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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening Statements

Each candidate had a minute to give an opening statement.

Opening: Kunselman

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

Opening: Parker

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

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

Retirement Board Charter Amendment

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

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Kunselman

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

Retirement Board Charter Amendment: Parker

Parker agreed that conflict of interest should be eliminated.

Street Repair Millage

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

Street Repair Millage: Background

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

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

The ballot language for the street repair millage will read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Street Repair Millage: Parker

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

Street Repair Millage: Kunselman

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

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

Transportation

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

Transportation: Fuller Road Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transportation: Kunselman

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

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

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

Transportation: Parker

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

Finance

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

Finance: Background on Budget, Income Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finance: Income Tax – Previous Discussions

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

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

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

Finance: City Income Tax – More Recent Discussions

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

Finance: Parker

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

Finance: Kunselman

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

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

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

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

Ann Arbor DDA: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor DDA: Kunselman

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

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

Ann Arbor DDA: Parker

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

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

Human Services

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

Human Services: Background

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

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

Human Services: Parker

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

Human Services: Kunselman

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

Public Art

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

Public Art: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Art: Kunselman

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

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

Public Art: Parker

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

Allen Creek Greenway

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

Allen Creek Greenway: Background

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

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

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

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

Allen Creek Greenway: Parker

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

Allen Creek Greenway: Kunselman

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

Closing Statements

Each candidate had two minutes to give a closing statement.

Closing: Parker

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

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

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

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

Closing: Kunselman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary plot of all local contributions to six candidates in Ann Arbor Democratic primary elections. The light blue areas are the wards in which the elections are contested. Each magenta circle indicates a contribution, placed on the map based on the address of the contributor and sized based on the amount of the contribution.

Six candidates filed the necessary paperwork, which is available from the Washtenaw County clerk’s office website. [Type in the candidate's last name for links to scanned .pdf files of campaign finance reports.]

For itemized cash contributions listed on Schedule 1-A, The Chronicle has compiled the data for all six candidates into a single Google Spreadsheet – in order to get a statistical overview of the candidates’ respective contributions and to map out the distributions of contributions geographically.

Ward 5 incumbent Mike Anglin’s total of $6,850 was the largest of any candidate. His challenger Neal Elyakin filed $5,923 worth of contributions.

In Ward 3, Ingrid Ault has raised $4,031, compared to incumbent Stephen Kunselman’s $2,750. According to Washtenaw County clerk staff on Tuesday morning, Ward 3 candidate Marwan Issa had not filed a contribution report by the Friday deadline. He’d also not submitted a waiver that can be filed if contributions total less than $1,000. The fine associated with not filing is $25 per day, up to a maximum of $500.

In Ward 2, incumbent Stephen Rapundalo filed $2,950 worth of contributions compared with $2,075 for challenger Tim Hull.

Collectively, the six candidates recorded $24,579 on their statements.

After the jump, we chart out the contributions to illustrate how candidates are being supported – through many small-sized donations, or by a fewer larger-sized donations. We also provide a geographic plot, to illustrate how much financial support candidates enjoy in the wards they’re running to represent.

Statistical Overview

Comparing the dollar-amount distribution of campaign contributions, incumbents Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) show a similar pattern. Both candidates draw much of their support from contributions that are $50 or less. Anglin’s contributions show this more dramatically, with the $0-25 category receiving the most contributions of any category. All other candidates received the most contributions in the $51-100 category.

It is also striking that Anglin’s 91 contributions are nearly double the number of contributions of challenger Neal Elyakin and around triple (or more) the number of contributions of candidates in other wards.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) received 91 contributions, averaging $75. Around half were $50 or less.

Neal Elyakin (Ward 5) received 48 contributions, averaging $123. About half were $100 or more.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) received 27 contributions, averaging $102. About half were $50 or less.

Ingrid Ault (Ward 3) received 35 contributions, averaging $115. About half were $100 or more.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) received 21 contributions, averaging $140. About half were $100 or more.

Tim Hull (Ward 2) received 14 contributions averaging $148. About half were $100 or more.

Mapping

In each of the maps presented below, the magenta circles are centered on the address of a contributor. The size of the circle is proportional to the size of the contribution. The yellow border is the Ann Arbor city limit. The light blue area is the ward for which the candidate is seeking election.

The handful of addresses recorded as post office boxes were mapped to the center of the city – we did not attempt to identify a more precise location. The mapping of addresses to coordinates and the data plotting was done with GPS Visualizer. [Editor's note: GPS Visualizer depends in part on voluntary contributions to maintain the mapping tools as freely accessible and to make improvements to those tools. The Chronicle encourages its readers to support GPS Visualizer.]

