Looking east down Monroe Street, across State Street. This section of Monroe Street is flanked by two University of Michigan law school buildings: Hutchins Hall to the north, and South Hall. (Photos by the writer. )

Following State Street north up the hill towards downtown will lead you to the intersection with Monroe Street. Turn right on Monroe, and you’ll wind up at Dominick’s, a local watering hole, majestic in its own right.

One parking option for patrons of Dominick’s is that first block of Monroe Street east of State. And what better topic to discuss over a pitcher of beer, sitting at a Dominick’s picnic table, than Ann Arbor parking rates. How much should it cost to use an on-street parking space on Monroe in that one block between State and Oakland?

Here’s a different question: How much for the whole damn block? I don’t mean just the parking spaces. I mean the whole right-of-way.

That question is part of a current conversation among public officials from the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan. The university is not interested in parking cars on that block. In fact, it’s the university’s desire that the thoroughfare be blocked to vehicular traffic. Permanently.

By tackling this topic, I’d like to achieve a two-fold purpose. First, I’d like to promote the daylighting of conversations now taking place out of public view. Second, I’d like to provide a rational way to approach calculating the value of city right-of-way, specifically in the general context of city-university relations.

Otherwise put, I’d like to sketch out a kind of Monroe Doctrine for Ann Arbor, which might in some ways mirror the message in the original Monroe Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe in his address to Congress, on Dec. 2, 1823.

I’m not going to suggest including the part that talks about when “our rights are invaded or seriously menaced …”

Monroe Street: Place, Time Not Random Coincidence  

It’s not a random accident that the university would like to see that block of Monroe Street essentially absorbed into its campus. Two university law school buildings now stand on opposites sides of Monroe Street. On the north is Hutchins Hall, which dates from 1933. On the south is the newly-constructed South Hall, which opened just this fall.

On a scenario closing that block of Monroe Street to automobile traffic, only a pedestrian-type corridor would separate South Hall from Hutchins Hall. Arguably, the university’s law school campus would have better physical coherence with that layout.

The university’s desire with respect to Monroe Street is not news. In fact, The Chronicle reported on a meeting hosted by university officials for residents in late 2008, when the proposal was floated. The idea was that the city of Ann Arbor would grant permanent use of the right-of-way to the university for one block of Monroe Street. The presentation was given by Jim Kosteva, UM’s director of community relations, and Sue Gott, the university’s head of planning. At that point, the plans for South Hall were still on the drawing board.

Residents did not give the proposal a warm reception. One argument against the proposal was based on civil liberties, public access to the space, and the substitution of the university’s police force for the city’s police department as a means to discourage expression of dissent. Another argument was based on the idea that one of the distinctive and valuable qualities of UM’s Ann Arbor campus is the degree to which it is integrated with the rest of the city. That contrasts with Michigan State University’s campus in East Lansing, which is more isolated and sharply delineated from the city. Closing down Monroe Street and turning over control of the right-of-way to UM was seen as counter to that positive quality.

A few months later, the university’s Monroe Street proposal was pitched to the city’s planning commission at a working session of the commission in early 2009. Planning commissioners also expressed little enthusiasm for the Monroe Street closure. Their concerns included the loss of on-street parking spaces. At that point, the university seemed to be contemplating bringing a formal proposal to the planning commission later in 2009. But that strategy was apparently re-thought in light of the lukewarm reception at the two public meetings.

However, based on email correspondence obtained by The Chronicle through a Freedom of Information Act request, it’s clear that conversations between the city and the university about Monroe Street have continued since early 2009. Unlike the two public pitches by the university from that timeframe, recent conversations have taken place out of public view.

It’s understandable, even reasonable, that the university would see now as an opportune moment in history. The current city council configuration is still ripe, just as it was back in 2009, for pitching that elected body a concept that would directly benefit the university’s law school. Then as now, two University of Michigan law school alums serve on the city council: Tony Derezinski and Christopher Taylor.

It’s time to daylight that conversation.

Private Conversation

Even while the university was pitching its Monroe Street proposal at public meetings in late 2008 and early 2009, not surprisingly, private conversations were taking place.

The following email from UM law alum and city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) to then-city administrator Roger Fraser shows that UM law school dean, Evan Caminker, reached out to Taylor and then-councilmember Leigh Greden (an attorney, though not a UM law school graduate, who also represented Ward 3) on the Monroe Street issue.

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:10 AM
To: Fraser, Roger
Cc: Miller, Jayne; Dempkowski, Angela A; Greden, Leigh; Lloyd, Mark; Hieftje, John
Subject: Monroe St. Closure

Roger,

The Dean of the Law School (and Third Ward resident) has contacted Leigh and me to meet regarding the proposed closure of Monroe Street. We hope to schedule this meeting for next week. To prepare, I would be grateful if you and Staff could provide for us by 2-9 am:

1) A description of the state of conversations between City and University on the subject.

2) Any technical information you believe relevant, including potential/likely harms/costs to the City that would result from such a closure.

Also too if you have any questions, thoughts or advice on matters that I may not have considered, I am, as ever, all ears.

Many thanks,

Christopher

The non-public conversations between the university and the city have continued past the second public discussion in early 2009. Here’s an email exchange from the summer of 2010 involving UM law school alum and city councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and a UM project director in architectural and engineering services, Thomas Schlaff. It leads to setting up a meeting with UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva [emphasis added].

From: tderezinski@comcast.net [mailto:tderezinski@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:09 PM
To: Schlaff, Thomas
Cc: Caminker, Evan
Subject: Monroe Street

Dear Tom,

I attended a reception last night on the U Mall sponsored by the Law School, and engaged Dean Caminker in a conversation regarding the new building and the status of Monroe Street. In addition to being an alumn of the Law School, I also presently serve on the City Council. I was specifically interested in the timing regarding action of the proposal before the City to vacate a block of it, and also the relationship of that action to the timing, and expense, of construction of the whole project, and who I could talk to regarding these matters. He suggested you and Larry Bowman, and Jim Kosteva. I happened to see Jim at lunch today, and he was interested in doing so.

So I woulld like to get together with you, Jim and Larry some time, perhaps next week, for about an hour, and perhaps also at or near the site (Dominics?) [sic] to talk about it. Jim said he would be happy to facilitate it.

I will be gone from early tomorrow through Monday, but will be checking my email. I hope we can do so; perhaps you could also call Jim Kosteva re same.

Thanks!

Tony Derezinski

==========

From: Thomas Schlaff”
To: “tderezinski @comcast.net” Cc: “Evan Caminker”
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:26:49 PM
Subject: RE: Monroe Street

Tony,

Thanks for messaging, and would love to gather with you and Jim. I’ll call Jim and make sure we get a date soon to chat. Next week would be great.

Again, thank you for your note, and especially for your support for our very special Law School Project.

Tom

Thomas G. Schlaff, P.E. – Project Director
Architecture, Engineering & Construction
The University of Michigan

==========

From: “Alicia Boltach”
To: tschlaff@umich.edu, TDerezinski@a2gov.org
Cc: tderezinski@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 4:13:03 PM
Subject: Meeting w/Jim Kosteva

Tom and Tony,

Jim has requested to meet with both of you to discuss Monroe Street.

He has asked for the meeting to occur around the 4 p.m. hour and to
occur at Dominick’s. Please see below available dates and respond with your availability.

Thursday, July 1st: 4 p.m.
Friday, July 2nd: 4 p.m.
Tuesday, July 6th: 4 p.m.
Thursday, July 8th: 4 p.m.
Kind Regards,

Alicia

Alicia Boltach
Office of the Vice President for Government Relations
University of Michigan

More recently, this past summer the university was interested in talking to councilmembers about two topics: Monroe Street and football stadium security.

By way of background, as a security measure the university has been interested in seeing the block of Main Street between Stadium Boulevard and Pauline Street closed during home football games. According to the city, the closure of Main Street for the Sept. 10 game between Notre Dame and UM this year stemmed from security concerns related specifically to the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and was a one-time event. However, UM’s interest is in closing down Main Street for that block as a matter of standard operating procedure for home football games.

Closure of Main Street is related to the general issue of logistics on home football game days, which is a topic that includes both security (fire and police) and traffic controls. Historically, the university has reimbursed the city’s costs for extra staffing of fire and police on game days, but has refused to reimburse the city for costs related to traffic controls.

This year, the city council passed a resolution directing its city administrator not to provide traffic management services on football game days unless the city’s costs were reimbursed. And the university agreed to reimburse those costs, but at a much lower level of service.

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, UM’s Kosteva clarified that the clearly contemporaneous conversations about football stadium security and Monroe Street, indicated in the email below, were just that: contemporaneous but separate conversations that were part of the same meeting:

From: Robyn Snyder [mailto:rasnyder@umich.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11 :22 AM
To: Robyn Snyder
Subject: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Good morning,

Jim Kosteva the University of Michigan, Director of Community Relations would like to request a half hour of your time to discuss
the universities [sic] interest in Monroe Street-Stadium security. We understand how busy you are, but if you can, please take a moment to complete this doodle poll for your availability. This can take place someplace for a coffee, or in your office.

Link to poll: http://doodle.com/d2c7ehezvey9dgxr

Once a date and time has been established, I will email you with a confirmation.

If you are unable to access this poll, or have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for your time.

Robyn Snyder
Administrative Assistant Intermediate
University of Michigan
Office of the Vice President for Government Relations

==========

From: Teall, Margie
Sent: Tue 6/7/2011 4:12 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia; Hieftje, John; Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: FW: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Did all of Council receive this request?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Tue 6/7/2011 4:57 PM
To: Teall, Margie; Higgins, Marcia; Hieftje, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Yes. Met with the gentleman today.

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Wed 6/8/2011 10:24 AM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council); Teall, Margie; Hiefije, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

How did that go?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Wed 6/8/2011 2:59 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Hieftje, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

He said he’d give us everything we wanted. [Ed. note: Read on to see that Taylor is kidding.]

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 12:54 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

what do we want?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 12:55 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

He didn’t say that.

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 2:39 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

are you pulling my leg here?

Public Conversations Between Public Bodies

Conversations about handing over control of a city block’s worth of public right-of-way to another entity should obviously take place in the public sphere.

UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva typically prefers to describe the city-university relationship as like “a marriage where divorce and separation aren’t an option.” That’s the analogy he drew for a group of visitors from Chapel Hill, North Carolina exactly three years ago last Friday. A member of that group Twittered out Kosteva’s remarks, which The Chronicle has preserved forever in its New Media Watch archives.

@orangepolitics is Twittering live the remarks of A2 and UM luminaries. Highlights: “Jim Kosteva, UofM: ‘town-gown relations are like a marriage wher divorce is not an option.’ Then he hands the city councilwmn some flowers!” Councilwoman in question is Briere.

I disagree with Kosteva that this is an appropriate analogy – although sometimes it might seem to residents in student neighborhoods like the university has a habit of leaving its underwear lying around the living room.

It’s not an appropriate analogy, because marriages are between private individuals, and topics of conversation in the context of a marriage are inherently not required or expected to happen in public view. But that is exactly the expectation for conversations between two public entities like the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan: They need to happen in public view.

I don’t think a colorful analogy is required to understand what the university’s relationship is to the city. What’s most useful is the straightforward factual description: The city and the university are two public landowners, whose property and activities are often proximate to each other.

