The court is required by law to appoint attorneys to represent indigent defendants when potential punishment, if convicted, includes the possibility of incarceration. According to the staff memo accompanying the item, Reiser & Frushour was selected from a pool of three firms that responded to a request for proposals (RFP). Besides Reiser & Frushour, the two other firms submitting proposals were: Washington, Friese & Graney; and Huron Valley Law Association. A selection committee consisting of the three 15th District Court judges reviewed the proposals and ranked the respondents. The contract covers the term of Sept. 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.

Prior to the vote, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reported that the contracting party is a client of his, so he asked for authorization to sit out the vote. The council voted to allow that.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

As part of its consent agenda, the council approved an amendment to a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services – for mental health treatment services to people who are participating in the sobriety court and the mental health court.

The council also approved a $44,200 amendment to a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court. Also getting approval on June 16 was a $108,174 amendment to a contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services.

And finally, the council approved a $40,000 amendment to a contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants. On that vote, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) requested that the council allow him not to participate in the vote, which they agreed to do. Taylor, an attorney with Hooper Hathaway, provides legal services to Reiser and Frushour. He took a seat in the audience during the vote on this item.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

According to the staff memo accompanying the item, mental health courts are problem-solving courts “that focus on therapeutic treatment for offenders with mental illnesses whose crimes are a result of their mental illness.”

The memo continues:

Eligible defendants are diverted into judicially supervised, community-based treatment to address the underlying problems. The program uses a team approach to address the participant’s needs for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment while also linking the participant with ancillary services such as education, housing, job skills or other individualized assistance. The goal is to assist participants in bettering their lives while also benefiting the community by reducing jail time, recidivism rates, and court docket congestion.

The 15th District Court already operates several specialized courts – a sobriety court, a homeless court, veterans court and domestic violence court. The mental health court would be operated in addition to those other specialized courts.

For background on the 15th District Court’s specialized “problem-solving” courts from last year’s Chronicle reporting, see: “Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court.”

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall located at 301 E. Huron.

At the same meeting, the council was introduced to the new 15th District Court administrator, Shryl Samborn.

The 15th District Court is housed at Ann Arbor’s Justice Center – the police/courts facility immediately adjoining the Larcom city hall building at the northeast corner of Huron and Fifth. Aside from salaries for judges, which are reimbursed by the state of Michigan, funding for the court is the responsibility of the city of Ann Arbor.

The total amount of the weapons screening contract reflects an amount of $26.24 per hour per court security officer. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, it’s estimated that three officers would be assigned on a given day with hours staggered to match the ebb and flow of court business through a typical day.

Samborn was introduced as the new court administrator, who’ll start work in that position in a couple of weeks. She is currently deputy administrator. Current administrator Keith Zeisloft is retiring. His last day of work for the court is March 28.

Samborn has worked in public service since 1998, starting with the Washtenaw County Clerk/Register of Deeds, then moving to the 15th District Court in 2002. She began her work in the 15th District Court as secretary to judge Julie Creal, and becoming secretary for court administrator Keith Zeisloft in 2004. She became deputy court administrator in 2007. Her undergraduate degree is from Eastern Michigan University. She’ll be enrolling in the fall of 2014 as a graduate student in Michigan State University’s school of criminal justice judicial administration masters program.

In the state of Michigan, district courts handle all civil claims up to $25,000, including small claims, landlord-tenant disputes, land contract disputes, and civil infractions. Washtenaw County has three district courts – 15th District Court for the city of Ann Arbor, 14B District Court for Ypsilanti Township, and the 14A District Court (with four physical venues) for the rest of Washtenaw County. Ann Arbor’s 15th District Court also handles preliminary exams for felony cases.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

• Accept three-year $300,000 supplemental grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to enhance countywide efforts to prevent domestic violence, effective Sept. 12, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2016. Of the grant total, $181,000 will reimburse the city for the salaries for a full-time domestic violence probation officer, a half-time system coordinator, and a part-time data entry clerk. Another $5,000 will reimburse the city for training expenses required by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. The remaining $114,000 will reimburse the city for a contract with SafeHouse Center to provide domestic violence prevention services.
• Authorize contract with SafeHouse to provide domestic violence prevention services ($114,000). Under terms of the contract, SafeHouse Center will provide confidential support, information and referrals for victims of domestic violence cases in the 15th District Court, 14A District Court and 14B District Court; monitor court and probation activity as it relates to victim safety; work collaboratively to enhance victim safety; and offer advice and training to judges, magistrates, probation and compliance officers and community partners.
• Accept Michigan Supreme Court drug court grant ($144,000). The 15th District Court’s sobriety court is “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing. The court assigns a full-time probation officer to the sobriety court for a program that lasts 18-24 months and includes monitoring of participants’ attendance at treatment programs, their progress in treatment, how they’re spending their time at work and doing community service. Reporting requirements are extensive. Participants must take frequent portable breath tests (PBTs) and urine tests. The majority of sobriety court participants are second-offender DWI cases, but offenses need not be driving-related. Also eligible to participate in sobriety court are, for example, retail fraud (shoplifting) offenders and misdemeanor drug possession offenders. Some of that grant money will fund a contract with Dawn Farm.
• Authorize contract with Dawn Farm ($88,000). The contract is for out-patient drug abuse counseling as part of the 15th District Court’s sobriety court.
• Accept Michigan Supreme Court veterans treatment court program grant ($92,279).

[For background on the 15th District Court and some of its functions, see Chronicle coverage: "Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court"]

Also at its Nov. 7 meeting, the authorized the basic approach that it has taken to human services funding in the past, but with some modifications. The funds would continue to be managed through Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development, using the coordinated funding approach.

The city of Ann Arbor is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are Washtenaw County, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended.

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

Last year, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Recommendations for specific funding allocations will be made in spring 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process. One of the goals of coordinated funding is to attract more partners, such as private foundations.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners gave final approval to the continued use of the coordinated funding approach at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow.

From left: 15th District Court judge Christopher Easthope – a former Ann Arbor city councilmember – and 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft at the council’s June 17 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The main court-related item was part of an annual adjustment to the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2013), which ends on June 30. The adjustment is made on a routine basis in order to bring the budget in line with actual expenditures. The general fund budget adjustment that was eventually approved by the council increased it by $567,000.

And of that amount, a significant part was attributable to the 15th District Court – including $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000. None of the salary increases went to judges, whose compensation is set through state statute.

The council was essentially being asked to approve the accounting adjustment for money that had already been spent this year.

The city’s budget for the next fiscal year – approved by the council last month, on May 20, 2013 – already incorporated the court workers’ salary increases going forward, and councilmembers had been apprised of the raises before their budget deliberations in May. The council’s deliberations on May 20 had not focused on those raises, but rather on the possibility of reducing the court’s budget in order to fund additional police officers for the city.

At the June 17 meeting, all three judges of the court plus the court administrator were on hand – as some councilmembers drew out a disagreement regarding how the wage increases should have been approached. At least some councilmembers felt the court should have asked the council before awarding wage increases to its workers.

Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, indicated at the meeting that if the council had not approved the budget adjustment for the court, it would likely have generated a note in next year’s audit.

Other court-related items on the council’s agenda included a new $240,000 annual flat-fee contract with Nassif and Reiser – the firm that provides indigent representation for the court. The council also approved a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, the building next to city hall that houses the 15th District Court.

The council approved two items related to the court’s special Sobriety Court, one of which was a $65,000 grant program contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm to provide in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants. It was approved over the dissent of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who objected to the accompanying provision that waived a requirement that Dawn Farm adhere to the city’s living wage ordinance.

The wind generator item was originally on the consent agenda, but was pulled out for separate consideration. The council had previously voted unanimously at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting to accept a roughly $950,000 U.S. Department of Energy grant for installation of the wind generator. The council was asked on June 17 to spend about $50,000 of the grant proceeds on an initial environmental assessment, required before the project can move forward. Three councilmembers balked at the request, but the resolution was ultimately approved.

In business related to revisions of local laws, the council gave final approval to an ordinance change that limits use of fireworks to between the hours of 8 a.m. and midnight. And the council gave final approval to the city’s outdoor sign ordinance that limits the incorporation of digital technology into outdoor signs – in a way that prohibits such use for billboards. However, the council again delayed taking an initial vote on an ordinance that would regulate how local law enforcement officials can use public surveillance cameras. The council did give initial approval to adopt the new fire code into the city’s ordinances.

In land use and development business, the council approved a revised development agreement for The Varsity. The agreement now incorporates a total of seven monthly parking permits that will be purchased at a premium cost under the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The council also gave approval to site plans for two projects: the State Street Center and 544 Detroit St. The 544 Detroit St. project included a brownfield plan, which was also approved. Another brownfield plan was on the council’s agenda – related to the Packard Square development on the site of the former Georgetown Mall. That plan had previously been approved, but an additional council vote was needed to change the set of activities that are eligible for reimbursement.

In connection with government-controlled land, the council approved $382,000 in additional operating support for the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. The council also passed a resolution committing up to $750,000 in general fund money to convert city-owned property at 721 N. Main to a greenway park. However, if the grants that the city expects to be awarded are actually received, none of that $750,000 would need to be spent on the project.

The council again heard public commentary about a homelessness outreach ministry in one of the city’s established parks – Liberty Plaza in downtown Ann Arbor, at Division and Liberty streets.

The council also approved revisions to collective bargaining agreements with the six unions in the police department, which gave members a 2% wage increase.

In a symbolic effort, the council voted to oppose expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County – a proposal that’s part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion. SEMCOG subsequently adopted the plan.

The council put off voting on proposed changes to its internal rules, which could result in adding public commentary time at the council’s work sessions, but reducing the time allowed per turn from three minutes to two minutes. The council is expected to vote on the full set of rule changes at its July 1 meeting.

The proposed changes to the rules would move nominations and confirmation of appointments to a slot near the start of the meeting, instead of its current position near the end. For the June 17 meeting, the council’s confirmations came after midnight – and included reappointment of Bonnie Bona to the planning commission, and LuAnne Bullington to the taxicab board.

15th District Court

A number of items on the June 17 agenda related to the 15th District Court – either directly or indirectly.

15th District Court: City FY 2013 Budget Adjustment

The council was asked to make changes to the FY 2013 budget – which ends on June 30 – totaling $567,000 for the general fund. Much of that stemmed from additional expenses incurred by the 15th District Court. [.pdf of proposed amendments]

The 15th District Court’s portion of that adjustment stemmed from $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

General information about the court’s wage increases – authorized by chief judge Libby Hines in October 2012 and the focus of council inquiry at the council’s June 17 meeting – was known to the council before its May 20, 2013 meeting, when councilmembers voted to approve next year’s FY 2014 budget. [.pdf of May 13, 2013 memo on 15th District Court expenses] That FY 2014 budget incorporated the wage increases going forward.

As it related to the court, the council’s May 20, 2013 deliberations on the FY 2014 budget were in the context of reducing the court’s budget in order to fund three police officer positions – a proposal put forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft was present at that meeting and took questions about the salary increases at that time. However, Lumm’s FY 2014 budget amendment failed on a 5-6 vote.

15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) before the June 17 meeting started.

Subsequently, Zeisloft provided a memo to the council in advance of its June 17 meeting, giving a more detailed explanation of the salary increases. The judges, magistrate and Zeisloft were excluded from the increases. The majority of other staff received a 0-3% increase. Administrative staff received an average 4.85% increase based on the conclusion that they were under-compensated compared to their peers in other courts.

The case management staff received an average of 4.22% raises based on increased supervisory responsibilities. Judicial staff averaged a 4.76% increase based on increased specialty court responsibilities. The highest increases, averaging 18.15%, were given to probation officers who were found to be significantly under-compensated compared to their peers, and who had increased multi-jurisdictional, specialty court responsibilities. [.pdf of responses from 15th District Court to councilmember inquiries]

The block of items related to the 15th District Court were moved up on the agenda at the start of the meeting, in deference to the fact that three judges and the court administrator were in attendance.