Contributions from non-Ann Arbor addresses (typically from family members or business associates) are not depicted in the maps. We summarize non-Ann Arbor totals in the captions to each map. Incumbent Stephen Rapundalo in Ward 2 and challenger Neal Elyakin in Ward 5 each drew a bit more than one-third of their dollars from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

In terms of the amount of support within the ward to be represented, the mapped data shows that Ward 5 incumbent Mike Anglin enjoys more support inside his own ward than any other candidate. But he also has support throughout the city. In terms of relative amount of support inside the home ward compared with outside it, Ward 2′s Tim Hull appears to have an edge over other candidates.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Anglin's $6,850 contribution total, $250 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

Neal Elyakin (Ward 5) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Elyakin's $5,923 contribution total, $2,250 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Kunselman's $2,750 contribution total, $200 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

Ingrid Ault (Ward 3) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Ault's $4,031 contribution total, $686 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Rapundalo's $2,950 contribution total, $1,000 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

Tim Hull (Ward 2) 2011 Democratic primary campaign contribution plot. Of Hull's $2,075 contribution total, $150 came from non-Ann Arbor addresses.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of elections to 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 first took place at the Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, organized by the Third Ward Committee of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party. The second was hosted by the local League of Women Voters and filmed at the Community Television Network studios on South Industrial Highway. The winner of the Ward 3 Democratic primary will face Republican David Parker in November.

Ward 3 Democratic primary candidates at the CTN League of Women Voters forum on July 13 (top to bottom): Stephen Kunselman, Ingrid Ault, Marwan Issa. (Photos by the writer.)

The Malletts Creek event was conducted in a town hall format, with questions asked straight from the audience (not written down on index cards). The sequence of questions was determined by moderator Carl Akerlof, who picked members out of the audience.

Due to that format, the Mallets Creek forum may have more accurately reflected what issues are on Ward 3 voters’ minds – though there was considerable overlap between the two forums. This report focuses mostly on the Malletts Creek event.

Before the questions started, the candidates mingled with attendees and with each other. Issa sought some insight from Kunselman on the ins-and-outs of campaign yard sign placement. They can’t be in the right-of-way, Kunselman explained – that’s probably why some of Issa’s signs had been removed by the city. Ault asked Kunsleman: “Do you want to work on the reunion with me?” The two graduated 30 years ago in the same class from Pioneer High School.

Their ties to the community was a theme of all three candidates’ opening and closing statements, which also included other themes familiar from a candidate forum in June hosted by the Ann Arbor Democratic Party.

Kunselman stressed a focus of local government on the basics of health, safety and welfare, as opposed to economic development. That contrasted with Ault’s emphasis on her experience working with small, locally-owned independent businesses as executive director of Think Local First – she said she felt that government has a role to play in that. Marwan Issa allowed that he was young (27 years old) and it was his first time running for office, but stressed that he would bring a new vision, and a sense of urgency and energy.

The topics of questions from attendees ranged from garbage collection, to the city’s pension system, to the use of city-owned real estate. For this report, we’ve pulled out some of the highlights.

Opening and Closing Statements

In the time allotted for opening and closing statements, the candidates all stressed their connection to the community.

Ingrid Ault described herself as a townie who grew up in Ann Arbor and who used to walk into town to visit the Quality Bakery. She said she had a long record of service and is currently working for Think Local First, a nonprofit that supports local, independently-owned businesses. [link to Nonprofit Enterprise at Work directory listing for TLF]. She said that government has a role to play in that. She cited communication as a strength, saying she would take everyone’s comments seriously. She promised she would respond to every email that she gets. She told audience members that they are the under-tapped resources of the community.

Ault said she understands the issues that small businesses and homeowners face, and is interested in thoughtful discussions about solutions. She said she fears that safety services will decline unless the city finds solutions. She told the audience, “I’m your visionary.” She said she was tired of hearing that “We can’t do that, because of X, Y or Z,” and wanted find ways to move at least one little step forward.

Stephen Kunselman thanked his challengers for making it a race, noting that it’s his fourth election campaign. [His previous experience in three-way Ward 3 races is 2-0. He won the 2006 primary, also contested by Jeff Meyers and Alice Ralph. And he won the 2009 primary, contested by LuAnne Bullington and incumbent Leigh Greden. His one defeat came in a two-way race against Christopher Taylor in the 2008 primary, which accounts for his one-year hiatus from council council.]

Kunselman allowed that his status as a seasoned veteran could be considered a negative by some people, but concluded, “It is what it is.” He stressed the need to continue down a path of health, safety and welfare. He felt the city had gotten a bit off track by trying to engage in economic development activity as opposed to health, safety and welfare. He feared that as bad as the cuts to city personnel were this year, next year will be worse. He stated that the cuts in the fire and police departments shouldn’t have to happen. He pointed to the $140 million worth of debt that is recorded on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s annual report, saying “We’ll be paying for that.” That debt drags down the city’s ability to pay for personnel and fix streets, he said.

Kunselman called himself an independent voice on the council. He said that in years past, he’d heard the perception that decisions had already been made before they reached the council table – that’s not happening any more, he said.