The city and the university should thus behave like two landowners. If one landowner wishes to have control of the other landowner’s property, then what typically happens is that some kind of negotiation takes place between the two parties, and some consideration is offered in exchange for control of that property. The amount of consideration offered is based on some sort of standard prevailing practice.

An example of that is the kind of discussion taking place now between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) in connection with a strip of city-owned land. The six-foot-wide strip is adjacent to the two downtown parcels occupied by the Blake Transit Center (BTC). As part of the planned reconstruction of the BTC, the AATA would like to align the parcel boundaries.

The city of Ann Arbor is not simply handing over the six-foot-wide strip to the AATA. Instead, it’s being appraised, and there’ll ultimately be a cash transaction based on that appraisal. The acquisition of the six-foot strip has been mentioned at several AATA board meetings during routine updates.

Some kind of compensation was pointedly not a part of the university’s proposal back in late 2009 and 2010, when the city was asked to cede control of its right-of-way for an entire block of Monroe Street.

But currently, the conversation between the city and the university about Monroe Street has reportedly evolved to include some kind of payment. The amount of the deal and its structure – a one-time payment or a series of payments in perpetuity – is still an open question.

That evolution reflects progress. A deal struck on its fair financial merits would help avoid the possibility that an agreement on Monroe Street was being played as a quid pro quo in connection with some other deal – like Fuller Road Station, for example, or payments for traffic controls on football game days.

At a budget retreat held in December 2010, former city administrator Roger Fraser cautioned councilmembers against playing a game of tit-for-tat on unrelated issues involving the city and the university. Fraser’s comments came in response to a councilmember suggestion that if the university continued to refuse reimbursement to the city for costs of traffic management on football game days, the city should be uncooperative in some other area – like Monroe Street.  Fraser cited the specific example of Fuller Road Station, where that tit-for-tat strategy could yield undesirable results. [Fuller Road Station is a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station that's a joint city/UM project. Design is already underway, but a contract laying out financial terms and other aspects of the partnership hasn't been publicly announced.]

In Kosteva’s recent phone interview with The Chronicle, he also described how he did not think it was in the interest of the overall health of the city-university relationship to play one situation off against an unrelated one. He likened it to a negotiation between spouses in which one agreed to attend a concert with the other as a condition on the other coming along to visit an unpleasant relative.

The marriage analogy aside, Kosteva still arrives at essentially the same conclusion as Fraser, as reflected in Fraser’s comments at the budget retreat. Each situation should be handled on its own merits. I think that’s the right way to approach Monroe Street.

And that means two questions need answers. First, does the city even want to do a deal on Monroe Street? Second, what should the deal structure and dollar amount be? The answers to those questions should be worked out in public view. And now’s a good time to start.

I’d like to focus on the second of these questions, because it looks like that second question will need an answer fairly quickly for a different UM project.

Potential Precedent: Institute for Social Research Expansion

North of Jefferson Street, between Division and Thompson streets, UM is building an expansion to the Institute for Social Research.

The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research expansion is indicated in reddish brown, to the northwest of the existing building. The project will result in the net loss of one metered parking space.

Constucting that project as currently planned will result in the elimination of two metered parking spaces on Thompson Street, which is partly balanced out by the addition of a parking space on Division Street.

So the ISR expansion will result in the net loss of one metered parking space.

The city of Ann Arbor completed its review of the ISR project this summer and signed off on it.

Although the university’s projects are not subject to site plan approval by the planning commission and the city council, city staff from various departments do review the plans and provide comments. Those documents are available through the city’s eTrakit system. [Projects aren't linkable, but the ISR project can be found by searching for address, project name, or by project number: UM10-014]

Among the city’s review materials for the ISR expansion are two memos from Joe Morehouse, Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority deputy director, to Connie Pulcipher, a city of Ann Arbor systems planner. [Morehouse Memo 1] [Morehouse Memo 2]

The memos from Morehouse address specifically the issue of the net parking loss associated with the ISR expansion. Morehouse cites a March 4, 2009 DDA resolution that addresses the value of on-street parking spaces. The resolution adopts the policy recommendations of the DDA board’s operations committee and encourages the city council to do the same. Those policy recommendations include the following:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 resolution]

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new space in a structure, either above ground or below ground.

So the March 4, 2009 resolution essentially calls on the city council to adopt a policy on the elimination of metered parking spaces – which it has not done over the last two and a half years. However, a new contract signed between the city and the DDA this year, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, gives some impetus for action on this issue and provides a role for the DDA to help determine what that policy will be for removal of on-street parking. [emphasis added]

2. Operational Powers and Responsibilities Within DDA Parking Area
…
e. The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

The ISR expansion involves just one parking space. One friction-free option for UM would be to simply pay the $45,000 that the DDA is recommending as the value attached to an on-street space. In the context of a $23 million project, $45,000 doesn’t seem like a lot.

However, that would likely define expectations for the dollar figure attached to any Monroe Street deal. And with 22 parking spaces at stake on Monroe Street, UM could be looking at more than $1 million as the starting point of a conversation about how much more should be paid to account for the additional right-of-way control beyond the elimination of the parking spaces. [Back in 2009, the number of spaces was described as 22; a recent count of meter heads on the block by The Chronicle gave nine twin-head meters, or 18 spaces, plus a loading zone area.]

Price of a Parking Space

Part of the challenge in determining a fair way to do a deal on Monroe Street is that there’s not really a robust market for Ann Arbor city streets. How would you establish the comparables?

Price: Community Benefit

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, Kosteva did not argue for a specific dollar figure or a particular deal structure. But he did suggest some questions that the discussion should include.

One is the issue of “community benefit,” mentioned in the city-DDA parking contract. Kosteva is right in pointing out that this is somewhat vague.

Depending on how the council and the DDA wind up defining the phrase, it might turn out that elimination of parking spaces on Monroe Street meets the criteria of a “community benefit.” In that case, there’s no need to contemplate a parking space replacement cost methodology.

For example, it might be possible to construe “community benefit” in a way that translates any benefit enjoyed by the university, given its prominent role in the city’s economy, to a benefit enjoyed by the entire city. This would essentially formalize the idea that whatever is good for the university is also good for the city, and therefore a community benefit.

But that goes against the principle that each specific situation should be evaluated unto itself. It hardly makes sense to say that a Monroe Street closure will benefit the community economically because of the additional jobs that the university’s new children’s hospital will bring to the city. On the other hand, if the university could demonstrate that the Monroe Street closure would allow the enrollment of X additional law students, or the hiring of Y additional faculty, that could be part of a case that closing down Monroe Street brings an economic benefit to the community.

It’s not crazy to insist on that kind of specific accounting to claim a community economic benefit. It’s exactly the standard that’s used in evaluating the merits of a tax abatement, for example.

Economic benefits aren’t the only kind of benefit. If UM were proposing to close down Monroe Street so that a small skatepark could be built there and used by Ann Arbor’s skateboarding community, then that might conceivably meet a reasonable definition of “community benefit.” It would provide an amenity for city residents that they currently don’t have. [This is by way of a hypothetical example. As far as I know, no one is interested in seeing that location become a skatepark.]

But to sum up, I don’t see any reasonable way of defining “community benefit” that would encompass the closure of one block of Monroe Street. Indeed, I would point to the same considerable community detriment noted by attendees at the December 2009 public meeting and Ann Arbor city planning commissioners three months later.

Price: Who’s Asking?

Another question identified by Kosteva in his phone interview with The Chronicle is this: Should all parties be treated the same way?

Without arguing either side, Kosteva suggested that as the city and the DDA work to develop a policy, it’s worth considering whether a large multimillion-dollar private company seeking to build a large headquarters in downtown Ann Arbor should be treated the same way by the policy that a nonprofit organization – like a church – would be treated.

I think that’s a fair question.

But I think it’s clear that any difference in treatment should be based not on who the party is, but rather on the earlier notion of community benefit. If the large multimillion-dollar private company can demonstrate that X jobs will be created as a result of a project that eliminates the on-street parking spaces, then that’s relevant to the discussion. In the same way, if a church can demonstrate that its project will draw Y additional worshipers from outside the city every Saturday morning, some percentage of whom will stay for lunch in Ann Arbor restaurants, then that potential economic benefit is relevant to the discussion.

But I can’t see any reason to treat different parties differently based purely on who they are.

Price: Value Based on Parking Revenue

But even if we treat all parties equally, that doesn’t mean that we have to treat all parking spaces equally.

That’s an additional consideration suggested by Kosteva that should be part of the conversational mix as the city and the DDA develop the policy. Specifically, Kosteva suggested that the revenues generated by a metered parking space could factor into an assessment of the relative value of a parking space, compared with other spaces in the parking system. Some spaces generate more revenue than others, based on where they’re located.

Note that this is not equivalent to suggesting that replacement of a specific meter’s revenue would be appropriate compensation for eliminating that parking space. Rather, it’s a suggestion more like the following: If Meter A generates twice as much revenue as Meter B, then even if the starting point of a replacement cost allocation for a parking space is $45,000, surely it matters whether Meter A or Meter B is proposed for elimination.

Leaving aside the question of the absolute revenue, if a meter is generating so little revenue that the city and DDA don’t perceive a need to actually construct a parking space to replace it, it doesn’t make complete sense to insist that a payment be made to pay for the cost of replacing it. It’s possible to conceive of some kind of “discount” for low-revenue meters, or perhaps a surcharge for particularly high-revenue meters.

That’s all very well and good. But how much revenue do Monroe Street parking meters generate, and how does that compare to the rest of the parking meters in Ann Arbor’s public parking system?

Systemwide, here’s the distribution revenue annually by percentiles: bottom third generates 0-$960; middle third generates $961-$1,963; upper third generates more than $1,963. [The DDA is currently engaged in designing a tiered pricing structure for downtown parking meters – based on demand for the spaces, where demand is measured by revenue generated. So keeping track of this information is part of the DDA's current work plan.]

Taking the average of annual revenues generated by six of the meters for the Monroe Street block (those for which The Chronicle was able to identify data) yields $1,643 per year. So it appears that the Monroe Street meters are firmly in the mid-range for parking meter revenue systemwide.

In that case, at least for the Monroe Street meters, it’s hard to see how any “discount” that might be developed for the cost replacement allocation formula would apply to the Monroe Street spaces.

So based on a count of 22 spaces and the DDA-recommended $45,000 figure, the parking replacement cost would be $990,000 – a one-time cost. [The DDA's recommendation does not contemplate any additional payments.]

Of course, what the university hopes to achieve goes beyond the parking spaces, and includes control of the entire right-of-way.

Price: Based on Right-of-Way Rental

Rental of the right-of-way is another way to think about the Monroe Street proposal. For construction projects (requiring, for example, a temporary lane closure) the city applies a standard rate for the rental of public right-of-way: 1.5 cents per square foot per day.

The aerial photo provided by the Washtenaw County online mapping system still shows the surface parking lot south of Monroe Street. South Hall now stands at that location. The rectangle is drawn based on the parcel boundaries displayed on Washtenaw County's mapping website. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Using 17,500 square feet as a figure for the amount of public right-of-way at stake (as measured using online mapping tools through the Washtenaw County website), that would work out to about $96,000 annually.

From the university’s point of view, it might be not be desirable to enter into an arrangement that’s based on an annual payment in perpetuity. And it’s possible to argue against the 1.5 cent rental rate on the grounds that right-of-way rental for construction purposes is not the same thing as permanent control of the right-of-way. Ordinarily, there’s some kind of discount for rental agreements where the tenant is willing to sign on to a longer lease.