15th District Court: City FY 2013 Budget Adjustment – Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by proposing an amendment that eliminated the $112,000 budget adjustment for the 15th District Court salary increases – which had been approved by chief Judge Libby Hines in late 2012. Briere contended that the regular processes weren’t followed for the wage increases, venturing that the chief judge had overstepped her bounds. Briere was not satisfied with the mechanism by which the wage increases were approved, saying they were “not properly done.”

The overall tone of the ensuing interaction between the three judges and the council was consistent with the language Zeisloft had provided in his memo. Responding to a question about the ability of the city council to control the court’s spending decisions, the memo states:

Although City Council has authority to establish a total annual budget for the Court, and with all respect due to Council, the Court declines to accept that City Council has authority to direct, control, approve or disapprove specific expenditures, including but not limited to compensation of judicial employees. However, legalities aside, the Court has always sought a respectful and cordial relationship with Council and City Administration, and the Court’s budget history demonstrates that the Court has been a prudent and careful custodian of public funds, at times even to the disadvantage of the Court’s own interests.

At the meeting, Zeisloft generally deferred questions to the judges of the court, who were all in attendance: Judges Chris Easthope, Libby Hines and Joe Burke are all standing at the podium. However, Zeisloft also responded to particular items.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) followed up on the salary increases – which were implemented in October 2012 – asking for a breakdown of the $112,000. Relying on figures from the city’s finance department, Zeisloft gave the breakdown as follows: compensation ($115,000), overtime ($10,000), temporary pay ($19,000) and vacancies (-$32,000) for a total of $112,000. The annual cost going forward was calculated at $193,000. Zeisloft had prefaced his remarks by saying that the information hadn’t been distributed to councilmembers because he didn’t have the information earlier. Lumm asked for the information to be provided in writing.

Hines told the council she respects the separation of powers, but she asserted the authority of the chief judge to increase salaries. The court has never asked the city for permission to do that in her 22 years on the bench. She pointed out the money that the court has managed to return to the city in past years when it has come in under budget. Zeisloft’s memo put the figures as follows: for FY 2002 through FY 2012, the council had budgeted a total of $41,865,240 from the general fund for court operations. Over that period, the court spent only $40,435,613, for a net return to the city budget of $1,429,627.

Hines put the salary increases in the context of retaining employees. She described past pay cuts and freezes. She also described a gross disparity in pay between the probation officers in the 15th District Court compared to other courts. And she added that while the court had worked with the city’s HR department, the court had not asked permission to implement the raises. The court is not overpaying its employees by any means, she said, concluding that she felt the pay raises were only reasonable.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) disagreed with the narrative of the “honorable judges,” citing the decrease in cases handled by the court. The workload has come down, Kailasapathy contended. She was relying on the data that the court had provided to the council earlier in the year:

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s caseload downward trends are in line with the overall trend for other comparable courts [.pdf of caseload trends for 15th District Court]:

               Misdem       Civil Inf    Gen Civil
D15 Ann Arbor  3,109 ‐31%   13,894 ‐49%  1,742 ‐16%

-

Easthope said the 15th District Court was trying to be in the lead in reducing its costs. He allowed that the caseload had gone down, but the number of employees had also gone down, he contended.

The city’s comprehensive financial reports show 41 FTEs (full-time equivalents) for the court in 2007 compared to 36 in 2012:

15th District Court historical FTE count. (Data from city records, chart by The Chronicle)

Hines said that the kind of cases that had gone down – civil infractions – were not the kind that reduce judge and staff time. Hines returned to her earlier point about the basis for the salary increases – the challenge of retaining employees.

Briere said she’s not unsympathetic to the situation. But she felt the salary increases should have been considered as part of the standard budgeting process. The money should have been built into the FY 2013 budget, Briere contended. She agreed with the need to compensate the court staff – but a standard increase in salary should have been included in previous year’s budget.

Burke offered his perspective of the newest judge of the court, telling the council that when he became a judge, Hines and Easthope had sat him down and talked to him about the employees and the need for retention. He said that in making the salary increases, they had followed the normal procedures that anyone would in determining the amounts of the increases – gathering comparative data and the like. The one thing that they had not done was ask the city council. Responding to Briere’s point about budgeting, Burke said the court had calculated that the salary increases would come in within the court’s FY 2013 budget – but they had been wrong. It was a point to which Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) returned later in the deliberations, telling Burke that he appreciated the fact the court had acknowledged that its math was off.

Kailasapathy then cited a Michigan Supreme Court administrative order. It appears to say that if the court uses a line item budget, there are restrictions on what the court can do.

From Administrative Order No. 1998-5, which applies to district courts, among others.

II. COURT BUDGETING If the local funding unit requests that a proposed court budget be submitted in line-item detail, the chief judge must comply with the request. If a court budget has been appropriated in line-item detail, without prior approval of the funding unit, a court may not transfer between line-item accounts to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits, except to implement across the board increases that were granted to employees of the funding unit after the adoption of the court’s budget at the same rate, or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. A chief judge may not enter into a multiple-year commitment concerning any personnel economic issue unless: (1) the funding unit agrees, or (2) the agreement does not exceed the percentage increase or the duration of a multiple-year contract that the funding unit has negotiated for its employees. Courts must notify the funding unit or a local court management council of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer. The requirements shall not be construed to restrict implementation of collective bargaining agreements.

Zeisloft responded to Kailasapathy by saying that the court submits a budget in a line item form only as a courtesy. It’s a function of the city’s financial software. Tom Crawford, the city’s CFO, followed up with the additional explanation that the city requires all the component units to submit line item budgets, but the city council authorizes the budgets by fund. Kailasapathy returned to her question about the administrative order.

Easthope, a former city councilmember, stated that the council has the authority to set a lump sum budget for the court. But the council doesn’t have the ability to change line items, he said. Easthope reiterated the description of the court as a separate branch of government. There was some unclarity expressed about where the comparative salary data had come from and who had gathered it. About the comparative salary data and its source, Easthope stated that the Supreme Court administrative office had provided all the comparative data. Hines had not simply said, “You get a raise and you get a raise …”

Considerable back-and-forth ensued between Kailasapathy and Zeisloft on the way the HR department of the city had been involved in the compensation adjustment amount. No formal report had been requested from HR, Zeisloft confirmed.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked for clarification of the administrative order on line item budgeting. and what happens if the council doesn’t approve the adjustment. That is, what happens if Briere’s amendment passes? Crawford indicated that the city would probably receive a formal note from the city’s auditor next year. The money has already been spent, Warpehoski ventured. Crawford indicated agreement that it would be difficult to stop the expenditures before the fiscal year ends on June 30.

Lumm then confirmed with Crawford that court employee checks are processed through the city. In describing the fact that the court had exceeded its budget this year (FY 2013), Lumm said that the court’s budget seems to be “optional.” But picking up on Warpehoski’s point – that the council essentially needs to approve the budget adjustment or accept a negative note on the audit of its financial statements next year – Lumm ventured that there doesn’t seem to be an option not to make the adjustment. Easthope contended that the court was actually under the budget by $99,000. Lumm wanted to follow up later on that, indicating that Easthope’s remarks weren’t consistent with the information the council had received.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman asked what Burke thought the consequence should be: Should the council just cover the amount of the salary increases? In the short term, Burke replied, yes. He said the court doesn’t spend money like drunken sailors. Burke indicated that there is a clear understanding on the court’s part that the council would not want to hear next year at this time that the court had the same issue.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventured that the council had engaged in a full conversation, but it’s a simple question. The court had diligently determined that their line workers’ wages were below market, Taylor concluded. And the council has already approved the increases going forward, he noted, when it approved the FY 2014 budget. So Taylor indicated he’d vote against Briere’s amendment. Mayor John Hieftje confirmed with Crawford that the budget resolution basically recognizes reality.

Briere indicated that her intent was not to force the court into a deficit. The court’s staff should not be penalized for the actions of their supervisors. So she’d withdraw her amendment. But she said the court should have done a better job of communicating, and she stated she would remember the situation without fondness. Kailasapathy, who seconded the amendment, hesitated for several seconds before agreeing with Briere to withdraw it.

With that amendment withdrawn, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) moved on to the indigent representation and the security services issue. Zeisloft characterized those as an unusual circumstance, that should not arise again in the future. Easthope noted that the special docket courts are operated at no cost to the city.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) returned to the issue of the salary increases, picking up on the historical pattern that Hines had cited of the court coming in under budget and returning money to the city. Why were salary increases not undertaken during the period when the court was returning money to the city? If the court had the ability to give raises without asking permission from the city, why didn’t the court give the raises at that time – when the court had the money?

As far as the idea that the court was trying to mirror the city organization’s approach of not giving raises during the period of the economic downturn, Higgins pointed out that the city had not given its employees the kind of raises the court had implemented over the last year. So she didn’t see the mirroring play out.

Burke ventured that unfortunately the court did not get the opportunity to come before the council to say that it was returning money to the city. It was only when more money was needed that court officials came to the council. Higgins complained that she felt blindsided, because the court did not come to the council and communicate that to the council about a major increase.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Briere ventured that it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Burke responded by saying he felt Briere’s remark was “[holding his fingers apart to indicate an increment] this much of a cheap shot.” Briere told Burke it was OK that he felt that way, because she felt the other way – that in years past when the court knew it had outstanding debts to the county for security services, for example, but had returned money to the city, to her that was a problem. Briere also alluded to the issue with the court’s math, which Kunselman had also noted. Briere indicated that she had great respect for the court and the work that it did. But it was a “big chunk” to come to the council with at the last meeting in June.

Burke said that if his mathematical competence was being questioned, then he could live with that. But if Briere was saying that the court didn’t come to the council even though it knew that it should have, then “I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong about that. We are separate branches of government and what you’re talking about is an integrity issue.”

City administrator Steve Powers shared his perspective as a former county administrator working three different courts. Prior to his taking the city administrator position in September 2011, he felt there hadn’t been enough consultation and communication between the city and the 15th District Court. So he’d met with the chief judge and the court administrator. He accepted responsibility for not bringing the communication back from the court and not updating the council. Going forward, the consultation with the court would be important so that these issues don’t arise in the future, Powers said. He stressed the importance of the two branches of government doing things in consultation, not confrontation.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the FY 2013 budget adjustments, over the lone dissent of Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

15th District Court: Indigent Representation

Two agenda items related to the law firm that provides indigent representation for defendants in the 15th District Court.

Nader Nassif with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C., which does business as Model Cities Legal Services. Nassif also serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. In the foreground is 15th District Court judge Chris Easthope.

The 15th District Court is required to provide representation to those who cannot afford an attorney, if a conviction would result in jail time.

The council was asked to approve a $240,000 flat-fee contract for representation of indigent defendants – with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). The contract covers FY 2014, which begins July 1.

The reason the contract was structured as a flat fee is that MCLS had customarily delayed billing for services until a defendant’s case was completely closed or additional court action was deemed unlikely.

Even after a guilty verdict, defendants remain under court supervision and can be subject to other court orders.

Delayed billing resulted in another agenda item requesting that the council cover $203,000 of fees to “catch up” the billing.

15th District Court: Indigent Representation – Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that the contracting party is a client of his law firm. He asked the council to vote to excuse him from voting.

They did so, and Taylor took a seat in the audience.

Lumm asked Zeisloft if the court had considered issuing an RFP (request for proposals) for the service. Zeisloft described the negotiation between the court and the law firm. He indicated that the court had not considered issuing an RFP, but it would be possible. Model Cities, however, provides the service at a very competitive cost, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) sat in the audience as the contracts for indigent representation were discussed.

Easthope explained that Model Cities doesn’t just stand in court – they provide far more than that. There’s a value that’s hard to represent, and it doesn’t have to do with just the lowest price. Model Cities has a personal connection to all the social services agencies, Easthope explained.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the two resolutions related to Model Cities for legal services.