Marwan Issa told the audience he was truly honored to be running to represent “this great ward.” He said he was running because of a concern for transparency and accountability. He wanted to know who’s in charge. Like Kunselman, he pointed to the $140 million of debt recorded on the DDA annual report and asked, “Who’s accountable for that?”

Countering the possible perception that he is not experienced enough, Issa stated, “I know I’m young,” but went on to talk about bringing a new vision, a sense of urgency and energy. Issa said he understands what it would take to make Ann Arbor the best place it can be.

Topic: Land Use

The use of land – particularly city-owned land – found its way into several questions from the audience. Candidates fielded a general question on parks, a specific question on Fuller Road Station (a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station that’s proposed on a parcel currently designated as part of the city’s park system) and the future of the Library Lot (the top of the underground parking garage currently under construction on South Fifth Avenue.)

Land Use: Parks

Ault said she was a huge supporter of parks, she uses them, they’re a treasure. She told the audience they could count on her to continue support for the parks. There had been talk about rolling general fund support for parks into the parks millage, she noted – she was not sure that’s a good idea, and said she was undecided on that.

By way of background, the talk to which Ault alluded was the result of an information request from Marica Higgins (Ward 4) made at a May 9, 2011 city council work session on parks funding. The work session covered much of the same ground as a park advisory commission meeting held on April 26, 2011. Both the council work session and the advisory commission meeting reviewed how the administrative policy on parks funding works, which was approved by the city council in 2006 as part of the pitch to voters for a renewal and combination of two separate parks millages. That combined parks maintenance and capital millage was approved for six years. It would need to be renewed on the November 2012 ballot to continue longer than that.

In broad strokes, the 2006 administrative policy stipulates that general fund support for parks will not be diminished disproportionately, relative to other areas of the city budget. So Higgins’ inquiry about the millage level required to support parks entirely through that millage is essentially a question about a scenario that would render the 2006 policy moot. As a follow-up to the city council request for information, Colin Smith – the city’s parks and recreation manager – gave park advisory commissioners an update at their May 17, 2011 meeting:

[city parks and recreation manager Colin] Smith also reported on an item related to current budget talks. At a May 9 city council work session, some councilmembers had asked what the parks budget would look like if all operations were funded by a millage. It would take roughly $9 million – about twice what the current millage covers. This gives the council an idea of the scope of parks operations, and Smith said he only mentioned it to PAC as a point of information. He said he was sure there’d be more questions regarding that in the future.

At the Malletts Creek forum, Kunselman noted that he had served as the council’s representative to the park advisory commission for a brief time. He’d helped with the skatepark effort at that time. Kunselman noted that Washtenaw County is helping with that project. [Recent Chronicle coverage: "Plans for Skatepark, Recycling, Mental Health"] He said he’s a big proponent of active recreation, because that translates into opportunities for youth. The city needs to make sure the parks are maintained, he said. The millage should only be used to pay for parks, not police, he concluded.

Issa observed that neighborhood parks are not as clean as they should be. When it comes to funding for the parks, a millage is a good way to provide for it, but the city shouldn’t try to use the millage for other purposes, he said.

Land Use: Fuller Road Station

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

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

The transit station is envisioned as directly serving east-west commuter rail passengers. A day-trip demonstration service that was to launch in October 2010 never materialized. But a recent announcement earlier this year, that some federal support for high-speed rail track improvements would be forthcoming, has shored up hopes by many people in the community that the east-west rail connection could become a reality.

The council has already approved some expenditures directly related to the project. It voted unanimously on Aug. 17, 2009 to approve $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund. Per the city charter, as a budget appropriation, the measure required eight votes. Kunselman was not a member of the council at that time.

On Nov. 5, 2009, on separate votes, the council approved additional money for the environmental study and site assessment and to authorize a memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan. Kunselman was also not yet a member of the council at that point – his first meeting of his current term was Nov. 16, 2009.

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

On the Fuller Road Station, Ault said she was undecided on the issue. She’s still gathering input, she said, including talking to the Sierra Club about the issue. [The city council has been addressed on multiple occasions over more than a year by representatives of the Huron Valley Chapter of the Sierra Club, including recently on June 6, 2011 by Nancy Shiffler, who's currently president of that group.] Ault said that mass transit is key to growth. She expressed concern that the city’s youth will leave unless transportation amenities are available. She mentioned that Sylvan Township is excited about the prospects of countywide transportation.

Kunselman said he’d love to have a train station, but wanted to know how the city is going to afford it. A parking structure, he said, is not mass transit. The University of Michigan should be taking care of its own project. [Kunselman is employed by UM as an energy conservation liaison.] Kunselman was critical of the fact that the project is divided into phases – he contended that the master plan for the whole project in all of its phases is not there. In addition, he said, he had no idea where the $10 million city of Ann Arbor share for the initial phase is coming from. At the League of Women Voters forum the following night, responding to a question about parks, Kunselman said he felt that if the project was so wonderful, it should be put to the voters.

