In the couple of weeks leading up to the May 21, 2012 meeting, councilmembers had their hands literally full with the FY 2013 budget. (Photo by the writer, taken on May 18.)

The amendments approved by the council included modifications that added a secretary position to the 15th District Court, increased human services funding by $46,899, added $78,000 to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission budget, and eliminated a contract with RecycleBank to administer a coupon program to encourage residents to recycle.

One resolution – which did not actually modify the budget – simply directed the city administrator to bring a future mid-year budget amendment to add up to six firefighters to the budget – if a federal grant and increased state fire protection allocations materialize.

Amendments that were brought forward, but that did not win council approval, included a proposal to leave money in various city funds, totaling $307,299, instead of transferring that amount to the public art fund. Also failing to win approval was an amendment that would give a specific interpretation to the city’s downtown development authority tax increment finance (TIF) capture ordinance – that would have benefited the city’s general fund by around $200,000. Both of those amendments were brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Another amendment that failed would have restored loose leaf collection service in the fall, as well as holiday tree pickup. And an amendment to fund additional police officers also did not succeed. Both of those amendments were proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Lumm was joined by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) in dissenting on the final budget vote.

The total expenditure budget for FY 2013 as proposed – across all funds, including utilities, solid waste and the like – came to $404,900,312 in revenues against $382,172,603 in expenses.

The originally proposed budget for the much smaller general fund – out of which the city pays for services like fire and police, planning, financial services, administration, parks and recreation – showed $79,193,112 in revenues against expenses totaling $78,869,750 for a planned surplus of $323,362. The following year, FY 2014, had been projected to be basically a break-even year.

The cumulative impact of the amendments approved by the council on Monday night increased expenditures to $79,070,842 against revenues of $79,193,112, for a surplus of $122,270. Below is a detailed list of proposed amendments and outcomes.