But from the city’s point of view, a right-of-way rental at $96,000 annually needs to be the starting point for the negotiation. If there’s not a $96,000 annual payment to be made in perpetuity, and the deal is instead structured as a one-time payment, then that lump-sum should be based on something real, not just pulled out of thin air.

One possibility for a real number is the projected useful life of any new parking structure built by the DDA: 75 years. So one approach would be to say that after 75 years, the $96,000 annual payment from UM to the city would end. That would amount to a total of $7.2 million (75 × $96,000) paid over the course of 75 years. If UM wanted to negotiate a lump sum payment (to avoid writing a Monroe Street check every year), presumably the city should be willing to negotiate downward from $7.2 million.

Monroe Street Doctrine

To oversimplify it, the Monroe Doctrine, expressed by President James Monroe in 1823, said “hands off” the Western Hemisphere to future colonization by other countries:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.

Translating that to city-university terms would amount to a declaration that any attempt by the university to expand the campus would be considered as dangerous to the city’s peace and safety.

That seems overwrought and probably would lead to endless frustration – the university is free to purchase land from people who want to sell it. [In fact, UM regents just last week approved the purchase of a parcel that's currently the site of an apartment building, at 716 Oakland Ave., just around the corner from Monroe Street.]

But to my eye, there’s an obvious part of that Monroe Doctrine excerpt that could be adopted as a doctrine to help guide city-university relations on the side of the city. It’s the part about candor.

So in closing, I’d  suggest something along the following lines:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan that we should consider any land transfers between these two parties only in the context of public meetings between public officials.

There are multiple mechanisms through which this conversation can occur publicly. Those might include communications from councilmembers during their council meetings, or full-on working sessions attended by councilmembers and university officials.

Whatever the mechanism, it’s time to put the Monroe Street conversation in public view.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public entities like the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan. 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 city council chambers on Aug. 15, 2011. Despite appearances, the city of Ann Arbor does not currently have a balloon payment due that will put the city up against its debt ceiling. (Photo by the writer).

The city council originally gave its approval to the selection of Village Green as the purchaser of the city-owned First and Washington lot back in 2006. To make up for the fact that the First and Washington deal has not yet been finalized, on Monday the council approved a $3 million inter-fund loan from its pooled investment fund. The money is needed to pay construction bills for the city’s new municipal center.

A year earlier, in 2005, the city received a recommendation from a blue-ribbon task force to change the composition of the board of trustees for its retirement system – to a mix on the board that is less heavily weighted towards members who are beneficiaries of the system. And on Monday, the council approved the Nov. 8 ballot language that will ask voters to change the city charter, which specifies the composition of the board.

A year before that, in 2004, the city council gave direction to city staff to develop an ordinance that would regulate idling vehicles. On Monday, the city council formally received – but took no action on – a resolution from its environmental commission recommending a draft anti-idling ordinance.

Likely dating back even earlier was an agenda item that addresses a point of ongoing friction between the city and the University of Michigan: reimbursement for the costs associated with traffic control during home football games. On Monday, the council approved a resolution that sets Aug. 25 as a deadline for completing a contract that reimburses the city for those costs. Otherwise, the city administrator is directed not to provide the signs and signals operations during home games.

In other business, the council gave final approval to the reapportionment of the five city wards, which will take effect after the Nov. 8 election. The council also set the application fee for medical marijuana business licenses at $600. The city’s medical marijuana licensing legislation, approved in June, takes effect later this month. Mayor John Hieftje also announced nominations for four of the five slots on the newly-established medical marijuana licensing board.

The mayor also announced nominations to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. Joan Lowenstein and John Mouat were nominated for reappointment, while Gary Boren, recently elected as chair of the board for the coming year, was not.

At the meeting, the DDA was also highlighted during public commentary by the owner of Jerusalem Garden, a restaurant adjacent to the construction site of the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure, which the DDA is managing. The restaurant has seen revenues drop during construction. He reiterated some of the points he’s made previously when addressing the council and the DDA board, and this time called on the council to think about how to apply lessons learned from the current situation in the future.

Economic development was also part of the council meeting in the form of a resolution the council passed that urges the Washtenaw County board of commissioners to levy a tax to fund economic development. The tax is based on Act 88 of 1913 and does not require voter approval.

The proposed Fuller Road Station maintained a presence during council proceedings in the form of public commentary, as well as a reminder from the council to the mayor that he’d previously indicated a council work session would be scheduled on the project.

Inter-fund Loan for Municipal Building

The council was asked to approve the temporary loan of $3 million from its pooled investment fund (Fund 0099) to the building fund for its new municipal center (Fund 0008), which is nearing completion. The municipal center is located at Fifth and Huron.

Inter-fund Loan: Background

The loan is needed because the sale of the city-owned First and Washington property to Village Green for its City Apartments development has not yet been finalized.

As a historical point, the city council approved the selection of Village Green as the buyer of the First and Washington property at its Aug. 10, 2006 meeting. On that occasion, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) cast the sole dissenting vote.

The new municipal center’s financing plan included $3 million in proceeds from that sale. The loan from the city’s pooled investment fund will allow the construction bills to be paid.

The city’s pooled investment fund includes all eligible cash across all city funds – interest earned on the pooled funds is apportioned back to each fund based on the relative amount of cash from that fund in the pool.

The building fund will incur a cost of 1.93% annual interest on the money lent from the investment pool. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, on a short-term basis the inter-fund lending approach is more desirable than borrowing money from a lending institution, because of lower transaction costs, lower interest rates and no prepayment penalties.

The short-term financing strategy of lending the building fund $3 million from the pooled investment fund will not have an impact on the city’s general fund, if the land sale is finalized. However, the short-term financing strategy does not eliminate the risk to the general fund, if the land sale does not go through.

The city bonded for about $47 million for the municipal building project. The yearly bond payments of $1.85 million can be broken down roughly as follows: $508,000 in TIF (tax increment finance) capture pledged by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; $490,000 in revenue from antenna rights; $455,000 in elimination of leases for space at other locations; $175,000 in elimination of utilities for leased space; $225,000 pledged by the 15th District Court facility fund.

The council had been advised by interim city administrator and chief financial officer Tom Crawford at its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting to expect some kind of short-term financing proposal on the Aug. 15 agenda. And more than a year earlier, at a city council work session in April 2010, the council discussed the city’s contingency plan of taking out short-term financing in the event the land sale did not materialize.

With respect to the land sale, at its Aug. 4 meeting, the council extended a purchase option agreement with the developer Village Green for the First and Washington site, where the developer plans to build Ann Arbor City Apartments. It’s a 9-story, 99-foot-tall building with 156 dwelling units, which includes a 244-space parking deck on its first two stories.

The land deal was originally set at $3.3 million, but was reduced by the council at its June 6, 2011 meeting to $3.2 million. The reduction in price approved at the council’s June 6 meeting was based on a “bathtub design” for the foundation that is intended to prevent water from ever entering the parking structure, eliminating the need for pumping water out into the city’s stormwater system. However, the Aug. 4 purchase option extension came with a charge by the city to Village Green of $50,000.

The parking deck portion of Village Green’s City Apartments project is being developed in cooperation with the Ann Arbor DDA, which has pledged to make payments on around $9 million worth of bonds for the project, after the structure is completed and has been issued a permit for occupancy.

According to the staff memo accompanying the Aug. 4 resolution, Village Green still hopes to break ground on the project in the 2011 construction season.

As a historical point related to the planned use of the sale proceeds for the new municipal center construction, the council defeated a resolution on March 17, 2008 to extend the Village Green purchase option agreement for First and Washington. At the council’s following meeting, on April 7, 2008, the measure was brought back for reconsideration, and the council voted unanimously to extend the agreement. The key difference was the addition of a “resolved clause,” which stated: “Resolved, that the proceeds from this sale shall be designated to the general fund, Fund 010.”

Inter-fund Loan: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) confirmed with the city’s chief financial officer and interim city administrator Tom Crawford that the $3 million loan transfer was part of the municipal center construction cost. Anglin asked why the city would not simply look to the general fund itself to cover the cost. Crawford explained that approach would result in a lower investable fund balance in the general fund, which would be a detriment to the general fund.

The financing the city is proposing, Crawford said, is structured so as not to be a detriment to the general fund. It’s the building project fund that pays the interest, he said. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) characterized the financing essentially as establishing a line of credit. Crawford confirmed that the investment pool is reinvested and reevaluated on a daily basis.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the inter-fund loan to the municipal center building fund from the city’s pooled investment fund.

Charter Amendment: Retirement Board Composition

The council considered a resolution to place before voters on Nov. 8 a charter amendment to alter the composition of the board of trustees for the city’s retirement system.

Retirement Board Composition: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retirement Board Composition: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) introduced the proposed ballot language asking voters to amend the city charter and described how the state attorney general’s office – after back and forth with the city – had provided approval of the ballot language at 4:55 p.m. that day.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) scrutinized the proposed ballot language, which resulted in single word deletion from the language [deleted word indicated with strikethrough]:

For the purpose of adding two additional citizen trustees, removal of the City Administrator as a member of the Board, and decreasing the number of elected general member trustees, shall Section 17.2 (a) of the Charter be amended to restructure the composition of the nine-member City Employees Retirement Board of Trustees to a membership of 5 appointed citizen trustees, one elected trustee each for general City general members, fire members, and police members, along with the continued membership of the City Controller?

Based on the interaction between Rapundalo and assistant city attorney Mary Fales, the inclusion of the first instance of “general” was erroneous. It was stricken as an administrative amendment on which the council did not vote.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted to know what the nature of the issue was that had caused the delay in the attorney general review. Higgins explained that it had to do with the terminology of “chief financial officer” versus “controller.” Higgins thanked the city attorney’s office staff for its work, which Rapundalo echoed.

Rapundalo noted that the issue had been going on for a number of years. The change to the charter should go a long way to establishing a board that has a little bit more independent oversight, he said. And by virtue of that, it would provide more transparency and reduce the perception of conflict of interest for those sitting around the retirement board table, he said. Higgins added that the city’s unions will need to ratify the language as well, even if the charter amendment passes.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the placement of the retirement board charter amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Anti-Idling Law?

Although it originally appeared in the slot designated for board/commission-initiated business, an anti-idling item was moved on the agenda to the section for written communications from the city administrator. The council formally received the communication from its environmental commission: a resolution approved by the commission in February 2011 that refers a draft anti-idling ordinance to the city council. The ordinance would aim to reduce instances of unnecessary idling by internal combustion engines of all types when not “doing work.”

The resolution approved by the city’s environmental commission makes reference to the city council’s direction to city staff to develop the ordinance, but does not mention the date when the council passed a resolution giving that direction – July 6, 2004.

Examples of unnecessary idling cited in the draft resolution are “warming up a vehicle, dropping off or picking up children at school, loading or unloading cargo, pulling over to take a cell phone call, or waiting in line at a drive-thru window.” However, the draft ordinance explicitly exempts “vehicle queues for drive-through goods and services.” [.pdf of whitepaper including draft ordinance]

Councilmembers addressed the issue during one of the communications slots on the agenda. Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Sabra Briere (Ward 1) for tracking down the resolution passed by the council seven years ago that gave direction to city staff to develop an ordinance. It had gone to the city attorney’s office and other city staff, including the city’s environmental coordinator Matt Naud, and back to the environmental commission.