15th District Court: Security Billing

In addition to an FY 2013 budget adjustment that included back-billing for security services, the council was asked to approve next year’s $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, which houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer. The estimated maximum annual cost of $160,000 is $27,000 less than last year. The money comes from the 15th District Court’s budget.

During deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) got clarification on the way the cost of the contract was estimated. Zeisloft explained that it’s based on a wage rate of $25.25 per hour. The reduction from the $187,000 for the previous year was due to a reduction in the projected number of hours that would be worked, he said, not a reduction in the wage rate.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the weapons screening contract.

15th District Court: Specialized Courts

Two other items related to the 15th District Court appeared initially on the council’s consent agenda, a group of items considered routine and voted on as a group. The council was asked to approve $30,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants. And the council was asked to approve $65,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with Dawn Farm for in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants.

At Sabra Briere’s (Ward 1) request, the Dawn Farm item was pulled out for separate consideration, because the item included a request for a waiver of the city’s living wage ordinance. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Dawn Farm employs 70 people, including 15 employees who are paid less than $12.52 per hour with health care coverage, and 18 people who are compensated at rates less than $13.96 per hour without health care coverage. Those are the rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance.

Last fall the council engaged in a vigorous discussion of a living wage ordinance waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), which ultimately resulted in the granting of a waiver for that nonprofit at the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Briere led off the discussion saying she wasn’t satisfied with the answers she’s received to questions she had asked about the living wage ordinance exemption that had been requested by Dawn Farm. She wanted to know if the item could be postponed so that adequate answers could be given.

Judge Joe Burke, who runs the Sobriety Court, explained to Briere that the court’s application for a grant was due on Friday, June 21 – so postponement would be difficult. Burke indicated that he was the one who’d asked for the living wage ordinance exemption – and that was based on communication from Jim Balmer, executive director of Dawn Farm, who’d reported that Dawn Farm can’t comply with the living wage.

Burke said he couldn’t speak for Dawn Farm but could speak about Dawn Farm. Briere interrupted Burke, apologizing for doing so, but stressed that her concern was not with Dawn Farm but rather with the living wage compliance: “I just don’t want you to spend too much time telling us what we all agree are the virtues of Dawn Farm as an entity and the work they do for the Sobriety Court.” Burke stressed that Balmer agreed with the city’s living wage ordinance, but was not in a financial position to comply, and Balmer had wanted to be honest about that. Burke then went on to explain the importance of the work that Dawn Farm does in support of the Sobriety Court.

Briere indicated that she didn’t see a process in the application for the living wage exemption that would eventually lead to compliance. Just as working toward sobriety has steps, Briere said, working toward financial solvency also has steps. Her problem was with the exemption, not the contract.

By way of background, the point Briere was raising related to conditions on the exemption that the council can grant under the ordinance. The Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance reads in relevant part [emphasis added]:

… provided further that the otherwise covered non-profit employer shall provide a written plan to fully comply with this Chapter within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed three years, and the City Council then agrees that granting a partial or complete exemption is necessary to ameliorate the harm and permit the non-profit organization sufficient time to reach full compliance with this Chapter.

Briere wanted that process to be included in the application for the exemption.

Outcome: The Dawn Farm contract, with the three-year exemption from the city’s living wage ordinance, was granted by the council over dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1). She did not insist on a roll call vote.

Wind Energy

The council had previously voted unanimously at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting to approve the acceptance of a roughly $950,000 U.S. Department of Energy grant for installation of a wind generator project. On June 17, the council was asked to spend about $50,000 of the proceeds of that grant on the initial environmental assessment, required before the project can proceed. The specific item on which the council was asked to vote was a contract with CDM Smith to perform an environmental analysis (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which includes public engagement.

The wind generator item was on the consent agenda, but was pulled out for separate consideration.

Wind Energy: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off discussion by saying that she’d learned that day that the proposal is to place a wind turbine at Pioneer High School. She felt it was unfortunate that an initial decision had been made to place the generator on the high school property, without more community outreach – but she allowed that part of CDM Smith’s scope of work would include public engagement.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) followed up on Lumm’s remarks by reporting that she’d received a letter from a University of Michigan physics professor – Gregory Tarlè – on the topic of the wind generator. She read aloud some concerns outlined by him in his message:

I am currently teaching a class “Energy for our Future” at the University of Michigan. One of the first things we learn when studying wind power is that the power you can get from a wind turbine goes as the cube of the wind velocity. Effective wind turbines must be sited in places where the wind velocity is high and steady or where there are frequent high velocity gusts. Attached is a map of US Wind Resources from the Department of Energy. As you can see, wind resources are marginal at best in Ann Arbor but are excellent offshore in the Great Lakes. Winds increase with altitude (because of wind shear) and that is why large towers are needed. It is not educational to site wind turbines at sites selected for non scientific reasons.

Kailasapathy summarized Tarlè’s remarks by saying that the only thing this turbine would teach students is that if you place a windmill where there’s no wind, then it won’t move. She didn’t think that’s worth $1 million. She regretted voting for the project earlier, but it’s not too late, she said. She allowed that it was federal dollars, but that’s still taxpayer money and it’s the council’s duty to be a good steward, she said.

City utilities engineer Brian Steglitz, who’s managing the wind generator project, and public services area administrator Craig Hupy were on hand to answer questions. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Steglitz to explain why it’s a good project. He characterized it as a demonstration program for wind energy in an urban environment. The city went through a competitive process with the Department of Energy to obtain the grant, he said. The partnership the city is working on with Wind Products – the company that will install the wind generator – would include a guarantee that the turbine will produce a minimum amount of energy. Wind Products had also looked at wind maps, Steglitz said, and looked at the cut-in speeds for the turbines to evaluate how much of the time the windmills would actually be spinning. Based on that analysis, Wind Products was willing to guarantee a minimum amount of power. The project is also part of the city’s goal to generate alternative energy, Steglitz said.

Briere indicated she’d heard from others that there’s no way the wind generator could produce enough electricity to pay for itself. Steglitz noted that the data provided by Wind Products indicated that the 60kW turbine would not generate a tremendous amount of power, but it would offset some of the power needs of the high school. Wind Products would subsidize any possible shortfall in power generation. The power that the school would purchase from the developer will cost less than conventional power, Steglitz said, which is part of the school district’s incentive to participate in the program – to realize a few thousand dollars worth of electricity savings per year. The city’s role is more like a broker between Wind Products and the school district.

Later in the meeting, Kailasapathy asked if the estimates for energy production were independently verified by a third party. Hupy explained that they had not been verified, but that the estimates would be tied to a financial commitment from Wind Products – that it would subsidize any shortfall in power production.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for more information about the Ann Arbor Public Schools participation in the project. Once the generator is installed, who takes over from there? If AAPS cuts its budget, will it possibly cut support for the turbine? Steglitz indicated that the AAPS will lease the space for the turbine and purchase the power. That’s the extent of AAPS participation. Wind Products would maintain and operate the generator, he explained. Later in the council’s deliberations, information in the staff memo accompanying the resolution was drawn out – that the city would eventually own the generator:

It is anticipated that the wind turbine(s) will be located on AAPS property, that the wind turbine(s) will be owned or purchased by the City, that the developer will construct the wind turbine(s), and that the AAPS will purchase the power from the wind turbine(s) under a power purchase agreement. While the City, AAPS and Wind Products have been meeting and continue to work to come to terms on the several agreements so that they can be ready to be brought forward for review and approval once the NEPA EA and public engagement process are completed and accepted by the DOE.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Petersen ventured that AAPS will have a financial upside, which Steglitz confirmed.

Hupy explained that the item the council was being asked to approve provided funding to look at the environmental impact of the turbine. In arguing against the approval, Lumm cited the same letter from Tarlè that Kailasapathy had mentioned.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked how the public would be notified about the public engagement process. Steglitz explained that the intent would be to broaden the scope beyond the standard requirement that residents within 500 feet be notified. He described how the process would include the city’s public engagement “toolbox.” The intent, Steglitz said, was to conduct public engagement and environmental review over the next six months, and to have the review and assessment finished by the end of the 2013 calendar year.

Higgins ventured that it’ll be a lively debate about whether a wind turbine should be placed at Pioneer High School. Responding to a question from Higgins about the city’s financial commitment, Steglitz described it as around $18,000 worth of staff time. Higgins said she was willing to let the debate unfold and not get in the way of it. She confirmed with Hupy that before any further city commitment is made, the council would have to approve it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked for a refresher on the height of the pole where the wind-turbine would be mounted. Steglitz explained that it’d be about 120 feet tall with a 60-foot diameter blade. Kunselman concluded it’s not really a “turbine” but rather just a “generator.” [Kunselman's day job at UM is as energy liaison with Planet Blue.] He felt that the generator will actually be generating a decent amount of electricity given its educational, demonstration purpose. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) also expressed his support for the project based on its educational impact.

Lumm allowed that she had voted to accept the federal grant back in January. But she’d learned a lot since that vote was taken, she said. She wouldn’t support taking the next step based on the idea that it would be sited in a location that doesn’t have much wind.

As a partial counter to Lumm’s complaint that there had not been community outreach on the siting of the generator, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that public outreach wouldn’t happen unless the city hired CDM Smith to do the public outreach, which the council was being asked to approve. That process would help determine whether this is an appropriate site, she ventured. Steglitz confirmed that’s correct. Briere wondered what the alternative locations are. Steglitz indicated that there aren’t really any alternative sites. Hupy confirmed that the city has looked extensively, even as far north as East Lansing – where it might be sited with a maize-and-blue pole, he quipped. City administrator Steve Powers subsequently assured the council that Hupy was not joking about the idea of trying to find a location in East Lansing.

Petersen wanted to know if anyone from AAPS was at the council meeting to talk about the educational component – no one was. Kailasapathy questioned the idea that there could be an educational benefit, if the generator were to be located in East Lansing. Hupy explained how utility regulations require that the power be consumed on the site where it’s generated. Transmission over lines to be used in other locations isn’t allowed except with permission of the electric utility.

Kailasapathy raised a question about noise created by the generator. Steglitz explained that the noise issue would be part of the environmental assessment.

From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

In the course of the council’s discussion, the email from Tarlè had been sent to all councilmembers, and Kunselman took the opportunity to comment on it in more detail. He stressed that Tarlè seemed to be talking about wind-farm sized turbines – not the size of the generator that the city is considering. What the city is considering, he said, is a 60 kW wind generator that will be running about 30% of the time. And part of that time, students would have the opportunity to look at a data center that shows all the data. That’s the educational component of the project, he said. And the money is Dept. of Energy grant money, not city money, Kunselman added. He concluded that the city should move forward with the project.

Mayor John Hieftje weighed in for the resolution, saying it’s worth exploring the next stage of the project. Hieftje said he wants to follow the lead of the DoE. Lumm responded to Hieftje’s argument based on the DoE, by questioning whether the DoE is aware of the power generation estimates. Hieftje ventured that DoE is aware of the educational nature of the project.

Outcome: The contract with CDM Smith to conduct an environmental assessment for the wind generator project was approved over dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Video Privacy Ordinance

The council was asked to give initial approval to an ordinance regulating the use of public surveillance cameras in the city.

The council had previously postponed the item at its May 20, 2013 meeting. Before that, the council had postponed the item at its April 15 meeting – due to the length of that meeting – and again on May 6. [.pdf of ordinance as presented to the council on April 15, 2013]

The new ordinance would apply only to a limited range of cameras – those used by the city of Ann Arbor “to monitor human activity without the physical presence of an operator, including cameras on remotely operated aerial vehicles.”

The ordinance would not apply to a range of city of Ann Arbor cameras, for example: cameras used to improve traffic design, security cameras operating in jails, prisons, water treatment facilities, public housing facilities, or the Ann Arbor Airport and other governmental facilities.