• Increase District Court budget by $76,193 to add a secretary position. Outcome: Approved on a 10-1 vote, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) dissenting. The amendment was put forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).
  The increased expenditure did not identify a source of funds other than to tap the general fund. Rationale for the added position was that it restored a job that had been eliminated when it was uncertain whether Gov. Rick Snyder would appoint a replacement for judge Julie Creal, who resigned in 2011. Joe Burke was eventually appointed on Feb. 15, 2012 to replace her. The argument for adding the position was essentially that Burke needs the support staff.
• Policy Direction: Upon receipt of additional funding for fire protection from the federal or state government, make a future mid-year budget amendment to hire up to six additional firefighters for a total of 88 firefighters. Outcome: Approved on a unanimous vote. The amendment was put forward by Margie Teall (Ward 4).
  The funding for additional firefighters would potentially be a combination of a federal grant – for which the city has applied through a FEMA program called Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response grants (SAFER) – and possible increases in the state of Michigan’s fire protection allocation to municipalities that are home to state-owned institutions like the University of Michigan. The number of 88 had been identified by fire chief Chuck Hubbard as ideal at a working session conducted on March 12, 2012.
• Define DDA TIF capture on an interpretation of Chapter 7 that’s different from that of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, add $199,360 to general fund, and add two firefighter positions. Outcome: Rejected on a 3-8 vote. The amendment was put forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). It got support only from Kunselman, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).
  The interpretation of Chapter 7 was controversial since it was first identified last year by city financial staff as having an impact on the amount of tax increment finance (TIF) capture to which the Ann Arbor DDA is entitled in its downtown district. For more detail see: “Column: Let’s Take Time on Ann Arbor Budget.” The interpretation of the ordinance and method of calculation of the TIF capture proposed by Kunselman would have had a substantial impact on the city’s revenue, as well as that of other taxing authorities in the DDA district, including the Ann Arbor District Library.
• Increase human services allocation by $46,899. Outcome: Approved on a unanimous vote. The amendment was brought forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1).
  Last year for FY 2012, the council amended the proposed budget to increase human service funding by $85,600, to bring the total allocation to nonprofits providing human services to $1,244,629. Compared to the originally proposed FY 2012 human services amount, this year’s FY 2013 amount is about $39,000 greater. But that reflects a $46,899 decrease from the level to which the council amended the budget last year.
• Decrease mayor/council travel budget by $6,500. Outcome: Rejected on a 2-9 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and won support only from Briere and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).
  The amount of $6,500 appears to arise out of an allocation of $550 for each of 10 councilmembers and $1,000 for the mayor. Two years ago on March 1, 2010, as the council was giving direction to then-city administrator Roger Fraser, a proposal was made to direct Fraser to eliminate travel for the mayor and councilmembers. The council decided on that occasion to preserve mayor John Hieftje’s allocation of $1,000.
• Eliminate RecycleBank funding, with virtually no impact this year to the solid waste budget. Outcome: Approved on a 8-3 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). It was opposed by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).
  RecycleBank administers a coupon-based reward program that is intended to increase rates of curbside recycling in the city. At its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting, the city council voted to retain the contract it had signed the previous year with RecycleBank. Leading up to that vote, there had been some interest on the council in canceling the contract entirely – because it was not clear that the impact of the coupon-based incentives was commensurate with the financial benefit to the city. But the council settled on a contract revision that was favorable to the city. The cost of continuing the contract this year would be $103,500. The cost of canceling is $107,200 – $90,000 in an equipment purchase settlement in accordance with terms of the contract and $17,200 for 60 days of contractual notice. Savings will be realized in subsequent years.
• Eliminate $307,299 in transfers to public art. Outcome: Rejected on a 2-9 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). It got support only from its two sponsors.
  The amendment stipulated that the transfers from various city funds into the public art fund would not take place, “notwithstanding city code” – a reference to the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. The Percent for Art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital improvement projects, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project, be set aside for public art. The amendment would have prevented the transfer of $60,649 out of the drinking water fund, $22,400 out of the stormwater fund, $101,750 out of the sewer fund, and $122,500 out of the street millage fund. The council had re-debated its public art ordinance most recently at its May 7, 2012 meeting, in the context of a sculpture for the Justice Center lobby, which was ultimately approved.
• Increase Ann Arbor Housing Commission budget by $78,000 to offset cost of allocating retiree healthcare costs. Outcome: Approved on a unanimous vote. The amendment was brought forward by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).
  The resolution did not identify a source of revenue other than the general fund surplus to pay for the increase. However, the resolution made clear that the increase was for one year only, to give the AAHC time to find additional revenue. The increase to AAHC is intended to offset the additional costs to AAHC from the new method of allocating retiree health costs to different departments – based on where the liability is accruing. For the city’s general fund departments, this resulted in decreased costs this year totaling around $1 million. But for some organizations within the city, like AAHC, it resulted in increased costs. For detail on retiree cost allocation methodology, see The Chronicle’s coverage of a Feb. 13, 2012 working session.
• Count golf course support as parks support. Outcome: Approved with dissent only from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The amendment was brought forward by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).
  The background to the amendment is a 2006 administrative policy approved by the council in connection with the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage. Among other things, under the 2006 administrative policy, general fund support for parks will decrease only in concert with the rest of the general fund budget. The council has revised the 2006 administrative policy twice previously. On May 17, 2010, the city council revised the 2006 administrative policy to eliminate the natural area preservation program’s automatic 3% increase, and reset NAP funding to levels proportionate with other programs. And on May 16, 2011 the council revised the 2006 administrative policy to allow non-millage funds to count as general fund support for the parks, for purposes of the policy that require general fund support. The parks maintenance and capital improvements millage will likely be put on the ballot for renewal in the Nov. 6, 2012 general election.
  The result of the other budget amendments that the council passed on the evening of May 21 would have triggered a need to adjust parks funding upwards by $49,000. The budget amendment on golf support did not change the 2006 administrative policy. Rather, it stipulated that the $272,220 included in the FY 2013 budget proposal as a transfer to the golf courses covered the adjustment (the $49,000) that would have been required to meet the 2006 policy.
• Restore non-containerized fall leaf collection and holiday tree pickup, through a one-time use of $383,000 and recurring use of $275,280 money from the solid waste fund. Outcome: Rejected on a 3-8 vote. The amendment was brought forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Joining her in support were only Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).
  The one-time use of funds would be for purchasing two sweeper/pusher vehicles. The amendment also called for recurring use of $275,280 to pay for labor/equipment costs. Of that amount, $25,204 would have gone to fund the curbside pickup of holiday trees. The amendment called for a range of different savings within the solid waste fund that might have been used to fund the recurring costs, including savings from the elimination of the RecycleBank contract.
• Add up to 10 sworn police officers – five to be funded through a federal Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant and five to be funded through reductions in other departments. Outcome: Rejected with support only from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The amendment was brought forward by Lumm.
  The five positions to be added through the COPS grant would have been added only if the grant were awarded. The other five positions would have been funded from non-specific cuts to other city general fund departments: mayor and council ($8,957); 15th District Court ($94,617); public services ($192,265); and human resources ($35,939). The amendment also called for higher cost recovery for officers for which the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) contracts.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city of Ann Arbor. 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 topic came up after a presentation by DDA executive director Susan Pollay, who was filling in for Rene Greff, a DDA board member and co-owner of Arbor Brewing Company and Corner Brewery. Greff had been scheduled to give the same talk she gave at a DDA retreat in May, outlining the organization’s history, how it works and what it has accomplished. 