Teall, who serves on the environmental commission, observed that the item had accidentally landed initially on the wrong part of the agenda – but said that the communications items are often overlooked. Teall noted that it’s the city environmental commission’s resolution and the city council will be looking at it in the near future. Teall said she’d welcome comments and discussion and perhaps a city council working session on it.

Teall invited Naud to the podium. He described how 50-100 cities have such an ordinance. He traced Ann Arbor’s effort on the topic to a resident of The Armory – a residential development at Fifth and Ann streets – who was concerned about school buses idling in front of the Hands-On Museum. The museum is immediately adjacent to The Armory. Naud allowed that it had taken a long time (since 2004), but reported that the city had also accumulated a lot of good data. He suggested that this was now an occasion to open up a community discussion.

Outcome: The city council did not take any action on the item – it was ultimately listed on the agenda as simply a communication from the city administrator.

University of Michigan Football Traffic Controls

Before the council for its consideration was a resolution stating that no traffic controls for University of Michigan home football games will be provided starting this season, unless the university reimburses the city for costs associated with erecting barricades and changing traffic signals to facilitate efficient movement of traffic.

University of Michigan Football Traffic Controls: Background

The cost of providing these signs and signal services is around $100,000 per year. The university already reimburses the city for police and fire services associated with home football games.

From the resolution: “Resolved that the City Administrator shall not provide Signs and Signals services to UM for Special UM Events unless: UM and the City execute a contract prior to August 26, 2011, that provides for the full reimbursement to the City of all direct and allocable costs associated with the provision of Signs and Signals services to UM for Special UM Events.”

Michigan’s home opener this year, against Western Michigan, falls on Sept. 3.

Left to right: interim city administrator Tom Crawford, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The issue is a persistent point of frustration on the city council, because traffic control for football games is a dollar cost to the city, but the city has limited leverage with the university to extract payment. That’s due in part to the fact that traffic control is seen not as merely a matter of convenience, but rather of public safety.

From a March 2010 city council budget work session report: “Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked how much of [football traffic control] was an issue of convenience versus public safety. Chief of police Barnett Jones stated that it was all safety-related. Without the combination of cars, barricades and signals, he said, ‘it would be a major malfunction.’”

From a January 2011 city council budget retreat report: “Some councilmembers seemed to suggest that concessions from the university could be won by withholding city consent when the university wanted something from the city. The university’s desire to include Monroe Street as part of the UM Law School campus was cited as a specific example. [City administrator Roger] Fraser, though, counseled that each situation should be evaluated unto itself. He pointed to the planned Fuller Road Station as an example of the importance of that principle.”

From a March 2011 city council budget work session report: “Responding to councilmember questions, [public services area administrator Sue] McCormick said the city did not send the university invoices for the regular home football games, because the university has made it clear that it will not pay. McCormick said when she’d notified UM of the city’s intention of invoicing for the Big Chill, the response she gotten was, ‘We really don’t know how we’ll fund that.’ There was little recourse for the city to take, she said, and in the end the city would have to write it off.”

University of Michigan Football Traffic Controls: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the resolution, acknowledging that it had been added late to the agenda. By way of explanation for the lateness, he offered the fact that the city and the university had been involved in ongoing conversations that were progressing well, but he hoped the resolution would improve things. He noted that football Saturdays are “a very big deal” for the university and the city community.

Taylor went on to say that the city cooperates with the university to ensure the efficient and safe operation of large university events. It includes police and fire services as well as traffic management services. The costs for the police and fire services are reimbursed by the university, he explained. However, up to now, the traffic management services have not been reimbursed. The city is currently having a conversation about the university’s possible reimbursement of the traffic control costs, Taylor said.

In every good conversation, Taylor continued, it’s sometimes useful for there to be clarity about the position of the parties, and the resolution was intended to provide that clarity.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) expressed concern about the timing. He asked for clarification about the time pressure, given that the football season was fast approaching. Taylor said the conversations had been progressing well, but there was some lack of clarity about whether the city will continue to provide traffic control services in the absence of reimbursement.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) then stated that UM can contract with some other organization to provide the service. However, interim city administrator Tom Crawford made clear that’s not actually the case, saying that police and fire services are already reimbursed and that the signs and signals work involves the city’s staff, working with city assets – it can’t really be done by some other organization.

Crawford went on to say that other communities sometimes contacted the city to learn how the city manages to provide the level of services it does provide in connection with football crowds. [Michigan Stadium, located at Main and Stadium with a capacity of 109,901, is the largest in the country.]

Mayor John Hieftje said that the proliferation of games has made it a real burden on the city staff and he felt it was appropriate to have a contract.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) brought up another point for clarification – was this a matter of looking forward, or also about asking the university to pay for past years of traffic controls? Crawford said he was in the middle of fruitful discussions that included last year as well as upcoming years. He called it an issue that still needs to be resolved.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the resolution that directs the city administrator not to provide traffic controls for university football games, unless the university agrees to reimburse the city’s costs.

Ward Boundary Changes

The council considered final approval to minor changes in the apportionment of its five city wards, made in response to population changes revealed by the 2010 census. The changes will not take effect until after the Nov. 8 general election. According to the city charter, city wards must have the general shape of a pie-shaped wedge, with centers of the tips lying at the center of the city. The council had given the boundary changes initial approval at its Aug. 4 meeting.

The council had postponed the issue at its July 5 meeting, but not before unanimously agreeing to alter the timing of the boundary changes, which had originally been recommended by the city attorney’s office to come between the primary elections for city council, which were held Aug. 2, and the general election to be held Nov. 8.

While the minor changes to the boundaries themselves had not been met with strong objections, the timing had been controversial. So at their July 5 meeting, councilmembers agreed to move the effective date of the boundary changes to Dec. 1, 2011.

The staff-recommended tweaks, given initial approval at the Aug. 4 meeting, showed minor differences from the changes recommended on July 5. All changes involve the way the tips of the pie-shaped wedges come together.

In the July 5 version, Ward 5 was bounded by Huron Street to the north and Madison Street to the south as it came towards the city center. In the Aug. 4 version, the Ward 5 northern boundary was dropped to Liberty Street, and to compensate the Ward 5 pie tip extended farther to the east.

In the July 5 version, the boundary between Wards 3 and 4 was aligned to Packard Street. But in the Aug. 4 version, the existing protrusion of Ward 4 across Packard, between Arch and Wells streets, was preserved. And to compensate, Ward 4 was pushed back from South University, with the result that Monroe Street, east of State Street, is a part of Ward 3. [.pdf of staff-recommended tweaks from Aug. 4] [.pdf of staff-recommended tweaks from July 5.]

Ward Boundary Changes: Public Hearing

Because the ward boundary changes reflect a change to the city’s ordinances, a public hearing was required.

Only one person spoke. Thomas Partridge called on the council to take into account the socio-economic status of residents in the reapportionment of the wards. Is there anyone on the council who represents the middle class of Ann Arbor? he asked. Are there students or disabled people who come from lower income brackets? He called on the council to give additional consideration to how each ward is represented. He suggested having an at-large representative on the council.

Ward Boundary Changes: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje asked that someone explain what was going on and why the reapportionment was happening. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) explained that the 2010 census showed that Ward 1 gained population since the previous census in 2000, relative to the other four wards. The easiest way to restore the balance was to look at the densest part of the city near the downtown.

Each boundary is changing, but only slightly, Briere said, and in the end all five wards are all close to balance. Hieftje elicited from the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry, that residents in affected areas, whose wards are changing, would by law receive a new voting card. Briere reminded everyone that the new boundaries don’t become effective until after the Nov. 8 election – on Dec. 1.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to give final approval to the ward boundary changes.

Medical Marijuana License Application Fees

A resolution was on the agenda to establish an application fee of $600 for licenses to operate a medical marijuana dispensary in the city. The fee covers a total of approximately nine hours of work by staff in the city clerk’s office, police department, planning department, and the attorney’s office.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) talks with Dennis Hayes before the city council's Aug. 15 meeting started.

The licenses were established by a city ordinance given its final approval at the council’s June 20, 2011 meeting. The ordinance distinguishes between an “application fee” and a “license fee.” The license fee, according to the city’s ordinance, is to be reviewed by a licensing board, with members to be appointed by the mayor.

The ordinance becomes effective Aug. 22, which is 60 days after its date of legal publication, on June 23. Applicants who were already in business before the city council enacted its Aug. 5, 2010 moratorium have 60 days after the effective date to apply for a license.

The city’s communications to this point with prospective applicants has not been perfectly smooth. A letter sent out by Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, was met with objections because of the city’s insistence that “proof” be provided that a business was in operation before Aug. 5, 2010 – beyond an affidavit attesting to that effect. The city’s ordinance appears to empower the licensing board, not staff in the city attorney’s office or the planning department, with evaluating the merits of license applications.

Medical Marijuana Application Fees: Public Commentary, Hearing

Dennis Hayes addressed the council at Monday’s meeting, having appeared around a dozen times over the course of the last year as the council debated the medical marijuana ordinances. Hayes told the council it was nice to be back again. He said he appreciated how the city council had responded quickly to questions about implementation of the law. He encouraged the council to approve the fee, noting that the city would incur substantial expenses any time there’s something new. He felt the Ann Arbor law would be a productive example for the rest of the state.

During the public hearing on the fee, Thomas Partridge spoke in favor of placing restrictions on access to medical marijuana.

Medical Marijuana Application Fees: Council Deliberations

During the scant council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) stressed that the fee the council was approving was an application fee, not a licensing fee.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the $600 application fee for medical marijuana licenses.

Medical Marijuana: Licensing Board Nominations

Nominations to the medical marijuana licensing board were also made later at the Aug. 15 meeting: Patricia O’Rorke, James Kenyon and John McKenna Rosevear. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was nominated as the city council representative. The five-member licensing body is to consist of one member of the city council, one physician, and three other Ann Arbor residents.

Still needed is a physician to serve on the board. The nominations will be confirmed at the council’s next meeting.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority came up in two ways at the council’s Aug. 15 meeting. First, nominations for re-appointment to the DDA board were announced. And second, the owner of the Jerusalem Garden restaurant, Ali Ramlawi, again addressed the council about his frustration over the underground parking garage construction project, which the DDA is managing.

Ann Arbor DDA: Nominations

Appointments to the DDA board are made by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council. Mayor John Hieftje nominated John Mouat and Joan Lowenstein for reappointment, but Gary Boren, who was elected this July by his colleagues as chair of the DDA board for the coming year, was not reappointed. Nominated to replace Boren was Nader Nassif, a local attorney. Boren is also an attorney.

In an email sent late Monday to The Chronicle, after the nominations appeared late on the council’s agenda, Boren wrote that Hieftje had met with him a few weeks ago and at that meeting the mayor had told him he was not inclined to reappoint Boren. Boren acknowledged that he and the mayor had philosophical differences about the role of the DDA. About the decision not to be reappointed, Boren wrote that “I am disappointed, but not surprised – and not at all bitter.”

The four-year terms of all three DDA board members – Boren, Lowenstein and Mouat – had actually expired on July 31. The mayor’s appointment of Bob Guenzel to the DDA board last year also came late, after Jennifer S. Hall’s term had expired.