Issa responded to the Fuller Road Station issue by saying that morning traffic is very congested. He felt the project will alleviate some of the traffic. If it works out that more people can be brought into the city with fewer cars, then he’s for it.

Land Use: Municipal Airport

An extension of the runway at Ann Arbor’s municipal airport has been included in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) for the last two years, but has been amended out by the city council before its approval both years. [Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Airport Study Gets Public Hearing"]

Kunselman said he’s been opposed and will always be opposed to the extension. The airport is functioning just fine and he sees no reason to extend the runway. Federal money for the project is not free, he explained, saying that it comes with an obligation to keep the airport open long into the future.

Issa allowed that he loves to see big planes land and it’s great to see them fly, but feels that the 10-minute drive to Willow Run airport is not too far.

Ault expressed no enthusiasm for an extended runway, and suggested that what it boils down to is the ability for big jets to land bringing in guests for University of Michigan’s football games.

Land Use: Greenbelt

Candidates were asked for their thoughts on continuing the city’s greenbelt program. By way of brief background, the 0.5 mill levy for the city’s greenbelt program, lasting for 30 years, was approved in 2003. The strategy is to preserve open space by purchasing land or acquiring development rights. The use of the funds is overseen by the greenbelt advisory commission and subject to the city council’s approval. [The Chronicle offers regular coverage of the city's greenbelt advisory commission.]

Kunselman described the greenbelt program as having been very successful so far. He noted that the recent decline in property values has meant that there is more opportunity to buy land. He explained to the audience that the city council’s role in the program is vote on properties that are recommended by the advisory commission. One of the important considerations is to make sure other municipalities are participating in the acquisition of land.

Issa alluded to the perceived balance by some voters who supported the greenbelt millage – between preserving open space outside the city and increased density inside the city. The increase in building inside the city is not happening fast enough, he contended. The city needs more of a vibe and needs to attract more businesses.

Ault noted that the city actually offers a tour of the greenbelt properties, which she had taken. Some of the properties, she said, you can go visit and be a part of. It’s actually for the public, and the public has a chance to use it. [Greenbelt properties typically remain private land and are open to the public only on certain occasions, such as the tours that Ault described. Greenbelt funds are generally used to buy development rights to the land – not the land itself. Chronicle coverage of a 2008 version of the greenbelt bus tour: "View from the Bus: A Tour of Protected Land" ]

Land Use: Library Lot

The Library Lot, despite its common name, is not owned by the Ann Arbor District Library. It’s city-owned land, just north of the library, on which a roughly 640-space underground parking garage is currently under construction. The result of the city’s request for proposal process (RFP) to develop the top of the structure was terminated by the council in April of this year – without selecting any one of six proposals for the lot. At that same meeting, the council approved a resolution directing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to organize a public engagement process that would lead to alternate uses of some city-owned parcels, including the Library Lot. [Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Council Focuses on Downtown" and "Downtown Planning Poised ... to Pause"]

Issa stated that the use of the city’s property is up to the citizens. The Library Lot is a great opportunity, he said, to make office space for a kind of business start-up hub. It would help Ann Arbor be more welcoming to new businesses by offering competitive office space rental rates in the downtown.

Ault noted that the land itself is extremely valuable. She said that in the downtown area, retail businesses continue to close. She also cited Dobson McComber as an example of a business that has left the downtown area. [The locally owned company was sold to the Hylant Group several years ago and moved out of its offices at Main and Miller. The business is now located at the Domino's Farms Office Park.] There’s been an erosion of business from the downtown, she contended. She suggested that whatever is built on top of the parking structure, retail should go on the ground floor.

Kunselman responded with a theme he’s consistently repeated while serving the council: Local government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers in the private market place. As a graduate of the University of Michigan’s master of urban planning program, he said he could appreciate good urban design. He suggested taking the example of Tuebingen in Germany. [Tuebingen is a sister city to Ann Arbor. Several officials from that city recently visited Ann Arbor through the sister city program – Kunselman hosted a planning official from Tuebingen during that visit.] That means having a master-planned site that includes the mass and scale of the structure to be built there. The city should simply put deed restrictions on that site and let the market determine what goes into the building, Kunselman said.

Collaboration

One question from the audience was about collaboration among community stakeholders – the Ann Arbor District Library, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor Public Schools, University of Michigan, etc.

In his response to that question, Stephen Kunselman wrapped the Library Lot back into his remarks. Kunselman said it’s important to look at the role of each of the entities. It’s not possible sometimes to “just collaborate.” There’s a lot of overlap between city interests and university interests, he said, but the university doesn’t have water mains or sanitary sewers. As far as collaboration with the public library, he said there’s an opportunity to build a new library on top of the Library Lot. The library could then sell its property to the private sector and add to the tax base.

