. Later, during the discussion on budget revisions, Gary Boren asked how final the excesss TIF capture issue was. Had the other taxing units accepted the calculations as correct? Hewitt told Boren the numbers are based on the opinion of Jerry Lax, the DDA’s legal council. Another taxing authority could challenge the DDA’s calculations, he said. The city of Ann Arbor’s share, in any case, is roughly 60% of the total. Lowenstein confirmed that the return of the excess TIF to other taxing authorities would be made by the end of this month.

Hewitt noted that during the council’s May 31 session, an issue had been raised [by councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3)] about a possible non-payment of $1 million owed to the city by the DDA, which is related to parking revenues (not excess TIF capture). The issue concerned the payment of the second part of $2 million that the DDA had awarded the city of Ann Arbor last year, which had not been required under the parking contract then in place.

Hewitt said he had a check for the mayor, which he handed to Hieftje, saying, “Now, we’re even.”

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: Downtown Development

Russ Collins reported that Cresson Slotten, the city of Ann Arbor unit manager in the systems planning division, had given a presentation to the partnerships committee on the city’s water and sewer system. Collins said citizens should know that most of it was installed about 100 years ago – things have changed over the last 100 years.

Collins described the problem that is faced when a developer is “first in” and needs to bear the entire cost of installing a new water main, to which subsequent developers get free access. That really doesn’t seem fair. Sandi Smith, who co-chairs the partnerships committee with Collins, also noted that Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of the University of Michigan college of architecture and urban planning, and lecturer Kit McCullough had approached the committee and shared their thoughts on a public process for the future use of city-owned downtown parcels. [Chronicle coverage: "DDA Preps Downtown Ann Arbor Process"]

They want to develop a shorter term 5-year vision as well as a 25-year vision, Smith said. She noted that local developer Peter Allen has also made some efforts in this direction, too, already talking to individual business owners in the area of the Library Lot, where the DDA is building an underground parking structure. Allen is doing this on his own, Smith noted. She said the committee had asked Kelbaugh and McCullough to come up with a specific proposal, and they’ll present that at the next meeting of the DDA partnerships committee. The DDA can then decide if it wants to hire them. The next meeting of the partnerships committee is June 8, 2011 at 9 a.m. at 150 S. Fifth Avenue.

Local developer Peter Allen appealed to the map on the wall for his brief remarks made during public commentary at the DDA board's June 1 meeting.

Peter Allen was also present at the June 1 meeting. He took the opportunity –provided at the end of all DDA board meetings for public commentary – to briefly sketch some preliminary feedback he’d heard from those people with whom he’d spoken so far. He described the need to connect “four corners,” which are: the Allen Creek greenway; the riverfront of the Huron River; the Fuller Road Station (a proposed parking garage, bus depot and possible train station); and the University of Michigan campus.

Ray Detter’s report from the downtown citizens advisory council (CAC) also focused on future planning of downtown. Detter explained that he had not attended the previous month’s DDA board meeting, because he’d been helping with tours given to 400 high school students to introduce them to the city’s history. He also plugged his annual party, which takes place on June 9.

Detter told the board that the CAC’s meeting the previous evening had included a recommitment to support transportation area planning and the Fuller Road Station – they hoped for an improved design as a result of recently acquired federal funding. The CAC continues to support the downtown planning of the Library Lot, he said. The CAC had unanimously agreed that the Library Lot should be more than a park – it should be a mixed-use development that includes an as-green-as-possible plaza. That new plaza should be connected to Library Lane – a small east-west road, just north of the downtown library building, that will connect Division and Fifth.

Whatever is approved for the Library Lot should add to the city’s tax base, Detter continued. That all sounds like “standard stuff,” allowed Detter. He told the board: “That’s our position and we’ll be sticking to it!” As for the suggestion that the city needs to go back to community for further consultation, Detter said the CAC thinks the last six years that began with the Calthorpe process has already done that. Out of that process had come a community vision and revised downtown plan and downtown parking study. Everybody had their say, Detter contended – city officials, planning staff, and the community.