The new ordinance would allow for public surveillance cameras to be installed for 15 days or less at the discretion of the city administrator if the purpose is to address a specific criminal problem.

The council’s consideration of the topic dates back a few years. Former Ward 1 councilmember Sandi Smith had announced at a council meeting on Aug. 4, 2011 that she’d be bringing a video surveillance ordinance for consideration at the council’s Sept. 6, 2011 meeting. And a year before that she’d indicated the city’s human rights commission would be working on the issue.

Video Privacy Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) introduced the ordinance. He noted that while Chief John Seto was out of town and not available to answer questions about the potential impact of the ordinance on law enforcement activity. Still, Warpehoski asked his colleagues to move the change forward to a second reading. He characterized the ordinance as striking a balance between the right to privacy and the interests of law enforcement. In light of the full agenda that night, Warpehoski suggested a more in-depth discussion when it came back for second and final reading.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for a clarification of some of the changes that had been made to the proposed ordinance. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Warpehoski for his work, but said that this ordinance was not her favorite idea.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she was hoping it would be postponed, citing Seto’s absence. She also noted that new revisions had been given to the council only last night. She didn’t think the council should pass ordinances at the first reading just to get them to the second reading. So she said she wouldn’t be supporting it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) appreciated Warpehoski’s work to bring the ordinance forward. But he felt it’s a solution in search of a problem. He knew he wouldn’t support it when it came to the second reading – because he felt it tied the city administrator’s hands. Privacy is already protected, he contended. And surveillance cameras do work, he said, giving the West Willow neighborhood as an example. He asked: Where’s the budget for this? Asking the city administrator to run around getting permissions from residents didn’t seem sensible, Kunselman said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated support for postponement and made a motion to postpone. Warpehoski seconded that motion. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated support for the postponement, but said he’d have probably been inclined to support it at first reading.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the video privacy ordinance until July 1, when police chief John Seto will be available.

Fire Code

The council was asked to give initial approval to an amendment to Chapter 111 (Fire Prevention) of the city code so that it refers to the 2009 International Fire Code instead of the 2003 version.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated that he’d support the ordinance at first reading, but he had some concerns about the inspection of certain areas. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked fire chief Chuck Hubbard about the frequency and cost of fire inspections. Hubbard contrasted inspections with re-inspections. If there are violations found, then an inspector will return to confirm that the violation has been corrected – and that’s a re-inspection. Hubbard allowed that inspections have been stepped up. It’s being done for the benefit to the property owners, he said.

Ann Arbor fire inspections: 2006-2012. (Data is from city financial records. Chart by The Chronicle.)

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the performance of the fire inspection program is being reviewed. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the building department is already using the 2009 code, but the fire department is using the 2003 code. What are the differences? Kunselman got confirmation that the council’s approval is more or less a formality. It’s like “housekeeping.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked how many staff are allocated to fire inspections. Hubbard told Anglin it’s been increased from three people to seven. Anglin felt the overall safety of the community was being improved through that effort.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’s delighted that the city is conducting more fire inspections.

Outcome: The council voted to give initial approval to the adoption of the 2009 fire code.

Billboard Ordinance

The council was asked to give final approval to an ordinance change that would restrict the way that digital technology could be incorporated into outdoor signs. It would also prevent any digital technology retrofitting of existing billboards, and prohibit billboards generally – although the 28 existing billboards citywide would be allowed to continue as non-conforming structures. The change had been given initial approval by the council and had been up for final action twice before – most recently, on May 6, 2013. Action on May 6 was to postpone a final decision – until the council’s June 17 meeting. [.pdf file of map showing billboard locations in the city]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the agenda item, describing it as enforcing the status quo. He described some changes that had been made to the proposed ordinance revisions, compared to those already given initial approval by the council. One is an exception for churches and schools. The definition of “changeable” copy had also been revised. Taylor said it’s important that billboards not expand beyond their current status.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) reported that he’s heard close to zero support for expanding billboards to use digital technology – other than from those in the outdoor sign industry. He’d heard no support for digital signs to the point where he felt there was a clear consensus for that point of view.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) argued that if Ann Arbor wants to be a tech town, then preserving the status quo is too conservative. She cited the possible negative impact on economic development. The ordinance changes promote blight by not allowing existing billboards to be removed and replaced with new ones, she contended. So she’d oppose the ordinance change. She pointed out that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) relies on digital technology to convey messages along the highways. She called for a more comprehensive look at the ordinance. It’s way too conservative for a town that wants to move forward with technology, she said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that the Ann Arbor Public Schools district is unlikely to go ahead with a proposal to contract with Adams Outdoor Advertising on school property. She said that two of the digital signs proposed by Adams Outdoor Advertising were in Ward 1 – which she represents. The idea of having digital signs there didn’t make her happy, but she conceded she was perhaps an old fogey.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the city staff for all their research and their work on the ordinance. She thought the proposed changes were reasonable, so she’d be supporting the ordinance change.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked the staff for their work. He said it’s clear that the community doesn’t want any more visual intrusion. He characterized the ordinance change as not an anti-business proposal, but rather a pro-community move.

Outcome: The council voted to give final approval to the billboard ordinance, over dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Fireworks Ordinance

The council was asked to consider a revision to the city ordinance on fireworks. The impact on the upcoming July 4 holiday would be that fireworks use would be limited in Ann Arbor to the time between 8 a.m. and midnight. A necessary revision to state law, in order to make the city’s action legal, had already been passed by the Michigan House and Senate when the council met. It awaited only signature by the governor’s office, which it subsequently received two days later on June 19.

The revision to the city’s fireworks ordinance was given initial approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. The impact of the ordinance change is to restrict the use of fireworks on July 3-5 to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days. The ordinance change applies to other national holidays as well. On New Year’s Day, however, the time extends to 1 a.m.

The local ordinance change is made possible by the change to state law, which previously did not allow local governments to regulate fireworks for a continuous 72-hour period – for the day preceding a national holiday, the national holiday, and the day following the national holiday. The statutory change makes it possible for a local government to regulate the time of fireworks use around the time of national holidays.

Fireworks Ordinance: Public Hearing

Two people spoke at the public hearing on the fireworks ordinance change. Thomas Partridge said that July 4 should be a celebration of civil rights and human rights. He objected to celebrating the holiday with fireworks. Michael Benson asked the council to consider allowing people to apply for a permit to use fireworks on other days. He wondered what other costs could be imposed by the ordinance language “plus costs” that are mentioned in connection to a $500 fine.

Outcome: After a brief introduction by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council voted to give final approval to the fireworks ordinance.

CIL Parking for The Varsity

The council was asked to approve a change to the development agreement between the city and The Varsity – a 13-story, 177,180-square-foot apartment building containing 181 dwelling units (415 bedrooms). The council’s requested action was essentially a confirmation of an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority decision to award the right to purchase a total of seven monthly permits, at a 20% premium cost.

The Varsity is located at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor. Based on zoning requirements, 76 off-street parking spaces are required. Only 69 were provided on site. The others were provided through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The seven spaces were approved by the Ann Arbor DDA at its June 5, 2013 meeting. It falls to the DDA to make a decision on the CIL spaces, because the DDA administers the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Outcome: After a recitation of the situation’s background by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council voted to approve the revision to the development agreement.

Site Plans, Brownfield Plans

At its June 17 meeting, the city council was asked to give approvals in connection with three developments.

Site Plan: State Street Center

One request was a site plan approval for the State Street Center, near the intersection of South State and Ellsworth. The project calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house on this site. In its place, the developer plans a one-story, 1,700-square-foot drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street. A one-story, 6,790-square-foot retail building will be built behind the restaurant. The rezoning of the parcel for this site plan was given final approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the State Street Center site plan.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St.

The council was also asked to approve the site plan for 544 Detroit St. – a three-story building with offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors. It’s a “planned project” to allow an additional 3.5 feet of building height for a “decorative parapet” on the building’s north end and a stair enclosure to access a roof deck.

A rendering that shows the proposed design for 544 Detroit St., at the corner of Detroit and North Division.

For the 544 Detroit St. project, the council was also asked to approve a brownfield plan. According to a staff memo, the brownfield component – which allows tax increment financing (TIF) to reimburse the developer for eligible costs – includes a total of $698,773 in eligible activities. Some of those eligible activities include soil remediation ($174,620), infrastructure improvements ($70,350), and vapor mitigation ($32,000).

The planning commission gave the 544 Detroit St. project a recommendation of approval at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St. – Public Hearing

Jeff Crockett spoke in favor of the 544 Detroit St. project. He called it a responsive development. The site plan demonstrates serious consideration of citizen input, he said – and he knew of no one who opposed this project. He called for zoning laws that are not driven just by statistics, but rather are value-driven. Thomas Partridge also spoke on the 544 Detroit St. project, criticizing the fact that there was no attached requirement that the site provide affordable housing or access to public transportation.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St. – Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) mentioned briefly that this was one of the better brownfield projects the committee had seen. She serves on the city’s brownfield committee.

Outcome: The council voted to approve both the site plan and the brownfield plan for 544 Detroit.

Brownfield Plan: Packard Square

Finally, the council was asked to approve an amendment to a previously-approved brownfield plan for Packard Square, at the former site of the Georgetown Mall. The amendment adds to the list of eligible activities – including underground parking and urban stormwater management. The total cost of eligible activities is not changed. Demolition at the site began a few weeks ago.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked about payment of back taxes – the project is located in Ward 4. Nathan Voght of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development, which manages the county’s brownfield redevelopment program, fielded Higgins’ questions. The indication was that the back taxes would be paid.

Higgins noted that the demolition is in progress, so Voght gave an update. May 28 was the start of demolition. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) indicated that additional asbestos mitigation was needed. Soil excavation to remove contamination is ongoing and a vapor barrier will probably need to be installed, Voght said. He thought by mid-July the demolition will be done. The developer indicated that construction would begin as soon as possible after that.

Higgins said that residents are pleased to see the project going forward. Mayor John Hieftje thanked Higgins for her efforts.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Packard Square brownfield amendment.

$382K for Housing Commission

The council was asked to provide $382,000 of operational support to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

The resolution was held over from the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. That’s when the council took several steps to move the Ann Arbor Housing Commission forward along a path to converting the properties it manages to project-based vouchers. A similar operations funding resolution had appeared on that meeting’s agenda, but was withdrawn.

The additional funding, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, is needed to mitigate against the impact of federal sequestration. The memo puts that impact at about $300,000 less for public housing and $50,000-$75,000 less for capital funding.

Of the total amount, $159,000 is appropriated from the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund, and $223,000 would be appropriated from the general fund. The city’s housing and human services advisory board had voted to recommend the $159,000 be appropriated from the affordable housing trust fund.

$382K for Housing Commission: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the resolution, noting that it will empty the affordable housing trust fund – but that fund will receive $100,000 on July 1, because of the budget allocation the council passed as part of the FY 2014 budget. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked city CFO Tom Crawford if there were sufficient funds in the general fund reserve to cover the allocation. Crawford projected a fund balance of $13.9 million at the end of the fiscal year. That’s about 17% of operating expenses. But he did have some concerns, Crawford said. At the end of FY 2015, based on the council’s recent action, the fund balance would be around 13%. In general, he has some concerns about how the fund balance is being used.

City administrator Steve Powers noted that the current council policy is to maintain 8-12% of operating expenses in the fund balance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Jennifer Hall, executive director of the AAHC, for her work.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the AAHC allocation.

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main

The council was asked to make a commitment of up to $750,000 from the city’s general fund – to undertake planned improvements to the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. The commitment is a requirement for a grant application that the city is making to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund for $300,000.

If the city’s plan unfolds as it expects, then none of the $750,000 in general fund money would be needed.

The improvements to 721 N. Main have resulted from work done by a North Main Huron River corridor task force that has been working at the direction of the city council since the summer of 2012 to make recommendations for the corridor.