Marwan Issa wondered why the city wasn’t working harder with the University of Michigan. He suggested that as a first step, representatives from the city need to sit down with the university and say, “Listen guys, we need to work on making Ann Arbor better, bringing in more organizations and businesses into the city.” There needs to be better coordination.

Ingrid Ault said that collaboration is imperative and stated that it’s something she does all day long in her capacity as executive director of Think Local First. She said it’s important to figure out what person is important to put in the room. She spends a lot of time cataloging issues. She said that not any one person has the answer – it’s the community.

Downtown Development Authority

Candidates were asked what change is needed in the city’s relationship to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. By way of very broad strokes background, the city and the DDA recently agreed to a new contract under which the DDA continues to manage the city’s public parking system. It was a difficult negotiation lasting well over a year. It resulted in an 11-year deal that gives the city 17% of gross revenues from the public parking system.

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

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

This spring, city staff noticed that the ordinance establishing the Ann Arbor DDA provides a kind of cap on the amount of taxes that the DDA is allowed to capture in its TIF district. Up to this point, that cap had not been observed. When that aspect of the ordinance was highlighted, it resulted in a repayment by the DDA of over $400,000 to other taxing authorities. That repayment could increase, depending on how the ordinance is interpreted. [See Chronicle coverage: "Column: Tax Capture Is a Varsity Sport"] The newly observed cap, plus the conditions of the new parking agreement – which call for transferring 17% of gross public parking revenues to the city of Ann Arbor – have put the DDA under considerable financial stress.

Stephen Kunselman has campaigned partly on the idea of increased oversight of DDA finances – as a result of his pressing the issue, the DDA has published past annual reports that it was required to publish by state statue. He objected to the inclusion of a provision in the city-DDA parking contract that provided for the DDA’s control of parking rate setting without city council veto, and has called the DDA a “shadow government.”

At the Mallets Creek event, Kunselman began by saying that the DDA board members are all very nice people. But over the years, he said, they’ve become insular and prone to “group think.” He noted that they are appointed by the mayor [subject to city council approval]. The DDA is spending money based on a future 10-year plan. In contrast, he said, the city is not able to predict two years out. So that’s a big gamble, he cautioned.

In his turn, Marwan Issa continued the criticism of the DDA. Issa contended the DDA board members can do whatever they want, because they’re appointed, not voted into office. So they’re not held accountable, he said. It’s too much power for the DDA if they can decide on future projects. The responsibility should fall back on the city council. About city councilmembers, he said, “If they screw up, we can boot them out.”

Ingrid Ault stated that she has applicable experience – she served as interim executive director of the Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority. Responding to Kunselman’s poo-pooing of the DDA’s 10-year plan, she stated that the DDA has the expertise to put together a 10-year plan. She allowed that there’s room for improvement. But she said the downtown looks different and better than it did 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, the parking decks were crumbling, she said, but now a good parking system is in place. The DDA has been doing a good job, she said. [In late 2009, Think Local First, the organization that Ault leads, received a $6,000 grant from the DDA to study the feasibility of introducing a local currency in Washtenaw County.]

Pension Plan

Candidates were asked a general question about the city’s pension obligation. A follow-up question on pension issues by another attendee was overruled at that time by the moderator – he said he wanted to cover as many different topics as possible. That decision was met with a few hisses from the audience.

Stephen Kunselman noted that the city’s unfunded pension liabilities had gone up with the market crash in 2008. [Some Chronicle coverage from that era: "Fiscal Restraint Required in Light of Sinking Asset Values"] The city council is not directly involved with labor negotiations, but the staff is negotiating with unions. He allowed that there’s a lot he does not know, but said that the city doesn’t have as many people paying into the pension system as it previously had – due to reductions in staff numbers.

Marwan Issa stated that the city needs to take a serious look at this. He noted that private businesses are switching from pension systems to 401(k)-type plans.

Ingrid Ault told the audience that it’s good news that the city’s pension system is now back up to 90% funding. She also pointed to the city’s A++ bond rating as a positive point. But the city does have challenges, she allowed. Everybody needs to be participating. She wants to talk about what’s possible, not what can’t be done. The city will succeed with citizen involvement and hearing citizen participation, she said.

Transparency

A question from the audience addressed an issue that Stephen Kunselman has championed over the last two years – getting the city attorney, Stephen Postema, to make public his legal opinions, in accordance with the city’s charter. [Chronicle coverage: "Getting Smarter About City Charter"]

Ingrid Ault said she found the lack of transparency troublesome. Many times, she said, the public is informed too late on important matters. She then turned her response to an implicit criticism of Kunselman for not keeping constituents up to date, by pointing to Christopher Taylor’s emailed updates as the kind of model she would follow. [Taylor is the other representative of Ward 3 on the city council.] She said she would also emulate Sabra Briere on the council and would like to hold a coffee hour – she’d try to hold a coffee at two different locations. [Briere – who represents Ward 1 and is not challenged in this year's primary, or as yet in the general election – holds a weekly coffee hour at Northside Grill, when constituents can meet with her.]