So how did panhandling usurp parking as the most-discussed topic related to the DDA? Why aren’t beat cops patrolling downtown? What do merchants think about “Arthur,” one of the regulars who asks passers-by for change along Main Street? It all comes down to money.

The DDA and Beat Cops

We won’t attempt to detail Pollay’s presentation, except to note the part relevant to the issue of beat cops. In 2005 the DDA and the city reached a parking system administration agreement under which the city could ask the DDA for up to $2 million each year not to exceed $10 million over 10 years. Pollay said that as part of that agreement, it was the DDA’s expectation that the city would fund beat cops to the downtown. However, this was not part of the contractual arrangement, she said – the city can use the $2 million for any purpose. So the DDA had no recourse when the city decided to restructure the way it handles patrols.

Until this week, six officers were assigned to walk or bicycle the downtown area, working in pairs at any given time. As part of a restructuring of the Ann Arbor Police Department, those patrols have been eliminated. The Chronicle’s coverage of the May 18 city council meeting reported the explanation that police chief Barnett Jones gave to council:

… Jones explained that the total number of uniforms downtown would actually increase. Officers are required to spend one hour every day outside of their cars – partly to conserve fuel, Jones said. And during these out-of-car breaks, they’d be walking around downtown. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) clarified that by “break” Jones didn’t mean sitting in a cafe eating lunch. Jones also clarified for Smith that the new way of organizing the policing of downtown was not a break from the notion of “community policing.”

One visible sign of this change at Thursday morning’s meeting was the uniform of Doug Martelle, who was formerly on bike patrol in the downtown area. At previous meetings of the Main Street Area Association, Martelle and his partner wore cycling shorts. On Thursday, Martelle was alone, and in a regular uniform.

During the Q&A following Pollay’s talk, Roger Pothus described an incident this week near Renaissance, his clothing store on South Division. There was a break-in at a home during the middle of the afternoon – Pothus said that people who witnessed the incident and called in to report it were “lectured” that there were fewer police officers on the force and that no one could come out to the scene. They were told that if they wanted to report the crime, they needed to come to the downtown police station, Pothus said.

The topic of security shifted to panhandling, as someone suggested that the city’s mayor, John Hieftje, be asked to walk the downtown area in the late afternoon, particularly when panhandlers gather around Starbucks at the corner of Main and Liberty.

Several people identified “Arthur” as one of the more aggressive panhandlers, known for walking with a single crutch. Rebecca Konieczny, owner of the Busy Hands yarn and gift store, said she’d gotten so mad that she followed him up and down Main Street, calling the police from her cell phone. Someone else suggested that perhaps merchants start carrying mace and pepper spray, to which Martelle responded: “I can’t condone the use of mace on the homeless population.”

Pollay said the best way to get increased levels of service is to call the city each time there’s a problem. Newcombe Clark, president of the Main Street Area Association board, said the association could make the non-emergency police phone number more widely available to downtown merchants. [The non-emergency number is (734) 794-6911]

“We urge you to call,” Martelle said. Even if the panhandler is gone by the time police arrive and they can’t write up the incident, the call will be logged, he said. The time of the call is recorded, as is the time that an officer is dispatched and the times they arrive and leaves.

Carl Ent, a former Ann Arbor police chief who is now a vice president at the Bank of Ann Arbor, told the group that even if it takes an officer 25 minutes to respond in one instance, the next time he might be right around the corner when the call comes in, and can respond more quickly.

