-1 to Hieftje for arguing that we need reduction in fire forces because there are only 12 hydrant fires in Ann Arbor each year. In case he has forgotten, 3 people died in the Dickens neighborhood in a fire within the last year and one young man died on campus. I can’t make an expert commentary on manning levels & station locations, but it is misleading (and offensive) to imply that Ann Arbor doesn’t have a significant fire problem. Hydrant fires is surely an inferior metric to fatalities.

It may be a sign that I am a true 5th Warder – one of Mr. Hohnke’s Dim Bulb Natural Constituents – but I don’t get how a parking garage for UM car commuters, built in a city park near the river, is an “Asset” for city residents. And why would we WANT to own the train and bus stations? Can someone explain this to me, using small words?

Is it just me, or does every time the UM Fuller Park Car Commuter Parking Garage comes up, Mayor Hieftje try to turn the discussion AWAY from the Car Commuter Parking Garage he proposes to build, and TOWARDS the things that are NOT being built, e.g. a new train station?

Something else I may be behind on: the Feds WON”T fund bridge repair, but WILL build a brand new parking garage for car commuters in a city park? Is this true? Or did Amtrak change its publicly announced mind, and decide not to re-locate the Dearborn station, or re-build the Birmingham station, and but instead to devote its scarce resources to moving the otherwise fine Ann Arbor station?

Is there some reason that the current “Inter-modal Transit Center”, served by Amtrak, AATA, pedestrians (the boys & I walk there whenever we take the train), two parking lots, cabs, and bike lockers, near both downtown and a freeway ramp, is unable to serve any real or imagined commuter trains until passenger volumes support a new station?

Is it just my paranoia, or does this permanent transfer of city parkland to the University for non-park purposes keep changing its proposed legal form? Call me “Curmudgeonly”, but it strikes me that what ever legal form city hall solons invent for this transfer, citizens should get to vote on its substance. Besides, moving the existing train station, and the bus station, to the UM Fuller Park Car Commuter Parking Garage, would be the end of Fuller Park. Maybe this what people want, but shouldn’t we vote on it?

Any help Chron readers can lend, to help me sort these questions out, would be appreciated.

Again, this may just be me, but I have a hard time figuring out where Mr. Hohnke stands on any issue, including the UM Fuller Park Car Commuter Parking Garage. It would be handy if someone could tell me what he thinks about this.

John Floyd
Republican Candidate for City Council
5th Ward

A 35% increase in the cost of governmental activities is not the same as a 35% increase in overhead.

Many municipalities (I would imagine the City of Ann Arbor does this)charge some of these indirect costs back to the departments that benefit from the services, that is, the city is able to recoup some of costs of the payroll function from the police department (for example).

Thanks for the detailed reporting and your commitment to objectivity. I have one small correction regarding the use of the word “support” in regards to the NCPOA position on Near North (under the Affordable Housing question in your report). We prefer to characterize our position as a decision to “accept” or “not oppose” the negotiated final design. I do not believe anyone from NCPOA used the word “support”.

Although it may be seen as a small difference, I think it is important to make this clear, especially when some candidates for re-election are claiming this “significant addition” of 39 units of affordable housing stock as a personal accomplishment.

As a member of the NCPOA area planning committee, I voted to accept the final site plan – with substantial reservations. Below are my personal views mostly copied from an e-mail I sent to the NCPOA Planning Committee in Sept. 2009:

Based on my review of the new plans, I cannot offer my support for this project. What I can offer is my acceptance of this version and a statement that I will not to oppose its approval at council. I am willing to sign on to a letter from NCPOA that uses the word accept. But I will not use the word support.

My reasons for acceptance:

1) The project will provide an additional 14 units offering supportive housing services in our neighborhood. North Central has a history of welcoming cultural and economic diversity, and additional supportive housing will continue that legacy.

2) Setbacks have improved enough to allow the building to be somewhat absorbed into the landscape over time.

3) The retail space is now a phase II item that will only be constructed if/when the Summit Party store is demolished and an access driveway off of Summit Street to the new store is provided.

4) Building height has been reduced from the proposed 5 stories/55 feet – a height which was an egregious violation of existing zoning. The four story portions along Main Street are barely acceptable and perhaps can be softened by additional work on the roof lines.

5) 3 Oaks is willing to put into writing some commitment to keep NCPOA involved in the design and construction process as it moves forward, as well as in planning for the open space areas and their maintenance.

My reasons for lack of support:

1) A building of this size and massing, which requires the demolition of 8 homes, sets a precedent for allowing future downtown-style development in the North Central neighborhood, particularly along Main Street. Extreme vigilance must be taken to ensure that approval of this project in no way sends a “green light” message to other developers that projects of similar scale and density are appropriate here.