At the DDA’s annual meeting early this July, DDA board member Newcombe Clark provided a chance for the mayor to announce publicly any intention not to reappoint Boren, when Boren’s name was put forward as a candidate for chair of the board for the coming year. Clark asked if Boren’s term would be renewed. The mayor declined to respond to Clark’s question. From The Chronicle’s DDA meeting report of July 6, 2011:

Newcombe Clark asked if Boren’s term was being renewed – that is, would he be reappointed by the mayor to serve on the board? By way of background, outgoing chair Joan Lowenstein’s term on the board ends on July 31, 2011, as do the terms for Gary Boren and John Mouat. Boren has been a vocal proponent of the idea that the DDA is an independent corporate body and not an arm of the city of Ann Arbor.

Last year, Clark had pointedly abstained from voting in the officer elections over the lack of information about reappointments to the board. From Chronicle coverage of the July 7, 2010 DDA annual meeting:

Abstaining from each of the officer votes was board member Newcombe Clark.

Clark explained to The Chronicle after the meeting that there’d been no indication from the mayor whether the two board members whose appointments are expiring July 31 – Jennifer S. Hall and John Splitt – would be reappointed. Clark said he could thus not be certain of the full range of choices for board officers.

Splitt was reappointed; Hall was not. Bob Guenzel was appointed instead of Hall.

In response to Clark’s question this year, Lowenstein said they did not know that yet. Mayor John Hieftje, sitting at the board table, did not offer any statement about whether he planned to nominate Boren for the city council’s approval for reappointment.

At its first meeting in September, the DDA board will presumably elect a new chair. The board’s pattern historically has been to select its vice chair as the next chair. Elected vice chair in July was former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel, who joined the DDA board a year ago.

Outcome: The council will not vote on the confirmation of DDA appointments until its first meeting in September. Those appointments will presumably not include the kind of public hearings that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) suggested during his communications at the council’s Aug. 4, 2011 meeting. However, allocation of the 10 public commentary reserved time slots at the beginning of every council meeting gives preference to those speakers wishing to address agenda items – and the confirmations will be on the agenda.

Ann Arbor DDA: Construction Complaints

During public commentary, Ali Ramlawi reminded councilmembers that he had also addressed them last month. He’s the owner of the Jerusalem Garden restaurant, located next to the construction site of the underground parking structure being built along Fifth Avenue. He expressed frustration about reading the response by Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, to his previous criticisms – a response that was published in AnnArbor.com.

Ramlawi characterized Pollay as claiming that the DDA had provided trash pickup, snow removal and lighting. He said those are ordinary city functions, which the city has “delivered flawlessly” since 1987 when the restaurant opened. With respect to the snow removal, he said he had to call several times this past winter because of the build-up of snow obstructing pedestrian walkways. He felt like he was a “cop on the beat” on the corner, because he had to call and complain about trash, lighting and snow removal.

He alluded to the expense of the DDA’s wayfinding sign project, saying that for an organization that had spent $1 million on some signs, its efforts to place signage indicating that the restaurant was still open have been “poor.” Two years into the project, he said, the DDA had not delivered any kind of signage. The problem is not confined to Jerusalem Garden, he said – people come in wondering where the library and the post office are.

He asked the city council to review the situation and use this as a learning lesson. He also called for a complete review of the DDA board appointment process – noting that appointed officials were making important decisions. He concluded by saying that to give credit to the DDA for the success of downtown Ann Arbor is like giving Al Gore credit for inventing the Internet.

By way of additional background,  construction-orange-style signs about businesses have been in place in two locations in connection with the parking garage construction project since it began. At the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Washington Street, a sign placed on the left side of the street facing the one-way traffic heading south on Fifth Avenue indicates generically that businesses are open – no businesses are named. And at the next intersection of Fifth Avenue, at Liberty, a sign facing southbound Fifth Avenue traffic is placed with the names of businesses still open. No signs for eastbound or westbound Liberty Street traffic appears to have been placed.

That signage is actually required as part of a settlement agreement in connection with a lawsuit filed against the city of Ann Arbor about the project, to which Ramlawi was a party. From the settlement agreement:

Throughout the construction process, the City agrees to provide signage that directs customers to Herb David and Jerusalem Garden. Such signage will be similar to what the City has provided in the past as part of other City construction projects.

Act 88 Economic Development Tax

Before the council for its consideration was a resolution urging the Washtenaw County board of commissioners to use Act 88 of 1913 to levy a tax to support economic development in the county.

Act 88 Economic Development Tax: Background

For the last two years, the county board has levied the tax – at a rate of 0.043 mill. (One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.) The council resolution was brought forward by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Because Act 88 predates the state’s Headlee legislation, the board does not need to put the issue before voters in order to levy the tax. The county board could, by the Act 88 statute, levy such a tax up to 0.5 mills, or more than 10 times the amount it has chosen to levy the last two years.

Last year in November, the county board approved the Act 88 tax with just a six-vote majority on the 11-member board. Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet and Wes Prater dissented. Jessica Ping abstained, and Rolland Sizemore Jr. was absent from that Nov. 3, 2010 meeting.

For 2011, the allocation of the roughly $611,266 raised by the countywide Act 88 tax broke down as follows: $200,000 to Ann Arbor SPARK; $50,000 to SPARK East; $100,000 to the Eastern Leaders Group; $144,696 to the county’s department of economic development and energy; $15,000 to fund a Michigan State University Extension agricultural innovation counselor for Washtenaw County; $27,075 to fund horticulture programming for the Washtenaw MSUE horticulture educator; $59,229 for 4-H activities, including allocation to the Washtenaw Farm Council for operating the Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show & 4-H agricultural programming for the 4-H extension educator; and $15,000 to support the work of the Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP).

SPARK is also supported by Ann Arbor taxpayers through a contract with the city of Ann Arbor for business development services. At its June 20, 2011 meeting, the city council authorized the city’s annual $75,000 contract with SPARK. That translates to the rough equivalent of 0.017 Ann Arbor city mills. (Each mill levied within the city of Ann Arbor translates to roughly $4.5 million.) Together with the countywide Act 88 millage, direct Ann Arbor taxpayer support of economic development translates to the equivalent of at least .06 mills (0.043 + 0.017) or roughly $270,000.

Ann Arbor SPARK is also the contractor hired by the city’s local development finance authority (LDFA) to operate a business accelerator for the city’s SmartZone, one of 11 such districts established in the early 2000s by the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC). The SmartZone is funded by a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism, which in the current fiscal year captured around $1.4 million in taxes from a TIF district – the union of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts, though revenue is generated only in Ann Arbor’s district. The specific taxes on which the increment since 2002 is captured are the school operating and state education taxes, which would otherwise be sent to the state and then redistributed back to local school districts.

Act 88 Economic Development Tax: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the resolution. He noted that the question of whether to levy the tax will soon be before the county board of commissioners. [A public hearing on the millage is set for the board's Sept. 7 meeting.] Taylor portrayed the millage as costing the owner of a $250,000 house about $5.38 a year. He encouraged the council to support the resolution, in light of the utility of the money that the millage would generate countywide.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) echoed Taylor’s sentiments. He also noted that the county had recently reorganized itself by merging three departments, including its economic development department. The merger will present a greater challenge to the county staff, Hohnke said, but it will be able to leverage the Act 88 millage that much more efficiently. He mentioned the idea of promoting heritage tourism.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked what happens if the county board doesn’t approve the levy of the millage. What are the effects on economic development at the county level if it doesn’t pass? she asked.

Expressing some hesitancy, Hohnke said he didn’t know, but offered some thoughts. The millage brings in around $600,000 and is deployed in a number of ways in partnership with other organizations, including Ann Arbor SPARK. In some activities, Hohnke said, it’s the county that takes the lead, and he ventured that you’d see a scaling back of those activities if the millage were not levied.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to adopt the resolution urging the county board’s passage of the Act 88 millage.

West Park: Flooding, Tennis Courts

Councilmembers heard from a resident about flooding related to a stormwater project in West Park, and they used the occasion of a construction contract for tennis courts in the park to talk about some of those concerns.

West Park: Public Commentary on Flooding

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Daniel Marano introduced himself as a resident who lives on the west side of town, on Maple Ridge. He reported a severe flooding problem on his street that he said seems to be tied to the engineering failure of the West Park drainage and stormwater system.

Maple Ridge, looking south.

By way of background, the city undertook major renovations to West Park using federal stimulus funds and revolving loans facilitated by the county’s water resources commissioner. [Chronicle coverage: "West Park Renovations Get Fast-Tracked"]

In February 2011, Craig Hupy – head of systems planning for the city of Ann Arbor – reported to the park advisory commission on the status of a failed swirl concentrator, which had collapsed, and seven other swirl concentrators that were in some state of failure.

Swirl concentrators are underground vessels that help remove particulates from stormwater before it flows into the stormwater system. Based on an August 2011 city staff memo, the situation is being analyzed as a problem with both the project design and the product’s manufacture. The city is expecting to recover costs from multiple parties. The memo acknowledges upstream flooding that was experienced during project construction, which took place during the summer of 2010:

During the construction of the project, flooding was experienced upstream of the work area during one of the several large storms experienced in the summer of 2010. In addition, in October of 2010, after the stormwater work had been completed, one of the swirl concentrators on the north branch collapsed, creating a sinkhole near the northwest corner of the park. … In response to the upstream flooding, the weir plates that served to divert flow into the swirl concentrator units were removed due to concerns over their effect on upstream flooding. … Currently, the weirs are still removed, leaving the below ground sewer system to function essentially as it did prior to the 2010 construction,

The street where Marano lives is upstream from West Park – Maple Ridge runs north-south, parallel to (and one block west of) Seventh Street, which is West Park’s western boundary.

Marano described a phenomenon where a collection of several feet of water appears out of nowhere, lasts for about an hour or so, followed by a “catastrophic emptying” of the entire street. It’s like two giant bathtub drains, he said, that drain the street in a matter of minutes. There’s a real possibility of danger to people, pets, and children, he said. He said he had about a foot of water in his car on Tuesday morning, which is when he realized the extent of the flooding. This type of flooding has never happened before in any neighbor’s memory, he said. The first time it happened was last year, on Aug. 10, 2010.

Marano said that when he’d reported it to the city, he was met with derision, and the claims were ignored. It’s a lot more than just standard runoff, he said. He concluded by saying it’s a safety risk.

West Park: Tennis Courts

Before the council for its approval was a $216,331 contract with ABC Paving Co. to renovate the tennis courts at West Park. It’s a contract that the city’s park advisory commission had discussed at its June 21, 2011 meeting and that had been approved by the city council at the council’s July 5, 2011 meeting. However, the resolution had contained a typographical error, and the contract had only been approved for $166,331. So it was back before the council for re-approval.

The council did not discuss the paving contract. However, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expressed their concern about the West Park stormwater renovations that had been raised during public commentary by Daniel Marano. [The tennis courts at West Park are situated off Huron Street, considerably above the plane of the park where the stormwater improvements were undertaken.]

Hohnke stressed that the contemporaneous flooding and construction work events were not conclusive with respect to establishing a cause-and-effect relationship. However, he allowed that the timing was suggestive of such a relationship, and he asked that the interim city administrator look into the issue. Anglin expressed his hope that a good resolution to the issue could be found and acknowledged the stress on the residents who live in the affected area.

The flooded neighborhood is in Ward 5, which Anglin and Hohnke represent.

Outcome: The council approved the contract with ABC Paving Co.

Fuller Road Station

Fuller Road Station was brought up during public commentary, as well as by councilmembers.

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

Nancy Shiffler spoke on behalf of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She said that on reviewing a recent letter sent to the community by mayor John Hieftje, she was pleased that the letter attempted to address questions that have arisen about the project. She first reiterated her basic objection of using a portion of Fuller Park for the construction of a parking structure.