Of the $1.2 million estimated cost for the planned trail and stormwater improvements to the site, the city plans to use $150,000 from the city’s stormwater fund. To cover part of the remaining $1.05 million, the city hopes to use $600,000 from a grant it has applied for from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) – through SEMCOG’s transportation alternatives program (TAP).

The council approved the application for the SEMCOG grant at its April 15, 2013 meeting. To cover the remaining $450,000, the city hopes to use $150,000 from a Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Connecting Communities grant and $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) grant. The council approved the application for those last two grants at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

The council’s resolution considered on June 17 came in response to an MNRTF grant requirement that the council commit the city to funding the other grants itself – from general fund money – if those grants fail to materialize. The $750,000 figure comes from adding the $600,000 SEMCOG grant to the $150,000 Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation grant.

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main: Public Commentary

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Bob Galardi addressed the council on the MDNR grant application in connection with the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. He’s a member of the city’s park advisory commission, but spoke on behalf of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. He’s president of the conservancy’s board. Galardi asked the council for their support of the resolution that commits the city to as much as $750,000 of general fund money for the project. The conservancy, he said, is confident that the grant funding for which the city has applied will materialize. [That would mean that the city wouldn't need to spend that money.]

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main: Council Deliberations

When she introduced the item, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) stressed that the commitment the council was being asked to make is not an expenditure.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Briere for her service on the North Main Huron River task force. Lumm indicated support for the resolution. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if any park millage dollars would be spent on this project. Briere noted that the property is not yet a park. When will it be a park? asked Kunselman. That’s a decision for the park advisory commission (PAC), not for her, Briere responded.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as an ex officio member of PAC, noted that park staff are sensitive to the funding requirements of maintaining existing parks. Mayor John Hieftje described the general context of two city-owned properties – 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main – and how those properties fit into the context of greenway planning. Hieftje talked about the need to focus on the provision for long-term maintenance.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important that this resolution commits money. Anglin said a chain of parks through the city – like the greenway – would have a positive economic impact.

Outcome: The council voted to commit the funds for the 721 N. Main site.

Pizza in the Park

Several speakers addressed the council in connection with a petition they delivered to the city – a copy of which was attached to the council’s electronic agenda. The petition asked the council to take action to ensure that no fees are required to be paid by organizations that are providing humanitarian aid in the city’s parks.

The general petition stemmed from concerns about protecting a specific event – Pizza in the Park, a homelessness ministry of the Vineyard Church that includes distribution of food and other aid at Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty and Division streets in downtown Ann Arbor. A few months ago, the parking of a vehicle in a private driveway and the subsequent application of a park shelter rental fee by the city led to protests raised during public commentary at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. Assurance was given at that meeting that the Pizza in the Park event could continue. That was affirmed when speakers again addressed the issue at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Speakers on those occasions – many who are affiliated with Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homeless community – asked for a written assurance of the city’s commitment. During council communications time on June 17, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as one of two city council ex officio representatives to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC), announced that PAC would be considering a related resolution at its meeting the next day. And on June 18, 2013 PAC considered and passed a resolution recommending the waiver of rental fees associated with Liberty Plaza – a waiver that would apply to any group. That recommendation will need the approval of the city council.

First to address the council on the topic during June 17 public commentary was Peggy Lynch, who took the podium to applause. She described an unmet and tragic humanitarian need in Ann Arbor. She thanked the council for the eliminating the fee that was being applied to Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza. But she was hopeful that the gentleman’s agreement could be replaced with something in writing. David Williams echoed the request for a written commitment.

Thomas Partridge assured the council that if he were elected mayor or councilmember, he would be giving voice to the concerns of the residents of Camp Take Notice. He called for the advancement of Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights agenda. He recalled King’s “I have a Dream” speech.

Jose Galofre addressed the council through a sign language interpreter, calling for the passage of an ordinance – put down in writing for the future to ensure that fees would not be applied to Pizza in the Park. Michael Ramirez told the council he has medical issues that require him to go to the University of Michigan health system, and he spoke in support of Pizza in the Park ministry. Christine Kern told the council she lives on the street with her boyfriend. They’d be sleeping outside that night. She recited a definition of basic human rights, and asked the council to enact an ordinance that protects the right to distribute humanitarian aid on public land.

At the end of the meeting during public commentary time, Seth Best and Peggy Lynch again addressed the council on the idea of the fee waiver for Liberty Plaza. They wanted something in writing – and they wanted it to be possible for humanitarian aid to be distributed in any park.

Caleb Poirer quipped that it felt wonderful staying up late with the council. [By that point, it was about 12:30 a.m.] It reminded him of staying up late as a kid, but with adults – just without “the blankets and the socks with the bottoms.” He allowed that there was a concern that someone could drive a semi-trailer truck through the loophole of the phrase “humanitarian aid.” But he asked the council to wrestle with the language that would make an ordinance work to allow humanitarian aid to be distributed. There are a lot of people who want to do kind things, he said, and urged the council not to let fees get in the way.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Millage Rate Correction

The council was asked to correct a .0031 error in the specification of the rate of the FY 2014 tax levy for the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage. The FY 2014 fiscal year begins on July 1.

The millage rate that was listed in the FY 2014 budget resolution – approved by the council at its May 20, 2013 meeting – was 1.0969 mills. The park maintenance and capital improvements millage should have been listed as 1.10 mills. The corresponding correction from the total millage rate was from 16.4470 to 16.4501 mills. Measured in dollars, the correction is estimated to bring in an additional $14,460 in revenue.

Outcome: After a brief introduction from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), the council approved the correction to the millage rate.

Police Unions Wage Bump

The council was asked to approve contracts with city police unions that award 2% and 1% wage increases.

Re-openers for the final year of their contracts resulted in new contracts with six police department unions: Teamster Civilian Supervisors, Teamsters Local 214; Police Professional Assistants, Teamsters Local 214; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association – Police Service Specialists; Command Officers Association of Michigan; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association; and Deputy Chiefs, Teamsters Local 214.

Membership in these unions breaks down as follows: Deputy Chiefs (2); Teamster Civilian Supervisors (35); Teamster Police Professionals (5); AAPOA (90); COAM (22); and Police Service Specialists (5).

Common to all the contracts is a 2% wage increase starting July 1, 2013 and a 1% increase starting Jan. 1, 2014.

Also common to the contracts is the acceptance of the change in pension board composition, which was approved by voters on Nov. 8, 2011 with a 68% majority. The change retained the body as a nine-member group but distributed the membership differently, as follows: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire employees. Eliminated from the mix was the city administrator.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) thanked the staff for their work. It’s the first time since she’s been on council that all the contracts have been resolved before expiration, she said. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the staff and recited the nature of the agreements.

For the AAPOA an administrative correction was made to the phone allowance – $600, instead of $550.

The council voted to approve all the police department union contracts.

Resolution on SEMCOG Highway Plan

The council considered a resolution opposing the proposed expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners had passed a similar resolution at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The interstate highway expansion is a part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) stated that there are a lot of good elements in the SEMCOG plan. But there are not forecasts for additional traffic and population, so it didn’t make sense to expand the highways instead of maintaining them.

Warpehoski then quoted Picasso in explaining where the text for the resolution had come from: “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” He’d copied much of the resolution from resolutions that have been passed by other municipalities.

Outcome: The council voted to pass the resolution opposing SEMCOG’s 2040 plan. SEMCOG’s general assembly subsequently voted to adopt the plan.

Annual Contracts: SPARK, Lobbyist

As part of its consent agenda, the council was asked to approve two annual contracts for services at its June 17 meeting. One was a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. (GCSI) for lobbying services with the state legislature. The council also approved a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for business support services.

Items on the consent agenda are considered routine, and include contracts for less than $100,000. They’re voted on as a group.

The contact with the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK is one that has been renewed annually since the Washtenaw Development Council and Ann Arbor SPARK merged in 2006. Previously, Ann Arbor had contracted with the WDC for the business support services for which it now contracts with SPARK. On June 20, 2005, the city council authorized that one-year contract with WDC for $40,000. The resolution authorizing the $75,000 contract with SPARK again this year describes the organization’s focus as “building our innovation-focused community through continual proactive support of entrepreneurs, regional businesses, university tech transfer offices, and networking organizations.”

Ann Arbor SPARK is also the contractor hired by the city’s local development finance authority (LDFA) to operate a business accelerator for the city’s SmartZone, one of 11 such districts established in the early 2000s by the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC). The SmartZone is funded by a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism, for a TIF district consisting of the union of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts.

Revenue is generated only in Ann Arbor’s district, and the LDFA is a component unit of the city’s budget. In the FY 2014 budget, the LDFA is expected to receive $1,655,647 in revenue. The specific taxes on which the increment since 2002 is captured are the school operating and state education taxes, which would otherwise be sent to the state and then redistributed back to local school districts.

GCSI’s Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor area resident and former member of the state House of Representatives, typically makes an annual presentation to the council with an update on state-level legislative issues relevant to the city’s budget situation. Written updates to councilmembers on legislative activity are sent on a weekly or daily basis.

Outcome: As part of the consent agenda, councilmembers approved contracts with GCSI and Ann Arbor SPARK.

Council Rule Changes

The June 17 agenda included an item related to changes in the council rules. Possible changes include adding a period of public commentary to the council’s work sessions, but reducing public speaking time per turn from three minutes to two minutes. [.pdf of draft rules changes]

The procedure for reserving one of the 10 reserved speaking slots at the start of the meeting is also proposed to be revised. Only people who did not address the council at its immediately previous meeting would be eligible to reserve a slot. And of the 10 slots, eight would be designated for people who want to address the council on agenda action items. Two slots would be provided for those who want to address the council on any topic.

Councilmember speaking time is also proposed to be reduced. Councilmembers are allowed two speaking turns per agenda item. Under the current rules, time limits for those speaking turns are five minutes for the first turn and three minutes for the second turn. Under the proposal, those times would be reduced to three minutes and two minutes, respectively.

The proposed addition of an opportunity for public commentary at council work sessions would ensure that councilmembers could freely deliberate toward public policy decisions at those sessions and still conform to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

The proposed rules changes would move mayoral communications from the end of the meeting to a spot closer to the start of the meeting. That would give nominations to boards and commissions – which are a part of those communications – somewhat greater prominence.

[For previous Chronicle coverage, see: "Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes."]

Council Rules Changes – Frequent Speakers

A consequence of reducing the speaking time limit from three minutes to two minutes is that the total speaking time a single speaker could take at a meeting would be reduced by one-third. It’s not unusual for a meeting to include a half dozen or more formal public hearings, in addition to the public commentary slots on the agenda. The June 17 meeting, for example, featured seven public hearings. With a three-minute time limit, it’s not uncommon that one person could have a total of about a half hour available to address the council.

Thomas Partridge typically reserves one of the 10 slots at the start of the meeting and speaks at most of the public hearings at any given meeting of the council – generally connecting his remarks to the topic of the hearing with general themes of affordable housing, transportation and education, as well as calls for social justice. Occasionally mayor John Hieftje, who presides over the council’s meetings, will deem Partridge’s remarks to be insufficiently related to the topic of the public hearing and admonish Partridge to stay on topic. The June 17 meeting featured one occasion when Hieftje offered that admonishment to Partridge.

And at the conclusion of the meeting’s seventh public hearing – on the brownfield plan for Packard Square – after  Partridge had held forth several times at previous hearings, Ann Arbor resident Todd McWilliams addressed the council, but not on the topic of the brownfield plan for Packard Square. He told the council he’d attended several of the council’s meetings over the last six months and wanted to address Partridge. McWilliams told Partridge that Partridge was doing an injustice to the public hearings, and was abusing the council’s time. At that point, McWilliams earned an admonishment from Hieftje to speak to the topic of the hearing.

Partridge responded to McWilliams from the audience by accusing McWilliams of abusing Partridge’s civil rights. McWilliams said: “There’s got to be another way of doing this; because this isn’t the right way to do it.” Partridge’s rejoinder was: “See you in court.”