Martelle said Arthur was one of their “no tolerance guys” – if he was violating the law, they’d write a ticket. For panhandlers they hadn’t seen on the street before, police first give them a warning and explain what was permitted and what was not. When Martelle told the group that Arthur had been successful in getting some of his tickets waived,  several merchants responded with groans of exasperation.

Later in the meeting, Pollay announced that the DDA was giving $16,000 to the four downtown merchant associations – $4,000 each – to use for window display contests, with the goal of making downtown more walkable.

Clark had this suggestion: “Put beat cops in all the windows.”

At the work session, city administrator Roger Fraser and the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, indicated that their preferred strategy was not to build any firefighter layoffs into the FY 2010 budget – they wanted to see if they could squeeze the $260,000 out of the budget in the course the first part of the FY 2010, which for the city begins July 2009. There’s uncertainty still, said Fraser, about how many police officers will take advantage of the early retirement offer – a move the city is making to avoid laying off 27 officers for FY 2010. Officers have until mid-June to make a decision. That uncertainty factors into decisions on the FY 2010 budget that council will make on  May 18.

Councilmembers took turns calling city staff to the podium to clarify questions on other topics of interest. That included parking meters – their possible installation in residential areas, as well as the feasibility of maintaining current levels of ticket revenues without as many community standards enforcement officers dedicated specifically to ticketing. Other topics included the Local Development Finance Authority (questions about angels), historic district consultant (likely to be cut in FY 2010, instead of waiting until FY 2011), Project Grow (fund balance seen as too high) and the civic band (has not requested funding). The East Stadium bridges question came up, too (no money from state, but possibly from feds).

No formal decisions were made at the work session.

State Revenue Sharing Reductions

Kirk Profit and Kenneth Cole of Governmental Consultant Services, Inc. presented a grim economic picture to councilmembers in terms of the state shared revenue the city can expect. Of the four means of taxation – property tax, income tax, business tax, and sales tax – it’s sales tax that figures in state shared revenues.

The concept behind the state shared revenue system is that local municipalities in Michigan have a restricted ability to levy taxes, so the state reapportions to local municipalities some revenues out of the 6% sales tax that it collects. It’s 4% out of the 6% that the state can redistribute. The reapportionment comes in two flavors: the constitutional portion (15% of the 4% gross collections of the state sales tax) and the statutory portion (up to 21.3% of the 4% gross collections of the state sales).

Budget planning by the city of Ann Arbor in FY 2010 assumed the same amount of state shared revenue as last year – based on flat dollar amounts since 2005. Those figures were more conservative than the “consensus projected” numbers from January 2009, given by GCSI.  But the most recent projections – based on an Executive Order (2009-22) passed on May 5, 2009 by both the House and Senate appropriations committees – put expected state shared revenues at around $260,000 less that the number used for city of Ann Arbor budget planning.

                           Statutory           Constitutional       Total

A2 budget planning        $2,942,517          $7,884,545           $10,827,062
January 2009 forecast     $3,233,618          $7,763,929           $10,997,547
May 2009 forecast         $2,988,371          $7,576,700           $10,565,071

The reduction in projections for the constitutional portion of the total is due to flagging sales tax revenues, which are coming in at around $22 million below what economists had projected for the current year. The reduction in the projection for the statutory portion stems not just from flagging sales tax revenues. It’s due to a stipulation in the executive order that calls for cities, villages and townships (“CVTs” in state legislative parlance) to get a payment that is only equal to the FY 2008 allocation. Without that executive order, the total revenue sharing amount would have been protected from cuts, even if sales tax collections decreased and caused a reduction in the constitutional portion. That protection is afforded by Public Act 251 of 2008.

Fire Protection

To address the shortfall of $260,000 against the numbers used for city of Ann Arbor budget planning, Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, suggested that one strategy would be to contemplate earlier layoffs than originally planned in the fire department. Those staff reductions had been planned for FY 2011. In response to a question by Leigh Greden (Ward 3), city administrator Roger Fraser indicated that the budget he wanted to put before council on May 18 would not include the fire department layoffs.