She noted that the letter indicates the University of Michigan will pay all upfront costs for the construction and that the city’s portion of the cost would be made up over time. [The memorandum of understanding between UM and the city on the planned Fuller Road Station specifies a 78%-22% split for the cost-sharing arrangement.]

The portion of the mayor’s letter to which Shiffler was referring reads:

Although the University of Michigan and the City of Ann Arbor will share usage of the parking structure/bus station portion, the University will pay almost all upfront costs to construct Phase 1 of the Fuller Road Station. Under the plan that is still being worked out, the City will own FRS and the City’s portion of the costs will be made up over time from funds generated by parking spaces.

Based on earlier estimates, she said, the city’s portion to be made up over time would be around $10 million. With 220 parking spaces available for the city’s use, and depending on the users to whom the spaces are allocated, Shiffler estimated that it would take 30 years to repay the $10 million – if the rate for use of those 220 spaces were charged at the maximum rate used by UM in its parking system.

Later in the letter, Shiffler noted, Hieftje states that revenues from user fees for the parking spaces would go to the park system. Will the revenue go to make up for the upfront construction costs, or rather to the park system? Shiffler pointed out this is not clear. She said it appeared the sources of funding are being cobbled together behind the scenes. She wondered what relevance the parking structure has to the rail station. She asked that the city council have all details and disclose them to the public and have public hearings before taking a vote on the project.

Fuller Road Station: Council Commentary

During council communications, after the public commentary, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the council had heard from a speaker about Fuller Road Station. She allowed that it was a moving target, but said she wanted to remind the mayor that everyone would benefit from a working session on the topic of Fuller Road Station. Hieftje said that as soon as there’s some new information, a working session could be put together.

Previously, at the council’s June 6, 2011 meeting, Fuller Road Station had received extensive public commentary, despite the lack of any item on the agenda related directly to the project.

Partly in response to that commentary and to remarks from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), at that meeting Briere had pushed for a city council working session on the project. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) anticipated mayor John Hieftje’s reaction to Anglin’s comments [Hieftje has pushed hard for the project] by telling the mayor that she knew he had a lot of thoughts about Fuller Road Station. But she thought the council should have a working session, so that councilmembers can become more knowledgeable about the issue. Hieftje indicated that he would look into adding something to the calendar.

Then, at the council’s June 20, 2011 meeting, the council revised its calendar for the year to include a work session scheduled for July 11, apparently to accommodate the desire to discuss Fuller Road Station.

Mayor John Hieftje. That kind of hammer, or course, works on a totally different kind of nail.

However, at the council’s July 5 meeting, Hieftje responded to remarks from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) about the upcoming work session on Fuller Road Station by indicating there was no work session on the topic scheduled. He did not acknowledge his earlier explicit assurance that he would look into scheduling one.

At the Aug. 15 meeting, Anglin said he was glad Shiffler had brought up the issue of the parkland. He said he still had concerns about the status of the parkland and that he continued to receive emails about it. He said that in 2008, when voters approved a charter amendment requiring a voter referendum on the sale of any parkland, they thought they were protecting their parks. The legacy of the parks is an important part of the community, Anglin said. When a national environmental group [the Sierra Club] is speaking against it, he said, that should suggest something is amiss.

Anglin said the details are not yet clear enough to sign a contract. During tough times, he said, there are other needs that are more paramount. The project doesn’t seem to have much benefit for citizens, he said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) suggested that the city’s park advisory commission take a look at the practice soccer field adjacent to the proposed Fuller Road Station site and perhaps partner with the public art commission to develop something for that space that’s designed to inform people about the Huron River.

Smith said she’d love to see an exploration of some lower-maintenance use of the land that people can enjoy. She asked that the suggestion be conveyed to PAC by the council representatives to that body. Smith mentioned an upcoming RiverUp! event, which Hieftje said he appreciated. He noted that the Wolfpack group of the National Wildlife Federation, of which he is a member, had raised $30,000 for that project. [PAC had been briefed about the project at its July 2011 meeting. See Chronicle coverage: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"]

Green Communities Grant

The council was asked to consider accepting a $50,000 Michigan Green Communities Planning grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE).

The money will be used in part to enhance a peer learning network of Michigan local government and university staff who are working on sustainability issues. The grant funding also supports holding an annual conference in 2011 and 2012 among Michigan Green Community members. A third activity the grant will support is development of challenge grant opportunities with local governments and Michigan foundations.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the receipt of the grant.

Small Claims Policy

On the council agenda was a resolution to approve a policy describing which city staff may represent the city in small claims court and under what circumstances. Small claims issues are limited in dollar amount to $3,000. Under Act 236 of 1961, the city may not be represented in small claims court by an attorney.

So under the policy, city employees who are not attorneys may appear on the city’s behalf, subject to the constraints of the policy, which requires that employees who appear in small claims court have “… direct and personal knowledge of the dispute” and that the city administrator and the city attorney approve in writing the appearance by an employee in small claims court on behalf of the city, for each individual case.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the small claims policy.

Water Supply Bonds

Before the council for its consideration was the issuance $7 million worth of revenue bonds for its water supply system. The money will be used by the city to finance improvements to the city’s water distribution system, including portions of the Arbor Oaks subdivision water mains replacement project, the Catherine Street 16-inch water main, the Dover Court/Collingwood water main replacement, physical security enhancements, and Barton Dam concrete repair projects.

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained at the meeting that because the ordinance does not change the city code, it does not require a second reading and public hearing.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the issuance of the water supply bonds.

Recision of CUB Requirement

The council was asked to vote on the recision of a resolution passed at its Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, which required execution of Construction Unity Board (CUB) agreements by contractors and subcontractors with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council as a condition of award for all city construction contracts. The resolution also required inclusion of the requirement in all construction bids issued by the city.

The resolution was rescinded because Act 98 of 2011 – which became effective July 19, 2011 – prohibits municipalities from including as a requirement in a construction contract anything that would either require or prohibit contractors from entering into agreements with collective bargaining organizations. The act also prohibits discrimination against contractors based on willingness or non-willingness to enter into such agreements.

At the council’s Aug. 4 meeting, interim city administrator Tom Crawford had alerted councilmembers that they would likely be asked to consider the measure at the Aug. 15 meeting.

The item was included as part of the council’s consent agenda – a collection of items on which the council votes “all in one go,” but councilmembers have the option of separating out any items they’d like to discuss separately. That’s what Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) did with the CUB agreement item. He had sponsored the original resolution that was being rescinded.

He noted that the new law prohibits CUB agreements  so the city’s previous action would be illegal. That’s why it’s in the city’s best interest to rescind it, he said, because it brings the city in line with state law.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to rescind its previous resolution on CUB agreements.

Pedestrian Easement on Liberty

The council was asked to grant an easement to the owner of 115 W. Liberty St. – Dotcom 115 LLC, which lists its resident agent as local developer Peter Allen. Cost of the easement was set at $2,500.

Local developer Peter Allen and Ann Arbor public art commission chair Marsha Chamberlin, talking before the Aug. 15 council meeting started.

Allen is planning to sell the third floor condo unit in the building and needed the easement to ensure legal access to the entryway on the south side of the building.

Allen attended the meeting – he was also the recipient of a Golden Paintbrush Award presented by Ann Arbor’s public art commission.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to approve the easement.

Rezoning of Annexed Property

Before the council for its consideration was a request to rezone the property at 2562 Newport to R1A (single-family residential district.) At the public hearing, Thomas Partridge called on the council to amend the rezoning to require an equal amount or more of affordable housing access in the city. It’s something that Partridge typically calls on the city council to do, any time there is a public hearing on a rezoning of land.

Mayor John Hieftje expressed some irritation with Partridge by saying that Partridge was aware that the property is being annexed into the city and that the kind of resolution he was suggesting could not be done legally.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to approve the annexation-related rezoning.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Remembering Gary Lillie

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) called the council’s attention to the recent death of Gary Lillie, a Vietnam War veteran and a local realtor who was killed by an alleged drunk driver. He called it one of those tragedies that reminds us of the tender nature of life. He said that Lillie deserved a moment of recognition at the city council meeting for the life he gave and the life he lived.

Comm/Comm: Golden Paintbrush Awards

At the start of the meeting, Marsha Chamberlin presented the Ann Arbor public art commission’s Golden Paintbrush awards. Chamberlin, who chairs the public art commission, is also president of the Ann Arbor Art Center.

In August in front of Blimpy Burger, which received a Golden Paintbrush award: 'sno bears now, but Snow Bears later.

The awards had been previously announced at the most recent meeting of AAPAC in July.

This year, winners are: (1) Krazy Jim’s Blimpy Burger, for the Snow Bears sculptures that Rich Magner builds each winter in front of the business at Packard and South Division; (2) Mary Thiefels and TreeTown Murals for the mural outside the Alley Bar along West Liberty; and (3) Peter Allen & Associates, for rock sculptures on North Main Street, a project initiated by Steve Zobeck.

Comm/Comm: Sidewalks

During public commentary time, Kathy Griswold told the council that based on a Craigslist ad, a school crosswalk guard costs $30/day plus benefits, or $5,400 annually. She said that the money would be better spent on other activities. Griswold has long advocated for moving the mid-block crosswalk in front of King Elementary School to the four-way-stop intersection, which would eliminate the need for a crossing guard at that location. The barrier to moving the crosswalk is the need to construct a section of sidewalk that would link the corner where children would cross to a path leading the rest of the way to the school.

On a positive note, Griswold said, she reported that although nothing had been promised, it was possible that the city might be able to provide an alternate location for the Kiwanis Club’s warehouse sale [now located at 415 W. Washington St. instead of the current location W. Ellsworth at Airport Blvd Building #837].

Comm/Comm: Recall Snyder

Thomas Partridge spoke during public commentary time, saying it’s necessary to pursue the recall effort of Gov. Rick Snyder and the leaders of the Republican legislature, who have “turned and glowered into the faces” of people who need vital services. He also called on President Barack Obama to do something or step aside. We need to protect Ann Arbor’s disabled residents and seniors, Partridge said. We need an agenda for progress, he said – housing, transportation, healthcare and education should all be affordable.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

Russ Schwartz in the role of Iago in the Penny Seats Theatre Company's current comedic production in West Park of "Goodnight, Desdemona (Good Morning, Juliet)." Not a line from the play: "Tis I who'll mop the water up, before it flows to Allen Creek." (Photos by the writer.)

The swirl concentrators, which help remove suspended solids from water entering the city’s stormwater system, were a part of major renovations to the park’s landscaping and draining systems. Federal stimulus funds helped pay for much of the work.

A recent city staff memo indicates that the city expects to recover any additional costs due to the failures – either from the manufacturer or the design firm. Replacement of the swirl concentrator units is not expected to be complete until early in the 2012 construction season, with the park restored to full public use at that time.

Meanwhile, the park enjoyed a grand re-opening earlier this summer, and is accessible for all functional purposes, including performances in the bandshell.

Two theater groups are sharing the stage this summer: Blackbird Theatre and the Penny Seats Theatre Company.

This weekend wraps up the Penny Seats production of “Goodnight, Desdemona (Good Morning, Juliet).” Performances still remain on Saturday and Sunday (Aug. 13-14). The Chronicle shares a few images from the comedy after the jump.

Left to right: Desdemona (Melynee Weber), Constance (Lauren London), and Juliet (Sarah Leahy).