Council Rules Change: Public Comment

During public commentary time at the conclusion of the meeting, two people addressed the council on the topic of the rules changes.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and resident Michael Benson. Benson serves on the city’s taxicab board.

Michael Benson thanked the council for staying late. He commended the rules committee, saying that the proposed rules represent a step forward. He suggested that reducing the speaking time from three minutes to two minutes might not be so bad, given that when people hand over written remarks to the clerk, those documents can eventually be added to the agenda. He told the council they should consider constraining their own question time during the meeting – as that was where the council spent the majority of its time. He also suggested that reserved time at the start of the meeting be confined to true action items.

Jeff Hayner thought it’s great that someone talked about the rules. He agreed with Benson’s point about the ability to submit written remarks. He suggested, however, that some of the time saved through a reduction in speaking time be re-allocated to council discussion of items that sometimes didn’t receive much discussion – like the appointments to boards and commissions.

Council Rules Changes: Deliberations

Council conversation was scant. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the council’s rules committee, said she’d like to see the item postponed. By way of background, the council’s current meta-rule on changing the rules requires that the council be notified of changes at the meeting prior to a vote on the changes – which had not happened yet. The proposed rules revisions include a change to that meta-rule.

Outcome: With no further discussion, the council voted to postpone the rules changes until July 1.

Appointments

The June 17 agenda included several items regarding appointments to city boards and commissions.

The council was asked to confirm the extension of Sabra Briere’s (Ward 1) appointment as the councilmember representative to the planning commission. She’s served in that capacity since November 2012. The council was asked to extend the term through Nov. 7, 2013. At that point the membership on the new, post-election city council will be settled. Briere is unopposed in the Democratic primary. An independent candidate, Jaclyn Vresics, has taken out petitions for that seat but has not yet filed them with the city clerk’s office. The deadline for independent candidates to submit petitions is Aug. 7.

Later, toward the end of the meeting, the council was asked to confirm Bonnie Bona’s reappointment to the planning commission.

Although Tony Derezinski had appeared on the list distributed to the council at its June 3 meeting as a nomination to the city planning commission – and was reported (mistakenly) by The Chronicle as having been nominated – Derezinski’s name was not actually read aloud that evening. The Chronicle learned that there was pushback on the council about Derezinski’s nomination for reappointment. He was filling out the remainder of Evan Pratt’s term – through June 30, 2013. Pratt was elected as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in November 2012 and resigned from the planning commission at that time.

At the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, councilmembers had voted – over dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – to appoint Derezinski to that partial planning commission term. Up to that point, he’d served as the city council’s representative to the planning commission. However, he did not prevail in the August 2012 Democratic primary in his Ward 2 race against Sally Petersen.

On June 17, Jeremy Peters was nominated to replace Derezinski on the planning commission. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs with Ghostly Songs. A council vote to confirm his appointment will occur on July 1.

Other appointments the council was asked to confirm on June 17 included members of the downtown area citizens advisory council: John Chamberlin, Ray Detter, Joan French, Jim Kern, Sue Kern, Kathleen Nolan, Herbert Kaufer and Hugh Sonk. They had been re-nominated at the council’s June 3 meeting, having first appeared on the council’s May 13 meeting agenda for reappointment. The names had not been presented to the council for confirmation on May 20. The terms of all the members had expired.

Also at its June 17 meeting, the council was asked to confirm LuAnne Bullington’s nomination to the taxicab board, having been nominated on June 3. Bullington had submitted an application to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority earlier this year, which resulted in a divided vote by the council on the nomination that was put forward by mayor John Hieftje – Eric Mahler. Mahler was confirmed on a 7-4 vote as the AATA board appointment at the council’s May 13, 2013 meeting. He recently ended his service as a planning commissioner.

Other reappointments confirmed on June 17 were: Barbara Clark to the cable communications commission; Paul Fontaine and Chester Hill to the design review board; and Tom Stulberg to the historic district commission.

In the last few months, the council has taken an increased interest in mayoral appointments. That’s reflected in a change recommended by the council’s rules committee – to move the mayor’s communications time closer to the start of the meeting, instead of near the end. The mayor’s communications include nominations to boards and commissions and the council’s confirmation votes.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm all the appointments.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Public Safety

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) alerted her colleagues that a resolution regarding a public safety task force that she wants to form will be on the council’s July 1 agenda.

Comm/Comm: Stop Signs

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called for a focus on safety as people move around the city during the summer. He called for the installation of stop signs to slow traffic on streets over which the city has control.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Housing

Thomas Partridge expressed disappointment with the council and the mayor for leaving the city without sufficient affordable housing. He said they lack the courage to stand up and bring the facts to the voters for support of tax increases to fund what’s needed.

Comm/Comm: AAHC Complaint

Diane Chapman introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. She reported that she’s been physically attacked on the property and complained about the lack of response by AAHC staff.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Monday, July 1, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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 15th District Court’s portion of that adjustment stemmed from $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

Related to the FY 2013 budget adjustment to account for 15th District Court indigent representation were two other agenda items regarding the law firm that provides that kind of representation. [The 15th District Court is required to provide representation to those who cannot afford an attorney, if a conviction would result in jail time.]

The council approved a $240,000 flat-fee contract for representation of indigent defendants – with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). The contract covers FY 2014.

The reason the contract was structured as a flat fee is that MCLS had customarily delayed billing for services until a defendant’s case was completely closed or additional court action was deemed unlikely. Even after a guilty verdict, defendants remain under court supervision and can be subject to other court orders. So for the previous year, the council was asked at its June 3 meeting to cover $203,000 of fees that accrued due to the delayed billing practice used by MCLS.

In addition to approving the city’s FY 2013 budget adjustment that included back-billing for security services, the council approved next year’s $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, which houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer. The estimated maximum annual cost of $160,000 is $27,000 less than last year. The money comes from the 15th District Court’s budget.

Two other items related to the 15th District Court appeared initially on the council’s consent agenda, a group of items considered routine and voted on as a group. The council was asked to approved $30,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants. And the council was asked to approve $65,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with Dawn Farm for in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants.

The Dawn Farm item was pulled out for separate consideration, because the item included a request for a waiver of the city’s living wage ordinance for Dawn Farm to provide its counseling services. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Dawn Farm employs 70 people, including 15 employees who are paid less than $12.52 per hour with health care coverage, and 18 people who are compensated at rates less than $13.96 per hour without health care coverage. Those are the rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance.

Last fall the council engaged in a vigorous discussion of a living wage ordinance waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), which ultimately resulted in the granting of a waiver at the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

On June 17, the council ultimately voted to approve the Dawn Farm grant over dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – based on the living wage issue.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber.

In addition to possible final votes on those two ordinance changes, several items related to the 15th District Court appear on the council’s agenda. The court handles all civil claims up to $25,000, including small claims, landlord-tenant disputes, land contract disputes, and civil infractions, as well as preliminary exams for felony cases. Salaries for judges are reimbursed by the state, but the court is funded by the city through its regular budgeting process, with other costs borne by the city or by grants.

The council will be asked to approve an adjustment to the city’s current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2013) to bring it in line with actual expenditures. The general fund total budget adjustment is to increase it by $567,000. And of that, a significant part is attributable to the 15th District Court – including $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

Also on the council’s agenda is the authorization of a contract revision for the current year with the law firm that provides indigent representation. The “catch up” payment stems from the firm’s practice of delaying billing until a defendant’s legal costs are thought to be complete – instead of billing along the way. Because that approach doesn’t give a clear picture of the actual current cost of indigent representation, a new contract with the firm for next year (FY 2014) will be based on a flat fee. That $240,000 annual flat-fee contract is with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). Nader Nassif is a board member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The council will also be asked to approve a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, the building next to city hall that houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer.

On the consent agenda – a group of items that are considered routine and voted on as a group – are two other items related to the 15th District Court. One is approval of $30,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants. The second is approval of $65,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm to provide in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants.

The Dawn Farm item includes a provision that could cause it to be pulled out of the consent agenda for separate consideration. That possibly controversial provision is a waiver of the city’s living wage ordinance for Dawn Farm to provide its counseling services. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Dawn Farm employs 70 people, including 15 employees who are paid less than $12.52 per hour with health care coverage, and 18 people who are compensated at rates less than $13.96 per hour without health care coverage. Those are the rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance. Last fall the council engaged in a vigorous discussion of a living wage ordinance waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), which ultimately resulted in the granting of a waiver at the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

Other agenda highlights include revisions to contracts for six unions in the police department, which include a 2% wage increase starting July 1, 2013 and another 1% starting Jan. 1, 2014.

At the June 17 meeting, the council may also vote to adopt revisions to its own internal rules. Among other changes, the revised rules would reduce speaking times for the public from three to two minutes per turn.

Some other agenda items relate to site plans and brownfield plans.

Details of the meeting agenda are available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.” The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

6:39 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. A couple dozen people are already here who are affiliated with Camp Take Notice, to speak about Pizza in the Park.

6:52 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was the first councilmember to arrive. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, is also here, setting up for the presentation of the Golden Paintbrush awards. Public art commission members John Kotarski and Bob Miller have now arrived. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), mayor John Hieftje, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) are also now here.

7:02 p.m. Former councilmember and now 15th District Court judge Christopher Easthope is here. He has sat down with Nader Nassif, who’s a partner in a law firm that provides indigent representation for the court. Several agenda items tonight are related to the 15th District Court, all involving money. Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Higgins are talking with Easthope.

7:07 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence, the roll call of council, approval of the agenda. All councilmembers are present and correct. Note the agenda change made before the meeting started: The item proposing changes to the council rules has been moved out of the council communications slot to the council business section of the agenda. So the intent is for it to get a vote tonight, not just be a point of communication – although a vote to postpone is still a possibility.

7:09 p.m. Proclamations – Golden Paintbrush Awards. This is the 14th annual presentation of these awards, which are given out by the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission to people and organizations who contribute to public art works that “add interest to our cityscape, beautify the community and create a sense of place.”

One of this year’s awards is going to John Carver, who commissioned “Spirit of Ann Arbor” for the Carver-Gunn Building on Liberty Street. It’s 16 feet tall made from cut powder-coated aluminum – a work created by Detroit artist Charles McGee. The other award this year goes to Vic Strecher and Jeri Rosenberg, who are being recognized for their support of organizations that have organized events like Festifools and FoolMoon. Public art commission chair Bob Miller is giving the introduction of the awards.

7:15 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

A pending rule change to be considered at tonight’s meeting would limit speaking time to two minutes. Another pending rule change would address “frequent flyers,” by only allowing people to reserve time at the start of the meeting, if they did not speak during reserved time at the previous council meeting. Chronicle coverage of the possible rule changes can be found here: “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.”

Eight of the 10 slots tonight are reserved for people to address the issue of Pizza in the Park. They’re speaking about a petition they delivered to the city, a copy of which is attached to the electronic agenda. Pizza in the Park is a homelessness ministry of the Vineyard Church that includes distribution of food and other aid at Liberty Plaza at Liberty and Division streets in downtown Ann Arbor. A few months ago, the parking of a vehicle in a private driveway and the subsequent application of a shelter rental fee by the city led to protests raised during public commentary at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. Assurance was given at that meeting that the Pizza in the Park event could continue. That was affirmed when speakers again addressed the issue at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Speakers on those occasions, many who are affiliated with Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homeless community, asked for a written assurance of the city’s commitment. A proposal is currently on the city’s park advisory commission’s June 18, 2013 agenda to consider waiving all fees associated with Liberty Plaza. That would need city council approval. Those signed up to speak tonight on this issue are: Peggy Lynch, Mark Douglas, David Williams, Jose Galofre, Michael Ramirez, Christine Kern, Sheri Wander, and Gregory Kerrick.