The A2D2 rezoning process reinforces “our faith in planning,” Detter said. A2D2 replaces a hodgepodge of zoning districts with just two: D1 and D2. Finishing the design guidelines took an additional year, Detter said. Detter mentioned that coming up very soon, on the site of the Prescription Shop on Washington Street, another student-housing type development was being planned – the CAC hopes to be able to support that project, Detter said.

Comm/Comm: Parking Report

Roger Hewitt characterized the parking report for April 2011 as containing nothing dramatic. The 5.5% increase in revenue compared to last year reflects a parking rate increase in the 6-7% range. So overall, Hewitt said, there’s slightly less usage, but it’s essentially pretty flat.

The number of hourly patrons is up slightly. Hewitt also pointed out that the parking system has about 200 fewer parking spaces than it had a year ago – due to the loss of parking spaces because of construction. Hewitt concluded by reiterating there is nothing particularly dramatic –  it’s not growing, but it’s not clearly shrinking, either. Hewitt said there are two private developments underway [601 S. Forest and Zaragon West – previously known as Zaragon II]. So there’ll be some additional demand when they’re completed, he said. Construction on the new underground garage at Fifth Avenue will be completed by that time, Hewitt said, so the parking system will have some flexibility.

Later in the meeting, Hewitt also noted that the DDA has asked Republic Parking to take a look at generating data on “car hours.” Instead of just looking at the financial part of usage data, the DDA would like to look at actual cars in the system. The question is whether software can kick out the data that they think is already there, Hewitt said. It would be a way to measure demand, not just revenues. [.pdf of parking report for April 2011]

Comm/Comm: Parking Customer Survey

Roger Hewitt also reported on the results of a regular survey of parking system customers: 147 responses had been received in April – a 10% response rate. Of those, 41% had rated the system as excellent and 33% had rated it very good. Considering how many people normally react to surveys, Hewitt said, that’s a high percentage. He noted that typically everyone wants plenty of parking and they want it to be free.

Sandi Smith then followed up on a brief discussion of parking customer payments made by credit card, which took place during the budget adjustment deliberations. Those deliberations had drawn out the fact that increased use of credit cards by parking customers had resulted in additional fees of $7,000.

Hewitt said it reflected the fact that payment by credit card at the new on-street kiosks is being embraced by the parking public – 58% pay with credit card. Deputy DDA director Joe Morehouse said that the credit charge processing fee is 5.5%. Based on his experience operating a restaurant, Hewitt said, the smaller the charge is, the higher the percentage. Joan Lowenstein said there might be some federal legislation passed soon that could reduce that percentage.

What Smith wanted to know is if zip code data could be obtained from credit card companies, or if that information could be required at the point of payment. Morehouse indicated that he would look into that.

Smith also suggested that the board schedule an extended meeting at the end of the summer to look at the impact of the newly ratified parking contract on the DDA’s 10-year plan. Hewitt noted that the revised budget would be plugged into the 10-year plan. He also noted that under the new contract, the DDA board would need to hold a joint working sessin with the city council in October. Based on that, Smith suggested that the extended board meeting could take place on an afternoon in September.

Comm/Comm: Retail Recruitment

Reporting out from the DDA’s economic development committee, Joan Lowenstein said the committee was in a listening-and-learning mode. At the last meeting, the committee had representatives  from different downtown area associations and the Main Street business improvement zone (BIZ). Generally, business is up, but not where it was before 2008, they’d reported. They’re grateful to the DDA for help in navigating various city of Ann Arbor logistical hurdles. They’d like to see additional involvement in retail recruitment.

From Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, they’d heard that business is trending up, but retail businesss have to change their approach – they can’t be just bricks and mortar. Maggie Ladd, of the South University Area Association, had reported excitement about 601 S. Forest, a residential complex that’s under construction and will offer retail floor space. It’s hoped that an anchor store can be attracted, and maybe the DDA can help with that kind of recruitment. Lowenstein said the South University area is also considering formation of a business improvement zone.