Sword mail. Desdemona (Melynee Weber) delivers a message to Constance (Lauren London).

Romeo (Matt Cameron) and Juliet (Sarah Leahy) lavish affection on their pet turtle, Hector.

Romeo and Juliet are horrified that their struggle over Hector the turtle has torn him asunder. (That is a prop. No West Park fauna was harmed during production of the play.)

Next week on Tuesday, July 12, a public reception for residents to meet the candidates will be hosted in the lobby of the new municipal center at 301 E. Huron from 5:30-7:30 p.m. The reception will feature five-minute presentations from each candidate, as well as time for informal conversations with candidates.

The following day, July 13, candidates will be interviewed in public view in city council chambers from 8 a.m. to noon.

According to a press release from the city of Ann Arbor, Harry Black currently serves as executive vice president and chief operating officer of Global Commerce Solutions (GCS) Inc., a D.C.-based government services firm that provides program and project management support services to the public sector. From 2005-2008 he worked as the deputy chief administrative officer/chief financial officer for the city of Richmond, Virginia. He was vice president and program manager for McKissack & McKissack in Washington, D.C. from 2000 to 2005, and prior to that served in several roles with the District of Columbia government of Washington D.C. Black has served as an adjunct assistant professor at the Long Island University (Brooklyn campus) Graduate School of Business/Public Administration. Last year he was appointed to the Virginia State University Board of Visitors.

The press release also indicates that Ellie Oppenheim most recently held the position as president and chief executive officer of the RenoSparks Convention and Visitors Authority (2006 to 2011). In that capacity, she was responsible for leading the regional destination marketing organization promoting tourism and convention business for Reno, Sparks and Incline Village/North Lake Tahoe. Before that Oppenheim worked for the City of San Diego, California (2002 to 2006) in various roles to include the deputy city chief operating officer and deputy city manager, and as the director of the parks and recreation department. Oppenheim has also worked for Stanford University, Calif. and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Steve Powers brings experience as county administrator of Marquette County, Mich. – a position he’s held since 1996, according to the press release. His other management experience has also been at the county level, including various jobs in the governments of Martin County, Minn., Jackson County, Ore., and Johnson County, Kansas. His professional and community roles, Powers serves as a corporate member with the International City/County Management Association; Marquette County Ambassador; and as an executive board member for the Lake Superior Community Partnership. Powers has a master’s degree in public administration from the University of Kansas and a bachelor’s degree in public administration and political science from Augustana College in Rock Island, Ill.

The three finalists were winnowed down from a pool of roughly 8-10 by the city council’s search committee, which met starting mid-afternoon on July 5 to do that work. Members of the search committee are: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and mayor John Hieftje. The pool from which the search committee selected was identified by the city’s consultant, Affion Public, in concert with the city’s human resources department.

The city’s chief financial officer Tom Crawford was appointed interim city administrator at the city council’s April 19, 2011 meeting, effective April 28. Previous city administrator Roger Fraser announced his resignation at a Feb. 28 city council working session. Fraser took a job with the state of Michigan as a deputy treasurer.

[.pdf of city of Ann Arbor press release]

Ultimately, the council decided to postpone the boundary changes. But before the postponement, the council amended the ordinance to make the changes that they eventually agree on effective on Dec. 1, after the Nov. 8 election.

All public commentary on the issue encouraged the city council not to enact the boundary changes between the primary and the general elections. Public commentary included remarks from John Shea – a representative of the Washtenaw branch of the lawyer’s committee for the American Civil Liberties Union – and local attorney Tom Wieder. County clerk Larry Kestenbaum attended the meeting, but did not sign up in time to be included among the first 10 reserved speaker slots. (Reserved commentary slots are reserved on a first-come-first-served basis.)

[Previous Chronicle coverage: "Column: Ann Arbor Ward Shifts Should Wait"]

By the numbers, if the 2010 census population were distributed perfectly evenly across the city’s five wards (pie-shaped, per the city’s charter), they would each have a population of 22,787 – the ideal number in redistricting terms. Without any redistricting, the imbalance among wards, due to relative population growth in Ward 1 since 2000, breaks down as follows: Ward 1 [24,616 population, +1,829 whole number deviation from ideal (+8.03%)]; Ward 2 [22,419, -368 (-1.61%)]; Ward 3 [22,206, -581 (-2.55%)]; Ward 4 [22,585, -202 (-0.89%)]; Ward 5 [22,108, -679 (-2.98%)].

In 2000, the variance from the ideal for each ward ranged between +1.5% and -1.5%.

As proposed, the city’s redistricting plan would yield the following breakdown: Ward 1 [22,795, +8 (+0.04%)]; Ward 2 [22,739, -48, (-0.21%)]; Ward 3 [22,919, +132 (+0.58%)]; Ward 4 [22,760, -27 (-0.12%)]; Ward 5 [22,721, -66, (-0.29%)]. To restore the balance in the wards, the redistricting proposal focuses on reassignment where the five wedges of the ward pie meet, in the center of the city near the downtown. [.pdf of City of Ann Arbor proposed ward boundary changes ] [.pdf of ward boundary changes proposed by councilmember Sabra Briere]

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]

A Washtenaw County 911 dispatcher. Ann Arbor and county dispatch operations are currently co-located at Ann Arbor's Fire Station #1 on Fifth Avenue. (Photo courtesy of Washtenaw County sheriff's office.)

Also not cited as an example of possible future city/county collaboration was police dispatching. However, the topic did at least receive a passing mention by Ward 3 incumbent Stephen Kunselman, who told the audience that his grandmother was a police dispatcher in the late 1950s for the East Ann Arbor police department.

A recent city press release – sent out the Wednesday before the June 11 candidate forum – described a renewed effort to consolidate Ann Arbor’s 911 police dispatch functions with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

So The Chronicle sat down with Ann Arbor chief of police Barnett Jones and Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton to walk through the possible consolidation, under which the city would contract with the county for dispatch service. Based on that interview, it’s clear that it’s not just talk.

The city and county dispatchers are already working in the same building in the same room –  on the second floor of Fire Station #1, across Fifth Avenue from the new municipal center at Fifth and Huron. Clayton has developed a staffing model for implementation. And over the next few weeks, Jones will be sitting down with the police officers union – dispatchers are members – to discuss the proposal. Jones said that from the standpoint of collective bargaining, a consolidated dispatch operation could not be blocked by the union.

But Jones and Clayton will not have the final say. That decision will be made by the Ann Arbor city council and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Co-Located Dispatch: Preparation

The physical stage for the consolidation of county and city dispatching operations was set more than a year and a half ago, when the Ann Arbor city council authorized the remodeling of the dispatch room on the second floor of Fire Station #1. Previous Chronicle coverage from the council’s Dec. 9, 2009 meeting:

The city of Ann Arbor has agreed to co-locate its 911 dispatch with the county’s operation – that will take place at the city’s existing location in Fire Station #1, across from city hall. The cost of the remodeling will be $48,183, but will be reimbursed from the 800 MHz public safety communications millage fund.

At Monday’s meeting, chief of police Barnett Jones called the co-location a “dream come true.” The expectation is that co-location will eventually lead to consolidation of the operations.

The cooperative effort with the county on 911 dispatch, Jones said, was part of an effort to regionalize services, which already included SWAT, K-9, and training. [See also: "County Reorganizes 911 Dispatch"]

And a month later, the city council authorized the purchase of a new phone switch as part of the dispatch co-location effort. They heard from a deputy police chief that evening that the idea of an eventual consolidation of operations was not new. It had been discussed for a couple of decades. Previous Chronicle coverage, from the Jan. 19, 2010 meeting:

The resolution before the council on Monday was to approve the purchase of a 911 phone switch for $258,983.

During the brief deliberations by the council, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited from deputy police chief Greg Bazick that the consolidation has been talked about for almost as long has he’s worked on the force – 19 years. The cost savings would lie in the ability to eliminate duplicative technology costs.

City administrator Roger Fraser pointed out that for now, the arrangement would allow the city and county to work side-by-side, which was more economical, because by state law if they made it one operation, they would have to pay the more expensive of the two labor contracts.

A couple of months earlier, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners had completed its piece of the co-location arrangement by voting unanimously to approve a reorganization of the county’s central dispatch and emergency services division. The board’s resolution included eliminating four supervisory positions (including one that was already vacant) and creating four different positions at lower pay grades. Previous Chronicle coverage, from the county board’s Nov. 4, 2009 meeting:

Over the years, [Marc] Breckenridge [director of emergency management and homeland security] added, co-location will save in the cost of doing business, because of shared technology expenses. A lot of technology is duplicated among various units of government, he said.

Clayton said the whole project was an example of the county and city of Ann Arbor’s willingness to work together, leveraging resources with the goal of improving public safety.

Cost, County Role, Staffing Model

When The Chronicle met with Clayton and Jones earlier this week, Clayton indicated that the next step to full consolidation of the dispatch operation – now that co-location has been implemented – would not result in further cost savings to the county. Technology-based savings to the county, now and into the future, are a function of the co-location itself.

Consolidation of the dispatch operation – by using county dispatchers to handle Ann Arbor’s 911 calls – would be implemented on a contractual basis that would be cost-neutral to the county, Clayton said. So it’s not something he’s trying to push onto the city of Ann Arbor or other units of government in the county.

The sheriff was keen to stress during the interview that consolidation of dispatch operations is also not any kind of a first step towards consolidating services of individual police departments in the county under the sheriff’s office.

Clayton’s concern can be traced partly to a recent working session of the county board, when county commissioner Wes Prater had voiced the idea that only two police departments were necessary in the county: the Ann Arbor police department and the sheriff’s office. That comment prompted Clayton to assert that he had no interest in absorbing other police departments in the county. It also prompted other commissioners to take turns going around the table expressing their support for the independent police departments in their respective districts. Clayton also weighed in with support of Ypsilanti’s police force as an independent agency – commissioner Ronnie Peterson, whose district includes Ypsilanti, was absent from that meeting.

Contracting dispatch service is conceptually a different proposition from the way that some local units of government contract with the county to provide police services – deputy road patrols – for their communities. They contract for a specific number of deputies.

For that kind of service, the county distinguishes between the “cost” of a deputy and the “price” charged to a township for that deputy’s service – the difference is “contributed” by the county. Setting the cost and price has a long and contentious history, with the final dollar amount in the settlement of a related lawsuit still not determined. But based on the board’s unanimous initial vote at its June 1, 2011 meeting on the price to be charged for deputies, far greater consensus has been achieved on this issue. That price had emerged from work done by a police services steering committee over a period of more than a year.

For dispatching, it’s not some number of dispatchers for which the city of Ann Arbor would be contracting, but rather for the dispatching service. So there would be no distinction between cost and price.

The county currently employs 17 dispatchers plus a coordinator for a total of 18. The staffing model Clayton has put together to absorb the Ann Arbor dispatching workload would include 30 dispatchers plus two supervisors and one coordinator, for a total of 33. So Clayton would need an additional 15 bodies to staff the county’s dispatching room, in order to handle the additional workload.

The most natural extra bodies would be Ann Arbor police dispatchers – there are currently 21 of them. So not all of them would be needed.

The impact of the fiscal year 2012 budget approved by the Ann Arbor city council on May 31 already included the layoff of two of those 21 police dispatchers starting July 1. Those two [not all 21, as reported elsewhere] have been sent layoff notices, according to Jones. Robyn Wilkerson, head of human resources for the city of Ann Arbor, told The Chronicle that all the dispatchers were sent a communication – a copy of the press release outlining the potential city/county consolidation.

