Comments on: Investments: Housing, Bridges, Transit

By: Deborah Gibson

Deborah Gibson — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 04:48:15 +0000

Hopefully, Roger Fraser will support financing from the city’s general fund for the AA Housing Commission. I certainly did not see it in his town hall presentation. After all, the city supported the consultant’s analysis at $117,000 to reorganize the AAHC. All of those recommendations for additional management, financial, and non-union maintenance staff will cost money that is not currently budgeted.

The Housing Commission could also use the Housing Trust Fund contribution from the Chicago developer of the proposed $20 million student housing project. How much would that be, exactly? Of course, that is only if the city approves of housing U of M students.

The AAHC Public Housing and Section 8 Housing Vouchers provide for more than 50 per cent of the low income, very low-income, and extremely low-income units in Ann Arbor for years. They deserve to be included in the city’s annual general fund appropriations. The previous 8 years’ disastrous structurally imposed loss of our federal dollars’ operational support should be replaced through city’s general fund and Housing Trust Fund pledges over several years.

A consultant’s analysis may create a reorganization of the AAHC structure, but for those families on the waiting lists for low income housing,those units have yet to be funded or created to meet increasing demands.

By: Fred Zimmerman

Fred Zimmerman — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:32:54 +0000

It was interesting to learn just how much the city has already spent on (not) fixing the bridge. Ok, let’s try for state and federal funding one more time … but if I were on council, I would have refused to vote in favor of it unless there was a binding commitment that if this last effort fails, bridge repair will go forward by a date certain.

By: Mark Koroi

Mark Koroi — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 01:34:53 +0000

It is good to see Taylor recusing himself from consideration of the two projects cited above due to his association with Butzel Long. This recusal is consistent with ethics and good government.

I have a question as to why Butzel Long would be hired as bond counsel in the first place if one of their attorneys sat on City Council.

Bond counsel services are considered to be a highly lucrative specialty of the law that often brings in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in fees for a single bond issuance. I understand Miller Canfield had been previously bond counsel to the city during the Ingrid Sheldon administration and Dykema Gossett was the bond counsel for Ann Arbor in recent years and provided such services for the municipal bond issuance associated with the police/court project. Why was not Miller Canfield or Dykema Gossett retained? Who was the impetus for retaining Butzel Long for this project? Is it a good idea to retain the legal services of law firms who have employees on City Council?