Thomas Partridge is the second speaker, who’ll be calling for the advancement of a civil rights agenda. Bob Galardi, a member of the city’s park advisory commission, will be addressing the council’s agenda item that calls for it to pledge up to $750,000 of general fund money for the 721 N. Main project. The city believes that it will receive grants to cover that amount, but the pledge is necessary in order to secure a different grant, for $300,000 from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Trust Fund.

7:23 p.m. Peggy Lynch is first up. She takes the podium to applause. She describes the unmet and tragic humanitarian need in Ann Arbor. She thanked the council for the suspension of the fee at Liberty Plaza. But she’s hopeful that the gentleman’s agreement can be replaced with something in writing. David Williams echoes the request for a written commitment.

7:25 p.m. Thomas Partridge assures the council that if he were elected mayor or councilmember, he would be giving voice to the concerns of the residents of Camp Take Notice. He calls for the advancement of Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights agenda. He recalls the “I have a Dream” speech.

7:31 p.m. The next several speakers will be addressing the council on the topic of Pizza in the Park and humanitarian aid. Jose Galofre is addressing the council through a sign language interpreter. He calls for the passage of an ordinance – put down in writing for the future. Michael Ramirez tells the council he has medical issues that require him to go to the University of Michigan health system. Christine Kern tells the council she lives on the street with her boyfriend. They’ll be sleeping outside tonight. She recites a definition of basic human rights, and asks the council to enact an ordinance that protects the right to distribute humanitarian aid on public land.

7:39 p.m. Bob Galardi is addressing the council on the MDNR grant application in connection with the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. He’s speaking on behalf of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy – he’s president of the conservancy’s board. Galardi asks the council for their support of the resolution later on the agenda that commits the city to as much as $750,000 of general fund money for the project. The conservancy, he says, is confident that the grant funding for which the city has applied will materialize. [That would mean that the city wouldn't need to spend that money.]

7:39 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:46 p.m. Christopher Taylor alerts the public to the fact that on the following day, June 18, the park advisory commission will be considering a resolution to waive fees for the use of Liberty Plaza. That would come back to the council for a final decision. Jane Lumm gives an update on opportunities for public input on the ReImagine Washtenaw project. Lumm also alerts her colleagues that a resolution on the public safety task force will be on the council’s July 1 agenda.

Mike Anglin calls for a focus on safety as people move around the city during the summer. He calls for the installation of stop signs to slow traffic on streets over which the city has control.

Sabra Briere tells the council she spent six hours today getting trained on “place making.” She learned a lot about certain types of zoning, she said. Ann Arbor is one of 14 major centers in the state. We shouldn’t think about ourselves in isolation, she said. We should think regionally and not try to mimic what others are doing, she said. John Hieftje refers to the book “The Economics of Place,” a publication of the Ann Arbor-based Michigan Municipal League.

7:49 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting.

Tonight, seven public hearings appear on the agenda. Two are for rezoning of annexed property: McMullen property at 3100 Geddes Ave.; and the Max property at 2503 Victoria Ave. One hearing is for a revision to the fireworks ordinance – that would restrict the use of fireworks on July 3-5 to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days. Three developments are the subject of public hearings.

The State Street Center site plan is getting a public hearing after getting the rezoning associated with that site plan approved at the council’s previous meeting. And two public hearings are associated with the 544 Detroit Street “planned project” – the site plan and the brownfield plan.

Finally, the brownfield plan for the Packard Square development – site of the former Georgetown Mall – is getting a public hearing, because of an amendment to a previously approved plan.

7:51 p.m. Thomas Partridge is holding forth on the first rezoning hearing. Hieftje is admonishing him to stay on the topic. Partridge wants an ordinance attached to the rezoning that would require it to be used for affordable housing and give access to affordable transportation.

7:58 p.m. Partridge is now speaking during the public hearing for the fireworks ordinance revision. July 4 should be a celebration of civil rights and human rights, he says. He objects to celebrating the holiday with fireworks. The next speaker is Michael Benson, also addressing the topic of the fireworks ordinance. He asks the council to consider allowing people to apply for a permit to use fireworks on other days. He wonders what the other costs are in addition to the $500 fine.

8:01 p.m. Partridge now rises to speak during the public hearing about the State Street Center site plan.

8:11 p.m. Jeff Crockett rises to speak in favor of the 544 Detroit St. project. He calls it a responsive development. The site plan demonstrates serious consideration of citizen input. He says he knows of no one who opposes this project. He calls for zoning laws that are not driven just by statistics, but rather are value-driven. Partridge also speaks on the 544 Detroit St. project. And with his remarks on the Packard Square brownfield plan, Partridge has now had his say – until the end of the meeting, when there’s another opportunity for public commentary.

8:13 p.m. Todd McWilliams addresses the council. He tells Partridge that he was abusing the public hearings. Partridge tells McWiliams he’s abusing his civil rights and ends with “See you in court.”

8:13 p.m. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss labor negotiation strategy.

8:38 p.m. The council is emerging from the closed session.

8:43 p.m. Council communications. Briere is explaining that she is not the chair of the ACLU. She was proud to be the chair a decade ago, but she is no longer the chair.

8:43 p.m. Minutes and consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• Summer Fun: Street closing for Art Fairs 2013.
• Courts: $30,000 for Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants.
• Courts: $65,000 for Sobriety Court grant program contract with Dawn Farm to provide in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court Defendants.
• Energy: $59,386 for contract with DTE Energy for LED streetlight conversion and rebate participation.
• Energy: $49,883 for contract with CDM Smith for wind generator project.
• Streets: $40,960 for materials testing contract with Professional Service Industries in connection with the W. Madison Street improvement project.
• Buildings: $31,618 for a contract with E.T. MacKenzie Company to demolish two buildings at 721 N. Main St.
• Software: $70,000 for a contract with Cogsdale Corporation for annual software maintenance and support.
• Copier Services: $25,000 per year increase to contract with Hasselbring Clark Service to provide services and support for the city’s Canon multifunction copiers, of which there are 46.
• Lobbyist: $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., a Lansing lobbying firm. This is an annual contract.
• Economic Development: $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for business support services.
• Minutes: Insurance Board minutes are included in the consent agenda.

8:45 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Lumm asks to pull out the wind energy item. Briere wants to pull out the Dawn Farm grant and the demolition contract at 721 N. Main.

8:50 p.m. The Dawn Farm grant is now under discussion. Briere says she’s not satisfied with the answers she’s received to questions she has asked about the living wage ordinance exemption that’s been requested by Dawn Farm. She wants to know if the item can be postponed. Judge Joe Burke, who runs the Sobriety Court, explains that the court’s application for a grant is due this Friday – so postponement would be difficult. Burke says he was the one who’d asked for the living wage ordinance exemption. Jim Balmer, executive director of Dawn Farm, had reported that Dawn Farm can’t comply with the living wage. Burke is explaining the importance of the work that Dawn Farm does in support of the Sobriety Court.

8:52 p.m. Briere says she doesn’t see a process in the application for the living wage exemption that would eventually lead to compliance. Just as working toward sobriety has steps, she says, working toward financial solvency also has steps. Her problem is with the exemption, not the contract. Briere votes against it as the sole vote of dissent. She says she doesn’t need a roll call vote.

8:56 p.m. We’re on to the wind generator project. Lumm reports that the proposal is to place a wind turbine at Pioneer High School. She complains about the lack of community outreach. Sumi Kailasapathy is now addressing the issue. She reports that she’s received a letter from a UM physics professor – Gregory Tarlè. She reads aloud some concerns outlined by him. Power grows as the cube of wind velocity, and turbines should be sited accordingly. The only thing this turbine will teach students is that if you place a windmill where there’s no wind, then it won’t move. She didn’t think that’s worth $1 million. It’s not too late, she said. She allows that it’ll be federal dollars, but that’s still taxpayer money and it’s the council’s duty to be a good steward, she says.

9:02 p.m. Briere asks for staff to come to the podium. Now at the podium are Brian Steglitz and Craig Hupy. Briere asks Steglitz to explain why it’s a good project. He characterizes it as a demonstration program. The city went through a competitive project to obtain the grant, he says. The partnership with Wind Products includes a guarantee that it’ll produce a minimum amount of energy. The project is also part of the city’s goal to generate alternative energy, Steglitz says. The power that the school will purchase from the developer will cost less than conventional power.

Petersen asks for more information about the Ann Arbor Public Schools participation in the project. If AAPS cuts its budget, will it possibly cut support for the turbine? Steglitz says that AAPS will lease the space for the turbine and purchase the power. That’s the extent of AAPS participation. Petersen ventures that AAPS will have a financial upside. Yes, says Steglitz.

9:14 p.m. Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, explains that the item approves funding to look at the environmental impact of the turbine. Lumm again cites the same letter from the UM physics professor that Kailasapathy had mentioned. Higgins asks how the public will be notified about the public engagement process. Steglitz says that the intent would be to broaden the scope beyond the 500 foot requirement. He describes the city’s public engagement “toolbox.” Higgins wants to know when. Steglitz explains it’d be in the next six months. The environmental review is expected to be done by the end of the year, Steglitz says.

Higgins ventures that it’ll be a lively debate about whether a wind turbine should go there. Steglitz describes the city commitment as around $18,000 of staff time. Higgins is willing to let that debate unfold and not get in the way of it. She confirms with Hupy that before any further city commitment is made, the council would have to approve it. Kunselman asks for a refresher on the height of the pole. Steglitz says it’d be about 120 feet with a 60-foot diameter blade. Kunselman says it’s not really a “turbine” but rather a generator. Kunselman’s day job at UM is as energy liaison with Planet Blue. He feels that the generator will actually be generating a decent amount of electricity given its educational, demonstration purpose. Anglin weighs in for the project based on its educational impact. Kailasapathy asks if the estimates for energy production were independently verified.

9:28 p.m. Lumm notes she voted for the acceptance of the federal grant. But she’s learned a lot since that vote was taken. She won’t support it. Briere ventures that public outreach won’t happen unless the city hires a public outreach firm. That process will help determine whether this is an appropriate site, she ventures. Steglitz confirms that’s correct. She wonders what the alternative locations are. Steglitz says there aren’t any. Hupy indicates the city has looked extensively, even as far north as East Lansing – with a maize-and-blue pole, he quips. City administrator Steve Powers assures the council that Hupy is not joking about the idea of trying to find a location in East Lansing.

Petersen wants to know if anyone from AAPS is here to talk about the educational component. Apparently there is not. Kailasapathy says that she doesn’t understand the educational benefit if it were located in East Lansing. Hupy says utility regulations require that the power is consumed on the site where it’s generated. Kailasapathy raises objections about noise. Steglitz explains that the noise issue will be part of the environmental assessment. Kunselman stresses that the UM professor’s letter is talking about wind-farm sized turbines, not the size of the generator that the city is considering. It’s a 60 kW wind generator that will be running about 30% of the time. And part of that time, students will have the opportunity to look at a data center that shows all the data. That’s the educational effort. And the money is Dept. of Energy grant money, not city money. Kunselman concludes that the city should move forward with it.

Hieftje weighs in for the resolution. He says it’s worth exploring the next stage. Hieftje says he wants to follow the lead of the DoE. Lumm responds to Hieftje’s argument. She questions whether the DoE is aware of the power generation estimates. Hieftje ventures that DoE is aware of the educational nature of the project.

Outcome: This item gets a roll call vote. No votes are Petersen, Lumm, Kailasapathy.

9:32 p.m. The council is now on to the 721 N. Main building demolition. Briere pulled it out for separate consideration just to highlight it, not because it was controversial. Anglin asks city floodplain manager Jerry Hancock to the podium. Anglin asks about other grant opportunities from FEMA, which is funding this demolition. Anglin asks for the floodway maps so that councilmembers know which houses are in the floodplain. Hancock explains that the new maps have been in place since last April. Hancock tells Anglin that he sent him the requested information last week.