Karen Farmer had attended for Kerrytown Market & Shops, Lowenstein reported, and while there was no official representative of the State Street Area Association, committee member John Splitt [who owns Gold Bond cleaners on Maynard Street] was there.

Zaragon II – an apartment building going up at William and Thompson, and now known as Zaragon West – is anticipating more retail space. They’re looking for a resurgence of retail as more people live downtown. Ellie Serras talked about the success of the Main Street BIZ with sidewalk snow removal.

The next main project of the committee – production of a DDA annual report – will be undertaken by DDA research and planning assistant Amber Miller. It will be a glossy annual report that can be used as an informational document and as a selling point. It will describe DDA projects and their impact on the downtown, as well as giving a picture of the current state of the downtown. The report should be finished by the end of the summer or even by the end of the month, Lowenstein said.

Related to that kind of reporting, at the city council’s May 31 session of its May 16, 2011 meeting, councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had raised a complaint: He’d been unable to confirm that the DDA had produced the kind of reports required by the state statute under which the DDA is formed. From the Downtown Development Authority Act 197 of 1975:

(3) Annually the authority shall submit to the governing body of the municipality and the state tax commission a report on the status of the tax increment financing account. The report shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality and shall include the following:
(a) The amount and source of revenue in the account.
(b) The amount in any bond reserve account.
(c) The amount and purpose of expenditures from the account.
(d) The amount of principal and interest on any outstanding bonded indebtedness.
(e) The initial assessed value of the project area.
(f) The captured assessed value retained by the authority.
(g) The tax increment revenues received.
(h) The number of jobs created as a result of the implementation of the tax increment financing plan.
(i) Any additional information the governing body or the state tax commission considers necessary.

In response to Kunselman’s complaint, at the council’s May 31 session, DDA board chair Lowenstein had documented an order placed with AnnArbor.com earlier this year to publish the information required under the statute.

Comm/Comm: Pedestrian Safety

John Mouat reported that the DDA’s transportation committee had discussed two topics related to pedestrian safety. They’d received a presentation from Erica Briggs, who works with the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition (WBWC). Briggs is working on a project with a DDA matching grant to educate the public about crosswalk laws. The first step is getting a baseline, using a survey and observation.

The other issue the committee addressed was how to use limited funds in targeted areas. Mouat noted that the railroad crossing at William is in poor shape – the DDA could contribute a small number of dollars to get a federal match. On Huron Street, under the railroad tracks, there’s also an area that could be targeted. In connection to the Huron Street location, Mouat alluded to public commentary made by Bill Gross, property manager for 416 W. Huron, at the board’s February 2011 meeting. The committee had also worked on identifying trip hazards downtown, and had looked at crosswalk improvements at State and Liberty, and at Fifth and Huron.

Vegetable-shaped bicycle hoops will appear at the farmers market later in summer, Mouat said. The next meeting of the transportation committee will focus on the getDowntown program.

Invited to the podium, Nancy Shore, getDowntown’s executive director, told the board she would be presenting the transportation committee a report on the go!pass bus pass program. It’s had tremendous success, she said – the program has broken ridership records. Now that the go!passes can be swiped at the farebox for AATA buses, the program has more data about how the cards are being used. The annual commuter challenge in the month of May has also just wrapped up, Shore said.

The getDowntown program is also looking at the question of where the organization will be housed, with one possibility being at the DDA offices. It’s an issue that will need discussion by the getDowntown board, she said. Shore noted that the DDA contributes a tremendous amount to the getDowntown program, which she said has a huge impact on downtown employees.

By way of background, the getDowntown program was previously funded in a four-way partnership with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the city of Ann Arbor, the DDA and the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce (now the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber). In 2009, the chamber essentially withdrew from the partnership, which meant that the getDowntown program needed to find alternate quarters – part of the contribution made by the chamber had been to provide office space. The getDowntown program then moved to offices at 518 E. Washington, with the support of the DDA. [Brief coverage of that is included in The Chronicle's report on the Dec. 2, 2009 DDA board meeting.]