Fraser suggested a wait-and-see approach, in light of the fact that (i) it still was not clear how many police officers would take advantage of the early retirement option being offered, (ii) there was time to see how actual operating expenses played out from July 2009 to the end of the year. On the first point, Fraser said it was possible that more officers would take the early retirement than the minimum needed in order for the city to meet its budgetary goal (which might itself help cover the $260,000). Officers have until mid-June to decide, which is after council votes on the budget. On the second point, Fraser said that the city monitors its spending on an ongoing basis and would be able to evaluate whether it was managing to spend somewhat less than actually budgeted – which could mean layoffs in the fire department would be unnecessary.

On the scenario sketched out by Fraser, if it were necessary to do so next spring, the decision to lay off firefighters could be made through an amendment to the budget. A budget amendment could also be undertaken in July, if the financial picture became clearer by then, he said.

Fire protection was also the one bright spot in GCSI’s report to council. The $1.1 million grant from the state to the city to cover the cost of fire protection for public institutions like the University of Michigan would not be cut. Mayor John Hieftje, however, asked Profit to clarify that this amount did not reflect a “fully-funded” grant, but rather only about 60% of the actual cost of fire protection. Profit allowed that there were some problems with the formula – among them, vacant land can figure into it – but that the kind of fire protection required by the university, with its laboratories and larger buildings, reflected a greater challenge.

In the ensuing discussion, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Fraser to explain where the $1.1 million could be found in the fire department’s revenue statement. Fraser said that the $1.1 fire protection grant was listed as revenue in the general fund, not the fire department specifically, because the city didn’t tie the provision of fire protection to having the grant.

Parking Meters and Law Enforcement

Barnett Jones, director of safety services for the city of Ann Arbor (police chief), was on hand to explain how parking ticket enforcement would be achieved, given the plan to reduce community standards enforcement positions (who are dedicated specifically to writing tickets). Faced with skepticism from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) about patrol officers’ ability to write the same number of tickets, thus preserving ticket revenue, Jones remained cheerful. Jones said that he’d be calling on his officers to respond and that they would rise to the occasion. Patrol officers had always written tickets, and they’d continue to do so.

On the topic of a police officer presence in the downtown, Jones said that he wanted to get those officers assigned to downtown areas (which they have the option to cover by bicycle or on foot) back out on patrol. That didn’t mean that downtown merchants wouldn’t see police officers walking around downtown, he said. That’s because there’s a general directive to patrol officers to spend at least an hour a day outside their cars. Some of that time could be spent downtown, when officers would park and write tickets. A parked police car could help act as a deterrent. The downtown officers that merchants had come to know, he said, would be replaced by a greater number of different officers filtering through.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) tried to get an arithmetic handle on the shift of responsibility of ticketing from community standards officers to patrol officers. If there’s 64 patrol officers, and 5 community standards were to be cut, then each patrol officer is being asked to pick up the slack of 1/12 of a community standards officer, he reasoned. “And that’s what you think they can do?” he asked Jones. Jones’ answer: Yes.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) expressed concern that the added responsibility for ticketing could have a negative impact on those officers’ ability to fight crime. Jones reiterated his belief that his officers would rise to this occasion. He also pointed out that 54% of the city’s budget is the police department and that he was operating within the reality of a situation where cuts were necessary.

It wasn’t just the ticketing at parking meters that was at issue, but also the possible installation of new meters in residential areas outside the DDA. Field services staffers Mike Bergren and Pat Cawley were on hand with maps to give the same presentation they’d given last week at the DDA board meeting.

There are an additional 208 meter locations proposed in the central business district, in many cases adjoining the University of Michigan hospitals system. Bergren said that the city would like to explore the possibility of having the DDA do the management – the DDA administers the city’s existing parking program. He also indicated that options were being considered for addressing the negative impact on free parking availability for residents in the area.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) – who had heard the presentation at the DDA board meeting because she serves on that body – pointed out that the addition of meters in residential areas was counter to the recommendation in the Nelson/Nyaagard study, which saw residential areas as appropriate for residential parking permits, but not meters. If parking is not allowed except for residents, that pushes motorists into the parking garages, according to that strategy. Bergren said that if a motorist had to pay to park anyway, then they might choose to park closer to downtown (i.e., in a downtown parking structure). Otherwise put, the goal of getting more people to park closer to downtown could also be achieved with parking meters.