Kunselman focused on the original question of the attorney’s opinions, not the issue of constituent updates that Ault had introduced. He told the audience he was intimately aware that the city attorney has not been making public his written opinions. [Kunselman has pointedly and publicly asked for an opinion to be made public on the legality of the city's public art program, for example.]

Kunselman observed that there might be an opportunity with the hiring of the new city administrator. Kunselman felt that if the city administrator were to ask explicitly for an opinion from the city attorney, then there would be no question that the city charter requirement would be triggered, which stipulates that the opinion would need to be filed with the city clerk’s office. He ventured that it might be necessary to take a vote of the city council directing the city attorney.

Marwan Issa said that if the council is not holding the city attorney accountable, then they need to do that. As for the city administrator hire – the original question from the audience had alluded to that – Issa said he was sad to see the search did not look inside Ann Arbor. That’s a big mistake, he said.

Solid Waste

More than one question concerned solid waste – recycling and trash.

Solid Waste: Curbside Trash Collection

On July 11, the city council held a work session on the possibility of reducing the solid waste millage and franchising out residential trash collection. The uniform and unambiguous response from councilmembers on that occasion was that they were not interested in pursuing that proposal. But they were somewhat amenable to the possibility of maybe exploring different tweaks to the way that trash carts are set out.

One of the questions asked at the Mallets Creek forum expressed some worry about one of those tweaks – the idea that all carts would be placed on one side of street. What about those who have mobility issues? What about icy roads in the winter?

Stephen Kunselman stressed that these are just ideas. Yes, the city staff are putting ideas out for the city council to chew on. But he stressed that it’s only when those ideas come to the council table for a vote that it gets serious. He noted that the projections on the city’s solid waste fund show an $0.5 million deficit by 2017. At the forum, Kunselman echoed the general sentiment from the council’s work session, which was that this does not represent a dire situation requiring urgent action.

He drew a comparison of potential changes in trash collection to the way a proposal to turn off some streetlights had been handled [as part of the budget the city council approved in May 2010 for FY 2011]. He’d voted against that proposal, he said. [His wardmate Christoper Taylor had voted for it.] And when the initial pilot program was met with strong resistance, the council voted to reverse course and not pursue the streetlight program.

Marwan Issa said that whether it’s trash collection or streetlights, it all needs to be be more transparent. The council needs more information and there needs to be transparency. The city staff need to be held accountable, he said.

Ingrid Ault described the city council role as very important. Decisions like those on trash collection need public input, she said. She added that she would hear the smallest voices. Transparency is needed, she said. Public discussion is a starting point. She told the audience they could count on her to hear their voice.

Solid Waste: Recycling

The city’s recycling program has received heavy coverage in recent weeks, because a proposal that would have increased the value of the contract held by Recycle Ann Arbor for curbside recycling was initially rejected by the council, but then taken back up for reconsideration and postponed. The council will again consider that issue at its Aug. 4 meeting, after the primary election.

As basic background, the city began a single-stream recycling program in July 2010, using an expanded set of materials and large, wheeled carts that can be emptied with an automatic arm. It replaced a dual-stream system using 11-gallon tote bins, and is the piece of the recycling program handled by Recycle Ann Arbor. A couple of months later, a coupon incentive program launched under a contract with a different vendor, RecycleBank.

Chronicle coverage of the council’s July 18, 2011 meeting includes the presentation of data strongly suggesting that the increase in the total amount of recycled material collected is mostly due to the larger carts and expanded set of materials, not the coupon incentive program, which has relatively low activity among residents.

Based on councilmember comments at that meeting, it appears likely that the council could end the RecycleBank contract and re-allocate money from that contract to Recycle Ann Arbor’s contract.

In response to the question about the recycling program, Marwan Issa said it was not perfect, but more people have become aware of it. The more people that become aware of it, the more of a difference it will make, he said.

Ingrid Ault said the single-stream recycling system has some wonderful benefits. She allowed that it’s not perfect and there’s room for improvement. The coupons that residents can earn through the incentive program are a benefit, she said. She has used them at the People’s Food Co-op.

Stephen Kunselman explained that the recent issue the council has been dealing with is that the projections for the increase in materials collection were overly optimistic. [Recycle Ann Arbor is paid in part based on total tonnage collected.] Kunselman reminded the audience that he’d voted against the contract for the coupon incentives. He said if the city needs to save $200,000, then one place to look is the $200,00o annual contract for the coupon incentives.

Working with the Group

Candidates were asked how they would work with the  group serving on the council to make progress on the projects they want to bring forward.