Comm/Comm: Energy Grants

Sandi Smith reported that Dave Konkel had briefed the partnerships committee on the DDA’s energy grant program. The question before the committee is essentially whether to make grant awards on a first-come-first-serve basis or to make it a value-based program. Also, should the DDA try to make many smaller or fewer bigger grants? Those issues will be the focus of the June committee meeting, Smith said.

Comm/Comm: Fifth and Division

John Splitt reported that the only work being done in connection with the Fifth and Division streetscape project is on Division north of Huron: curbs are being re-aligned. On Fifth between Washington and Liberty streets, a 12-inch water main is currently being installed. Joan Lowenstein clarified that the city of Ann Arbor is doing the water main work. Splitt went on to explain that the DDA’s project would follow on that work, so that the street would not have to be repaved, torn-up, then repaved again.

Comm/Comm: Fifth Avenue Underground Parking Garage

Splitt reviewed how the underground parking project is divided into three phases: (1) the east leg – walls are complete or close to being completed; (2) the middle – slabs are still being poured; and (3) the western edge – the foundation will soon be poured, then the structure will be built up from there. Splitt described the work as “progressing nicely.” Repairs and additional reinforcement to the earth retention system will all be complete by the end of this week, he concluded.

Comm/Comm: Welcome Back

Joan Lowenstein led off the meeting by welcoming back Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director who’s been out on medical leave for a few weeks.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, has returned to action.

The board responded with applause. Lowenstein told Pollay, “We all feel great seeing you there.”

Lowenstein said the board also felt great seeing Joe Morehouse, deputy director of the DDA who’s filled in for Pollay in her absence. But she ventured that no one is happier than Morehouse to have Pollay back.

Present: Gary Boren, Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat

Absent: Newcombe Clark, Keith Orr

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded organizations 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!

Instead of addressing those issues or any other budget issues, the council voted at the very start of the meeting to recess the meeting and continue it on May 31, 2011.

Per Ann Arbor’s city charter, the city council needs to adopt the city administrator’s proposed budget with any amendments no later than the second meeting in May. Failure to adopt the budget results in adoption of the administrator’s proposed budget by default. The city council is hoping to avoid some of the cuts to police and firefighters that are a part of that budget.

For a preview of the council meeting, see Chronicle coverage: “To Be Continued: Ann Arbor Council”

The vote to recess, taken before any other item was considered or could be introduced, could be seen as a move to prevent Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) from proposing a resolution to take back responsibility for managing the city’s public parking system from the DDA. The Ann Arbor DDA has a current contract with the city that runs through 2015.

However, Kunselman’s proposed budget amendment would have essentially ignored that contract, and restored oversight of the city’s parking system to the city’s public services unit, by transferring all of the DDA’s parking funds to the city and eliminating two full-time employees at the DDA. [.pdf of Kunselman's resolution as proposed]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow.

The additional time would allow for greater clarity on an issue related to the tax increment finance (TIF) capture for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The city brought to light last week that in passing captured tax revenue to the DDA, the city’s financial office has in recent years not factored in a provision of the city’s DDA ordinance that requires excess TIF capture to be divided proportionally among the taxing entities whose taxes are captured. The excess is defined in terms of the actual increase in the tax base, as compared to the increase in the tax base that is anticipated in the DDA’s TIF plan. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "DDA Delays Parking Vote Amid TIF Questions"]

At Monday’s work session, the city’s CFO and interim city administrator Tom Crawford estimated the “rebate” to the city of DDA tax capture for FY 2012 at around $450,000.

Part of the context of the TIF issue is a contract with the city of Ann Arbor, under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system. That contract is currently being renegotiated. Under the current contract, with runs through 2015 with a three-year option to renew, the city would receive about $2 million less in public parking revenues in FY 2012 than the new contract calls for. But the exact financial terms of that contract are still being worked out.

Under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act, a meeting that is recessed for more than 36 hours can be reconvened only after posting public notice at least 18 hours before reconvening the recessed meeting.