When Jones and Clayton spoke with The Chronicle earlier this week, Jones said he’d met with both laid-off dispatchers, and that he was working with Wilkerson and interim city administrator Tom Crawford to try to find a “softer landing” for them in some other city position. Jones recalled his own past career experience in Oakland County getting laid off as a sworn officer. He’d been offered a job at one-third the pay – either working in the morgue or serving process papers. He’d opted to work as a process server, and eventually was hired back.

For those who are hired into a consolidated dispatch room, Clayton described how they and the current sheriff’s dispatchers would make a gradual transition. Ann Arbor dispatchers would initially take all the Ann Arbor calls. They’d need to then start learning the rest of the county. And current sheriff’s dispatchers would need to learn the city of Ann Arbor. That would be accomplished partly by dispatchers pairing up on computer screens, but also by doing ride-alongs – actually riding with sheriff’s deputies and Ann Arbor officers out on patrol.

If the consolidation of dispatch operations is implemented, the math doesn’t work in favor of the Ann Arbor police dispatchers. Of the remaining 19 dispatchers (after the two layoffs), Clayton would use only 15 of them, leaving an additional four dispatchers out of a dispatching job. That corresponds roughly to the annual $400,000 savings (described in the city’s press release) that would be realized through the consolidation.

City of Ann Arbor Budget: Timeline for Consolidation

How does that $400,000 savings fit into the city of Ann Arbor police department budget planning?

While the city of Ann Arbor adopts its budget one year at a time, it plans in two-year cycles. After meeting a reduction target of $1 million for the 2012 fiscal year, Jones is looking at an additional $1 million reduction target for FY 2013.

For FY 2012 – which begins on July 1, 2011 – six police officer positions were eliminated through a combination of layoffs and vacancies. And the plan for FY 2013, which Jones put in front of the city council at a work session held in February 2011, would call for the layoff of as many as eight additional sworn police officers in FY 2013. That work session scenario – outlining two different budget reduction strategies – did not include the consolidation of the dispatching operation with the county. From the worksheet presented at the February work session:

Police Services Reduction Strategies
------------------------------------------------------
2.5% SCENARIO

2012            2012           2013            2013
Action          Dollars        Action          Dollars
------------------------------------------------------
LAYOFF                         LAYOFF
2 Dispatchers   162,659        1 Dispatcher     97,810
2 Plc Offcrs    221,332        4 Plc Offcrs    470,272
1 Plc Svc Spcls  90,246
                               REDUCE RANK
ELIMINATE VACANT               1 Lt, 2 Sgt      24,274
1 Telecomm       78,374
1 Plc Offcr     115,521        MAT/SUPP         31,723
1 Plc Prof Asst  79,144
                               Addtl Svngs      22,981

Subtotal Svgs   747,276                        647,060
2.5% Target     666,049                        638,802

------------------------------------------------------
4.0% SCENARIO [in addition to 2.5% savings]

2012            2012           2013            2013
Action          Dollars        Action          Dollars
------------------------------------------------------
LAYOFF                         LAYOFF
3 Plc Offcrs    339,365        4 Plc Offcrs    479,235

                               Addtl Svgs       14,334

Grand Total   1,086,641                      1,140,629
4.0% Target   1,049,330                      1,091,071

-

The 2.5% budget reduction scenario is one that would entail police officers adopting the city’s benefits package, which would include a contribution by employees to their health care costs. The 4.0% reduction scenario is what would have to be achieved if police officers do not adopt the city benefits package.  The city’s contract with its police officers expired on June 30, 2009 and the union has filed a request for arbitration under the state’s Act 312. The 2.5%/4.0% alternative is part of an attempt the city has used explicitly to align its budget strategy with its labor strategy.

Based on the worksheet, in FY 2013 the impact of the $400,000 savings through dispatch consolidation would translate roughly into the preservation of slightly more than three police officers on patrol. For Jones, it’s a matter of weighing the dispatchers who could lose their jobs as dispatchers, against the police officers who’d remain on patrol. On that balance test, it’s police officers on patrol that take priority.

For Jones, the deadline for dispatch consolidation is a little less than a year from now, when the FY 2013 budget is approved. The $400,000 in savings will clearly help meet the reduction target, but it still leaves him around $600,000 short. And Jones is looking ahead to FY 2014 and FY 2015 when he expects further reductions will be necessary. So even while one argument on the city’s side for consolidated dispatch is budgetary – it’ll save $400,000 annually – the move is not a complete solution to funding police services in Ann Arbor.

Public Policy Arguments for Consolidation

Jones can make a budgetary argument to the Ann Arbor city council in favor of consolidated dispatch. But Clayton allowed that the consolidation itself (as opposed to the co-location) is a cost-neutral proposition to the county. He went on to describe how consolidated dispatch would add employees and increase the challenges and workload for the sheriff’s office. But he concluded: It’s what the sheriff is supposed to do – provide a blanket of support.

Asked by The Chronicle how he planned to sell the idea to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, Clayton stated that it was simply good public policy – from the point of view of the collaboration between public entities as well as the perspective of coordinating public safety operations.

Jones agreed that the budgetary argument is not the only one. He’d worked in Oakland County where regionalized dispatch is the norm. And both Clayton and Jones pointed to Livingston County as an example where all dispatch is done through the sheriff’s office.

When The Chronicle phoned Mimi Yenshaw, administrative supervisor of Livingston County dispatch, she described how her department performs dispatching services for nine different police departments, 10 fire departments and one ambulance service located in the county. She indicated that there are some minor variations in how calls are handled for each of those agencies – differences that are incorporated into dispatcher training. For example, each fire department stipulates what kinds of medical runs its firefighters will go on. Dispatchers have a grid that lists out which fire departments will go on what kinds of calls.

The consolidated dispatch operation in Livingston County launched on Memorial day in 1999. Yenshaw has been part of the operation since that time and said, “It works very well for us. I can’t say how it would work for Ann Arbor.”

Within Washtenaw County, the city of Ypsilanti consolidated its dispatch operation with the sheriff’s office just last year. Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber told The Chronicle in a phone interview that there’s one extra technical step that’s now required when calls are dispatched, but that’s “a very quick step,” he said. From his perspective, the consolidation is working. Four police and fire dispatchers were folded into the county’s operation, and did not have to lose their jobs, Schreiber said. The value of the contract with the county is $149,000 annually, and that reflects a savings to the city of $89,000, Schreiber wrote in a follow-up email.

Calculations on savings and costs are affected by police service answering point (PSAP) funding – which is collected by the state treasury from communication service suppliers/resellers and commercial mobile radio service suppliers, and then distributed to local units. PSAP funding is not enough to cover the complete cost of dispatching, but the funding is allocated to the unit providing the answering point, i.e., the dispatching service.

While the budgetary impact is positive, a staff memo written by then-acting Ypsilanti chief of police Paul DeRidder also described a potential negative impact: “Some negative impacts to the YPD will be: increased operational workload for existing employees, loss of independence, loss of tailored or customized services.” In his phone interview, Schreiber allowed that the consolidation meant the loss of some amount of control. It’s a matter of weighing how much control you are willing to lose, he concluded.

In the same memo, DeRidder also described the public policy benefits of the consolidation beyond the cost savings. The consolidation would improve service, he wrote, by “providing a single point of contact for all emergency service requests (regional concept), the reduction of misdirected calls, inter-jurisdiction cooperation, enhanced information sharing, and expanded supervision to assure continued high quality service delivery.”

It’s these kinds of public policy benefits that chief Jones and sheriff Clayton both identified as arguments for the consolidation of Ann Arbor’s dispatch with the sheriff’s office.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public entities like the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County governments. 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.

If the 2010 census population were distributed perfectly evenly across the city’s five wards (pie-shaped per the city’s charter), they would each have a population of 22,787 – the ideal number in redistricting terms. Without any redistricting, the imbalance among wards, due to relative population growth in Ward 1 since 2000, breaks down as follows: Ward 1 [24,616 population, +1,829 whole number deviation from ideal (+8.03%)]; Ward 2 [22,419, -368 (-1.61%)]; Ward 3 [22,206, -581 (-2.55%)]; Ward 4 [22,585, -202 (-0.89)]; Ward 5 [22,108, -679 (-2.98%)].

In 2000 the variance from the ideal for each ward ranged between +1.5% and -1.5%.

The proposed redistricting plan would yield the following breakdown: Ward 1 [22,795, +8 (+0.04%)]; Ward 2 [22,739, -48, (-0.21%)]; Ward 3 [22,919, +132 (+0.58%)]; Ward 4 [22,760, -27 (-0.12%)]; Ward 5 [22,721, -66, (-0.29%)].

To restore the balance in the wards, the redistricting proposal focuses on reassignment where the five wedges of the ward pie meet, in the center of the city near the downtown.

Part of a small wedge of the current Ward 1, between Geddes Avenue and South University, would be reassigned to Ward 2. A current Ward 1 area just south of South University Avenue between South Forest and South State would be reassigned to Ward 3 and Ward 4.

And the current area in Ward 1 bounded by East Huron, Division, Liberty and Main streets would become part of Ward 5. Also becoming a Ward 5 area would be the former Ward 1 area bounded by Liberty, Thompson, Madison and Division.

Ward 3 – which would, by a tiny fraction, wind up being the largest ward population-wise – would be reassigned some former Ward 4 areas, east of Packard, and north of Wells Street. That change would align the boundary between wards along Packard Street. [.pdf of city map showing redistricting]

This was the first public discussion of any redistricting proposal. The city’s election commission met last Friday, June 10, to go over the plan. To enact the plan, the city council will need to revise Chapter 17 of the city code, which lays out the ward boundaries. The two required readings and approvals by the council, together with a public hearing, could take place in July. Ward boundary changes would be effective before the Nov. 8, 2011 general election, but not before the Aug. 2, 2011 primary election.

The city election commission would need to approve changes to precinct boundaries that are required as a result of the redistricting.

Because the rates are part of a city ordinance, the changes must receive a second approval from the city council, after a public hearing.

According to the city, the rate increases are needed to maintain debt service coverage and to maintain funding for required capital improvements.

The city’s drinking water charges are based on a “unit” of 100 cubic feet – 748 gallons. Charges for residential customers are divided into tiers, based on usage. For example, the first seven units of water for residential customers are charged $1.23 per unit. The new residential rate for the first seven units would be $1.27.

The city’s stormwater rates are based on the amount of impervious area on a parcel and are billed quarterly. For example, the lowest tier – for impervious area less than 2,187 square feet – is currently charged $12.84 per quarter. Under the new rate structure, that would increase to $13.24. [.pdf of complete utility rate changes 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: [link]

The board’s approval also includes the extension, through 2015, of the contract for a network manager job that’s shared between the county and city. That contract, first signed in 2008, expires in June of 2011. The two entities save about $78,000 $81,577 annually because of the shared position. Also approved was a lease extension through 2015 for shared data center space – that lease is set to expire in 2013.

In addition, the board gave initial approval to share costs with the city for a deal with the firm EMC, paying for storage area network and backup services. The county now pays $387,924 annually for these services, and would expect to save $212,000 annually by sharing costs with the city. The deal would also allow the county to increase storage capacity, giving it the ability for future potential technology collaborations with other local units of government and community partners.

This brief was filed from the boardroom in the Washtenaw County administration building, 220 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]