Smith was joined by Briere, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Hohnke in expressing their skepticism of the proposal. Hohnke expressed concern that parking meters reflected a “commercial invitation” into residential areas. Rapundalo’s concerns were partly practical. He wondered if motorists would simply move to the next block down where there were no meters. From Bergren, he elicited the revenue projections per meter, which Bergren characterized as on  the low end – 30% occupancy. While a meter could potentially bring in $2,000 a year, they assumed only $500 for estimating revenues for the newly installed meters, he said.

Historic District Consultant

The city’s historic district consultant was originally slated by the budget plan to be cut in FY 2011. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) called on Jayne Miller, community services director, to inquire what the impact on planning staff would be for eliminating that position a year earlier – in FY 2010. In what way was city staff poised to absorb the loss of the consultant’s services, Taylor asked. Miller described how the consultant [Kristine Kidorf] had worked with staff over the last three and a half years on the unification of guidelines across all the city’s various historic districts plus a project in one of the districts – the Old West Side – to identify contributing structures. That work, Miller said, was complete. The consultant had also worked to help train planning staff on historic district issues. Individual staff [Jill Thatcher] had furthered her professional training by taking courses at Eastern Michigan University.

LDFA

Stephen Rapundalo had questions for Tom Crawford about the LDFA’s budget. [There's useful backround on the LDFA board, on which Rapundalo serves, in a previous Chronicle article on the recent LDFA retreat.] Rapundalo elicted from Crawford that he had been unable to identify other SmartZones (of which the Ann Arbor LDFA is one) across the state that used LDFA monies to fund organizational costs for private angel investing groups. That’s what is proposed for Ann Arbor Angels, as a part of the LDFA’s budget.

Rapundalo also sought clarity on the question of LDFA microloans: When they get repaid, do they get repaid to the LDFA or to Ann Arbor SPARK, the region’s economic development agency which is funded in part by the LDFA? Crawford said that was still being worked out.

Rapundalo also wanted to know if he’d be provided with any additional clarity as to the specific duties and responsibilities of the LDFA’s proposed staff person. Crawford said he had nothing detailed to report, but responded in the affirmative to Rapundalo’s request to get that information from the LDFA’s president as well as the details of the microloan situation.

Also related to economic development was a brief discussion of the city’s economic development fund. The fund was created in order to pay for the parking spaces in DDA parking facilities, which were required by Google as a part of the deal that located one of the  internet company’s advertising divisions in Ann Arbor. Regarding the current fund balance of around $700,000 – the fund had budgeted for a faster hiring rate than Google has achieved  – Rapundalo acknowledged that it was an attractive amount of money  to be used for other purposes, but encouraged his colleagues to leave it in place to provide for the eventuality that another similar situation to Google might come along.

Project Grow and Civic Band

At Briere’s request, Jayne Miller gave some background on Project Grow and the Ann Arbor Civic Band, which are not slated to receive the $7,000 they’ve been allocated in previous years. In the case of the civic band, Miller said that the organization had not requested funds.  The city and the band, said Miller, were working together on an arrangement for the band to use equipment for their concerts (e.g., music stands). Miller said that the city had worked with the band on getting fundraising efforts started.

Project Grow, on the other hand, had requested funding, Miller reported. The main consideration the city was looking at was the organization’s fund balance, which is roughly equivalent to the operating budget for one year. Briere noted that Project Grow’s explanation of the current sizeable fund balance was that their income came all at one time [plot rental fees in the spring]. [Council had heard from Sheri Repucci, former staffer at Project Grow, on the previous Monday night during the proposed budget's public hearing. She had addressed the fund balance by saying that the reserve was necessary because it took an entire budget cycle to replenish it, given the one-time-a-year income stream.] Miller said that according to Project Grow’s IRS 990 forms, the balance had persisted for four years.

East Stadium Bridges

Kirk Profit, the city’s consultant in Lansing, gave a fairly grim picture on prospects that the state could provide the kind of funding required to replace the Stadium bridges over State Street. [Council approved an application for state funding at its last meeting.]  Said Profit, “There’s almost no state resource for that bridge.” But federal dollars might be available, he suggested, in the form of  the Discretionary Surface Transportation allocation, which provides $1.6 billion – for the whole country. Profit said that U.S. Reps. John Dingell and Mark Schauer were working diligently to obtain funds for this area. Profit characterized Terri Blackmore from the Washtenaw Area Transportation study (WATS) as “our quarterback” on DST issues.