Marwan Issa responded by saying that sometimes there may be a sense of being bullied to vote one way or the other – that is, either join the party or look like the crazy guy. He included in his response a criticism of the new parking contract between the city and the DDA: Who thought it was a good idea to give the DDA full authority to raise rates, he asked?

Ingrid Ault said it’s important to keep an open mind. You have to be willing to listen to others. She said that her stances have changed. Sometimes people hear someone’s first statement and then stop listening. She promised she would not do that. She’d listen that way with the city staff, other councilmembers and constituents.

Stephen Kunselman said the biggest thing is to have trust and respect for those with whom you’re cooperating – whether it’s spending money, setting policy or laying people off. You have to be honest and forthright as you explain yourself, he said. He said he felt he’d done well in being an independent voice and expressing an independent viewpoint on the council. Sometimes he wins, sometimes he doesn’t, he said, but it’s important not to hold grudges.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of elections to 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!

Matt Yankee, deputy clerk with Washtenaw County, marks ticks in columns as candidate names are read aloud during the recount of the Aug. 4 Democratic primary election for the Ward 3 city council seat. (Photo by the writer.)

Friday morning in the lower level of the county building at 200 N. Main, Letitia Kunselman held her cell phone out in the general direction of Melodie Gable, chair of Washtenaw County’s board of canvassers. Gable was wrapping up about 90 minutes of ballot recounting from the Ward 3 Democratic primary for Ann Arbor city council. By that time, her official announcement stated an outcome that everyone in the room already knew.

We’d followed the hand recount of paper ballots table-by-table, as one precinct after the other confirmed individual vote totals from the initial Aug. 4 results.

What Gable reported was exactly the news that Letitia Kunselman’s husband Stephen – on the other end of the cell phone line – wanted to hear: his own 511 votes compared to Leigh Greden’s 505 had been confirmed, leaving Kunselman the winner of the primary. The third candidate, LuAnne Bullington, picked up one vote in the recount in precincts 3-4 and 3-7 (these precincts shared a single polling location on election day), bringing her total to 382.

We include in our report the vote totals, some anecdotal bits from the morning recount, but more importantly, a brief look at the impact that Greden’s departure will have on council’s committee composition.

Results After the Recount

At the end of the recount on Friday morning, here’s how the final vote tally stood:

WARD 3             Bullington  Greden   Kunselman

Precinct 3-1,3-2      3         20        45
Precinct 3-3         92        160        96
Precinct 3-4,3-7    149        159       137
Precinct 3-5         25         32        23
Precinct 3-6,3-9     66         75       118
Precinct 3-8         47         59        92

Totals              382        505       511

-

Miscellaneous Roundup from the Morning Recount

-

Overall Mood: Not Bitter

Given the number of “watchers” on behalf of the various candidates, The Chronicle posed a question to Greden, regarding which people were there on his behalf: “So not all of the watchers are here officially watching for you …” He quipped in reply: “No, Latitia Letitia Kunselman is not here watching on my behalf.”

Greden also showed no visible sign of chaffing when his name was repeatedly mispronounced at one of the counting tables – each candidate’s name is called out when a ballot with a vote for them is examined. Last year, at the Ward 5 Carsten Hohnke-Vivienne Armentrout recount, The Chronicle noted that “… a predictable range of pronunciations for ‘Hohkne‘ ‘Hohnke’ could be heard.” This year, it probably couldn’t have been predicted that Greden would be rendered as “Brenden” – but it was.

Where Was Kunselman?

Why wasn’t Stephen Kunselman there in person? Letitia Kunselman told The Chronicle that he was in California – he’d gone with his son, Shane, to launch him into his freshman year in college.

Who Were the Watchers?

In alphabetical order, the names of the watchers – who helped verify that the recounting was proceeding to the satisfaction of all interested parties:

• Tim Colenbeck Colenback
  
• Dave DeVarti
• Tony Derezinski
• Jack Eaton
• Diane Giannola
• Lou Glorie
• Leah Gunn
• Letitia Kunselman
• Pat Lesko
• Joan Lowenstein
• Lois Mayfield
• Peggy Rabhi
• Karen Sidney
• Christopher Taylor
• Tom Wieder

We leave it as a political puzzle to match watchers with the candidate on whose behalf they attended.

Impact on Committee Structure

The city council reorganizes itself into committees soon after the new council is formally installed every November. Five committees on which Greden currently serves will thus have a different look in a couple of months. Here’s who currently serves on those committees:

• Budget and Labor Committee: Leigh Greden, Stephen Rapundalo, John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall
• Council Administration Committee: Leigh Greden, Stephen Rapundalo, John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall
• DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee: Leigh Greden, Carsten Hohnke, Margie Teall
• City Council Representative to DDA Partnerships Committee: Leigh Greden
• Student Relations Committee: Leigh Greden, Carsten Hohnke

Where Did These Committees Come From?