2) Avalon/3 Oaks have not established that there is a need for, nor a public benefit to, the 25 “workforce” units in this project. The rent of $774 for a 1 bdr unit is close to the median for market rate units. The rent is equal to or well above the affordability ceiling for those in the 30-50% AMI range, and the income limits would make it difficult for those who can afford the rent to continue to qualify. To spend extremely scarce affordable housing grants & tax credits to subsidize un-needed housing is wasteful and comes at the expense of providing more housing for those in need. I fail to see the advantage to anyone of spending $12 million dollars in public money to build 39 bedrooms (307,000 per unit) while destroying 27 bedrooms that rent for an average of $330. In essence $12 million for 12 additional bedrooms.

3) The industrial/modular design not only detracts from the architectural character that exists in the North Central neighborhood, but contributes to the extremely high cost of construction. To spend more public money than necessary in order to follow the particular design approach and aesthetic favored by the developers is unfortunate and wasteful.

I thank Peter Pollack for all of this effort and for donating his impressive talents and time to this cause. Without his negotiation and acceptance by the 3 Oaks development team, I believe we would have ended up with a much worse project – one which council seemed set to approve.

Ms. Lesko owns a business it is hard to believe that she does not know the definition of these terms. Also, Ms Kailasapathy who repeatedly states that she is a CPA should definitely know the defintion of the terms, yet she has defended Ms. Lesko on some other blogs trying to explain away the mistake. It is hard to believe that this is some sort of mistake

Nonetheless, a 35% increase in overhead is not the same as a 35% in governmental activates spending and do not have the same inference when speaking about waste. Although the increase in governmental activates spending bothers you, it does not circumvent the issue that Lesko claims that overhead” has increased by 35%.

Also, as Tom Crawford pointed out, if you would like to see the reasons for the increase in governmental activities spending you are supposed to read the explanatory notes. Most sure sound like one-shots to me, not a steady trend.

Lesko claims:

“I have the financial skills and real-world business experience to devise equitable and sustainable solutions to rein in overhead and increase government efficiency.”

Oh really? Her claim that overhead increased by 35% is not accurate and shows the public what type of “business” experience she really has.

With regard to the 35% increase, it is a quibble to make a big deal out of whether it is in “overhead” or “governmental activities” expenses. A helpful CEO, who should have instantly recognized what Lesko’s figures were (since they were posted on her blog), would have said “oh, she’s talking about governmental activities expenses.” And of course these expenses are much larger, and hence more significant from a policy point of view, than overhead.

Also, the increase in governmental activities expenses is not just due to some one-shots, but is a steady trend. Here are the figures for each fiscal year, 2006 through 2009, from the CAFRs:

2006 96,870,412
2007 97,548,949
2008 111,655,402
2009 130,177,876

Those of us who care about these things know that this campaign and the issues involved are the source of a great deal of passion and personal involvement. My own thinking is that we should ignore twitches, eyerolls and even sighs and gasps. We are all human, after all. I always thought that Al Gore was mistreated in his debates against W because they pictured his somatic responses. It was not relevant to the points being made. I’m not going to excuse his orange makeup since I think that was the fault of support personnel.

Re: [5] “your dissection of the rise in the cost of city government.” The “dissection” was simply a theory as to where the figures of 35% and $34 million might come from, which could at any point have come directly from the candidate who’s thrown those figures into the discussion. When asked where a percentage figure “comes from” a reasonable answer is not “the city provided the information.” A reasonable answer for someone who relates to numbers reflexively is to name a specific numerator and denominator that gives that percentage.

Once the specific source for the figures is identified, the merit of the claim attached to the figures can be evaluated. In this case, it’s clear that the claim that it’s “overhead” that has increased by 35% is not accurate — governmental activity expenses in the CAFR aren’t “overhead” for people with financial expertise. The same point that can be understood by reading through the CAFR’s definition of governmental activity can also be conveyed by swapping in “overhead” for “write off” in this Seinfeld episode [link]. And it’s way more entertaining that the CAFR.

I don’t believe you use a tape recorder, and I want to congratulate you for your refreshingly accurate account of what I said, and your dissection of the rise in the cost of city government.

CFO Crawford, I would point out, is not a neutral party in this election, and though it’s certainly appropriate to consult him, he has every reason to fear the election of all of those challenging the incumbents. In A2Politico.com, I’ve questioned the quality of the financial data he produces, and questioned his statements before Council promising a total cost for the police-court facility. The challengers have repeatedly pointed out that this year’s budget includes “additional” costs for the building Mr. Crawford guaranteed would cost not a penny more than $47.4 million dollars at a City Council meeting.

As opposed to quietly approving the cost over-runs, Mr. Crawford and Mr. Fraser should have been called before Council to explain their serious errors in projecting costs for the building.

It would have been better journalism for Stanton to have confirmed his information with an expert third party, and I’m encouraging you to do so, as well.

Finally, our city keeps two sets of books, as I’m sure many of you know. The flawed fund-based accounting method used by Messers Crawford and Fraser is not accepted by the state, and a second financial statement is produced using a different accounting method, as well. The incumbents and staff frequently switch back and forth between the two sets of financials depending on their political needs.

Thus, I agree completely with First Ward candidate Sumi Kailasapathy that Ann Arbor must move to zero-based budgeting.