We’ve pieced together a brief history of these committees based on the description in the 2006 City of Ann Arbor Boards, Commissions and Committees document. Some significant consolidations in committee structure took place in December 2005. One effect of the restructuring was to collapse different committees with similar functions into single committees. One consequence, in some cases, was to reduce the breadth of participation in committees.

Budget and Labor (Negotiation) Committee

The stated purpose of the council’s budget and labor committee is:

To work with City Administrator to advise about City labor issues. To advise the Mayor, Council and City Administrator on matters relating to the City’s comprehensive annual financial report, audited statements and management letter; appointment of independent auditors; the City’s financial condition including revenue issues; financial investment policies and procedures; short- term and long-term borrowing policies and proposals; matters relating to the budget process, implementation and administration; and short-term and long-term financial polices and plans.

The council’s Budget and Labor Committee was established on Dec. 5, 2005 when the city council of that year passed the resolution establishing its committee structure for 2006. The membership of the Budget and Labor Committee is defined as five members – the mayor plus four members of the city council. It included at that time – and appears to continue to include – three ex officio members: the city administrator, the city’s chief financial officer, and a member of the commission on disability issues.

Budget and Labor combined what had previously been two different committees: (i) the Budget/Finance Committee, and (ii) the Labor Negotiation Committee.

Prior to 2006, the Budget/Finance Committee was a 13-member body: the mayor, four councilmembers, three citizen members, the city administrator or representative, the budget director, the finance director, and two other department heads appointed by the city administrator.

Prior to 2006, the only mention of the Labor Negotiation Committee we could find was a reference to the 1997 edition of that 5-member council committee: Stephen C. Hartwell and Elisabeth L. Daley (Democrats), and Ingrid Sheldon, David Kwan, and Jane Lumm (Republicans).

When first established as such in December 2005, the council’s Budget and Labor Committee consisted of John Hieftje, Christopher Easthope, Leigh Greden, Marcia Higgins, and Joan Lowenstein.

Council Administration Committee

The Council Administration Committee was also established in December 2005 as the combination of other previously existing committees when council reorganized its committees:

Established to combine the following committees into one: Special Liquor Committee, Real Estate Committee, Ad Hoc Rules Committee, City Attorney Committee, City Administrator Committee.

The last two committees in the list historically performed the specific task of evaluating the performance of the city attorney and the city administrator. For both of these committees, the membership was specified to be the mayor plus a councilmember of each ward (for a total of six), the specific councilmember to be determined by the two ward representatives.

In council rules, the Council Administration Committee is given a large part of the responsibility of setting and approving the agenda:

Approval of the Draft Agenda. The City Administrator shall submit the draft agenda and supporting materials to the Council Administration Committee for approval 10 days prior to the next Council meeting. The Council Administration Committee will approve the agenda 7 days prior to the next Council meeting. Once approved by the Council Administration Committee, no matter from staff shall be placed on the agenda for action. Council members may add items to the agenda at any time.

When originally constituted as such in December 2005, the membership of the Council Administration Committee consisted of Leigh Greden, Christopher Easthope, Marcia Higgins, John Roberts and Margie Teall.

DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee

The DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee was formed for the specific purpose of renegotiating the parking agreement between the Downtown Development Authority and the city. The city has a goal of convincing the DDA to pay around $2 million to the city for the 2011 budget year, which the DDA is not contractually obligated to pay.

In early 2009, the city council passed a resolution calling on the DDA to open a discussion on the topic. The DDA responded by forming a committee to meet with a corresponding committee on the city council. The city council then delayed formation of its own committee, because some councilmembers did not like the constitution of the DDA’s committee. One place to start for some of the details of that dynamic is a May 23, 2009 article on the DDA mid-year retreat.

[In the original version of this article, the Letitia Kunselman's name was misspelled throughout.]

Seated at the table, Matt Yankee, deputy county clerk, and Frances McMullan, Ypsilanti city clerk, who helped staff one of the recount tables. In red in the background: Melodie Gable, chair of the county's board of canvassers. Holding a cup in the background is Ann Arbor city clerk, Jackie Beaudry. (Photo by the writer.)

Frances McMullan, Ypsilanti city clerk, wields wire snips to break the seal of a bag containing paper ballots. Note: The Chronicle made its civic contribution to the recount by lending out the wire snips (we carry a bag of tools everywhere) to save some time in tracking down scissors. (Photo by the writer.)

Leigh Greden, left, with Joan Lowenstein and Jackie Beaudry, right. (Photo by the writer.)

At right and mostly off camera, Tom Wieder follows the tick marks of the recounting on his own notepad. The orange folder in the background belongs to Leigh Greden. (Photo by the writer.)

"Whoah, there, Larry Kestenbaum, sit back down, I didn't say I was done talking to you!" That, of course, is not what this WEMU reporter said to the county clerk. Kestenbaum gave welcoming and closing remarks at the recount. (Photo by the writer.)