9:32 p.m. The council has now passed all of the consent agenda items.

9:33 p.m. FY 2013 Budget: Year-end maintenance. This is a year-end budget adjustment to bring it into closer alignment with the actual expenditures. [.pdf of proposed amendments] The general fund total adjustment is to increase it by $567,000. Of that, a significant part is attributable to the 15th District Court – including $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

9:34 p.m. Briere proposes an amendment that eliminates the budget adjustment for the salary increases. She objects that regular processes weren’t followed. She ventures that the chief judge overstepped her bounds. Briere was not satisfied with the mechanism. She calls the wage increases “not properly done.”

9:34 p.m. Here’s a memo from 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft. [.pdf of responses from 15th District Court to councilmember inquiries] Responding to a question about the ability of the city council to control the court’s spending decisions, the memo states:

Although City Council has authority to establish a total annual budget for the Court, and with all respect due to Council, the Court declines to accept that City Council has authority to direct, control, approve or disapprove specific expenditures, including but not limited to compensation of judicial employees. However, legalities aside, the Court has always sought a respectful and cordial relationship with Council and City Administration, and the Court’s budget history demonstrates that the Court has been a prudent and careful custodian of public funds, at times even to the disadvantage of the Court’s own interests.

9:38 p.m. Lumm asks Zeisloft to the podium. Zeisloft defers to the judges who are all here. Judges Christopher Easthope, Elizabeth Hines and Joe Burke are all standing at the podium. Lumm asks about the salary increases – which were implemented in October 2012. Lumm asks for a breakdown of the amount. Zeisloft breaks down the $112,000 adjustment. The annual impact is calculated at $193,000. Lumm asks for that information to be provided in writing.

Judge Hines is now addressing the council. She respects the separation of powers. But the chief judge has the authority to increase salaries, she says. The court has never asked the city for permission to do that in her 22 years on the bench. She points out the money that the court has managed to return to the city in past years when they’ve come in under budget.

9:46 p.m. Hines talks about the challenge of retaining employees. She describes past pay cuts. She describes a gross disparity in pay. She said the court had worked with the city’s HR department, but did not ask permission, she said. The court is not overpaying its employees by any means, she said. She felt the pay raises were only reasonable.

Kailasapathy disagrees with the narrative of the “honorable judges.” She cites the decrease in cases handled by the court. The workload has come down, Kailasapathy says. The cost savings of 3.4% that the court had achieved should be seen in that context, Burke says. Easthope says the court was trying to be in the lead in reducing its costs. The caseload went down, but the number of employees also went down, he said. Hines said that the kind of cases that went down were not the kind that reduce judge and staff time. Hines returned to the challenge of retaining employees as the basis for the salary increases.

Briere says she’s not unsympathetic to the situation. But she felt it should have been considered as part of the standard budgeting process. The money should have been built into the FY 2013 budget, Briere says. She agrees with the need to compensate the court staff. But a standard increase in salary should have been included in the budget.

9:52 p.m. Burke tells the council that when he became a judge, Hines and Easthope had sat him down and talked to him about the employees. He says that in making the salary increases, they had followed the normal procedures that anyone would in determining the amounts of the increases. The one thing that they had not done was ask the city council. Burke said they felt that the salary increases would come in within the court’s FY 2013 budget – but they were wrong.

Kailasapathy is now citing a Michigan Supreme Court administrative order that appears to say that if the court uses a line item budget, there are restrictions on what the court can do.

From Administrative Order No. 1998-5, which applies to district courts, among others.

II. COURT BUDGETING If the local funding unit requests that a proposed court budget be submitted in lineitem detail, the chief judge must comply with the request. If a court budget has been appropriated in line-item detail, without prior approval of the funding unit, a court may not transfer between line-item accounts to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits, except to implement across the board increases that were granted to employees of the funding unit after the adoption of the court’s budget at the same rate, or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. A chief judge may not enter into a multiple-year commitment concerning any personnel economic issue unless: (1) the funding unit agrees, or (2) the agreement does not exceed the percentage increase or the duration of a multipleyear contract that the funding unit has negotiated for its employees. Courts must notify the funding unit or a local court management council of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer. The requirements shall not be construed to restrict implementation of collective bargaining agreements.

Zeisloft says that the court only submits a budget in a line item form as a courtesy. Tom Crawford, the city’s CFO, explains that the city requires all the units to submit line item budgets, but the city council authorizes the budgets by fund. Kailasapathy comes back to the administrative order.

10:07 p.m. Easthope says the council has the authority to set a lump sum budget for the court. But the council doesn’t have the ability to change line items, he says. Easthope describes the court as a separate branch of government. The Supreme Court administrative office had provided all the comparative data, he said. Hines had not simply said, “You get a raise and you get a raise …” Back-and-forth ensues between Kailasapathy and Zeisloft on how the HR department of the city had been involved in the compensation adjustment amount. No formal report had been requested from HR, Zeisloft says.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asks for clarification of the administrative order on line item budgeting. Warpehoski asks what happens if the council doesn’t approve the adjustment. That is, what happens if Briere’s amendment passes. Crawford indicates that the city would probably get a comment on that in the city’s audit. The money has already been spent, Warpehoski points out. Crawford indicates agreement that it would be difficult to stop the expenditures in the next two weeks, when the fiscal year ends.

Lumm confirms with Crawford that court employee checks are processed through the city. Lumm says that the court’s budget seems to be “optional.” But Lumm ventures that there doesn’t seem to be an option to not make the adjustment. Easthope says the court was actually under the budget by $99,000. Lumm says she wants to follow up later on that. She says that Easthope’s remarks aren’t consistent with the information the council has received.

Kunselman appreciates that Burke had conceded that the court’s math was off. He asked what Burke thought the consequence should be: Should the council just cover the amount? In the short term, Burke says, yes. He says the court doesn’t spend money like drunken sailors. Burke ventures that the council would not want to hear next year that the court has the same issue.

10:18 p.m. Taylor ventures that it’s been a full conversation. It’s a simple question. The court has diligently determined that their line workers’ wages were below market. The council has approved the increases going forward, he says, when it approved the FY 2014 budget. Taylor says he’ll vote against Briere’s amendment. Hieftje confirms with Crawford that the budget resolution basically recognizes reality.

Briere says her intent is not to force the court into a deficit. Staff should not be penalized for the actions of their supervisors. She says she’ll withdraw her amendment. She says the court should have done a better job of communicating. She says she will remember this situation without fondness. Kailasapathy, who seconded the amendment, hesitated for several seconds before agreeing with Briere to withdraw.

10:30 p.m. With that amendment withdrawn, Petersen has moved on to the indigent representation and the security services issue. Zeisloft characterizes it as an unusual circumstance, that should not arise again in the future. Easthope notes that the special docket courts are operated at no cost to the city. Higgins asks why the salary increases were not undertaken during the period when the court was returning money to the city. If the court had the ability to give raises without asking permission from the city, why didn’t the court give the raises at that time – when the court had the money? Higgins complains that she felt blindsided.

Briere ventures that it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission. She appreciated that the court felt a little bit picked upon. Burke objects to any analysis that would say the court tried to sneak something past the city, saying that’s an integrity issue. City administrator Steve Powers shares his perspective as a former county administrator. He accepted responsibility for not bringing the communication back from the court and not updating the council. Going forward, the consultation with the court would be important so that these issues don’t arise in the future. He stresses the importance of the two branches doing things in consultation, not confrontation.

10:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the FY 2013 budget adjustments over the lone dissent of Kailasapathy.

10:30 p.m. 15th District Court: Weapons screening contract. This is for a $160,000 contract with Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, which houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer. The estimated maximum annual cost of $160,000 is $27,000 less than last year. The money comes from the 15th District Court’s budget.

10:32 p.m. Lumm is questioning Zeisloft about the contract and how the estimate was calculated.

Outcome: The council has voted to approve the weapons screening contract.

10:32 p.m. 15th District Court: Indigent representation. Two resolutions are on the agenda related to the law firm that provides indigent representation for 15th District Court defendants. The first is for a flat fee $240,000 contract for representation of indigent defendants – with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). That’s for FY 2014. For the previous year, the council is also being asked to cover $203,000 of fees that accrued due to the delayed billing practice used by MCLS.

10:33 p.m. Taylor says that the contracting party is a client of his. He asks the council to vote to excuse him from voting. They do and he takes a seat on the hard bench.

10:39 p.m. Lumm asks Zeisloft if the court had considered issuing an RFP (request for proposals) for the service. Zeisloft describes the negotiation between the court and the law firm. He says that the court has not considered issuing an RFP, but it would be possible. Model Cities, however, provides the service at a very competitive cost, he says. Easthope explains that Model Cities doesn’t just stand in court – they provide far more than that. There’s a value that’s hard to represent – that doesn’t have to do with just the lowest price. Model Cities has a personal connection to all the social services agencies, Easthope says.

10:39 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the two resolutions related to Model Cities for legal services.

10:39 p.m. Ordinance: Outdoor advertising – Billboards. The ordinance change would restrict the way that digital technology could be incorporated into any signs. It would also prevent any digital technology retrofitting of existing billboards, and prohibit billboards generally – although the 28 existing billboards citywide would be allowed to continue as non-conforming structures. This has been given initial approval by the council and was up for final action twice before – most recently, on May 6, 2013. Action on May 6 was to postpone a final decision – until tonight. [.pdf file of map showing billboard locations in the city]

10:49 p.m. Taylor is introducing the item. He describes it as enforcing the status quo. There are some changes compared to the first reading. One is an exception for churches and schools. The definition of “changeable” copy has also been revised. Taylor says it’s important that billboards not expand beyond their current status.

Warpehoski says he’s heard close to zero support for expanding billboards to use digital technology – other than from those in the outdoor sign industry. He’d heard no support for digital signs to the point where he felt there was consensus.

Petersen says Ann Arbor wants to be a tech town, and preserving the status quo is too conservative. She cites the possible negative impact on economic development. It promotes blight by not allowing existing billboards to be removed and replaced with new ones. She’s going to oppose this ordinance change. MDOT relies on digital technology to convey messages, she points out. She calls for a more comprehensive look at the ordinance. It’s way too conservative for a town that wants to move forward with technology, she says.

Briere says that she thinks AAPS is unlikely to go ahead with a proposal to contract with Adams Outdoor Advertising on school property. Two of the proposed digital signs were in Ward 1. They didn’t make her happy. She conceded she was perhaps an old fogey.

Lumm thanks staff for all their research and their work. She thinks the proposals are reasonable. She’ll be supporting the ordinance change.

10:53 p.m. Anglin thanks staff for their work. He says it’s clear that the community doesn’t want any more visual intrusion. It’s not an anti-business proposal, but rather a pro-community move, he says.

10:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the billboard ordinance, over dissent from Petersen and Higgins.

10:54 p.m. Ordinance: Rezoning – McMullen and Max properties. Both of these rezoning requests have already received initial approval. The zoning is from TWP (township) zoning to residential in both cases.

10:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the rezoning of these properties, which are being annexed into the city.

10:55 p.m. Ordinance: Fireworks time restrictions. The revision to the fireworks ordinance was given initial approval at the council’s June 3. 2013 meeting. The impact of the ordinance change would be to restrict the use of fireworks on July 3-5 to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days. The ordinance change is made possible by a recent change to state law. Gov. Rick Snyder is expected to sign it into law before July 4.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the fireworks ordinance.

10:59 p.m. The council is now in recess.

11:06 p.m. Ordinance: Video privacy. Now back from recess, the council is taking up a new ordinance that would regulate the way local law enforcement officials can deploy surveillance cameras. In some cases, resident approval would be required. The ordinance has appeared several times previously on the agenda, but has not yet received initial approval. Most recently it was postponed on May 6, 2013. (All ordinances, per the city charter, need an initial approval from the council, followed by a public hearing and a final vote taken at a subsequent meeting.)

11:20 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski is introducing the ordinance. Chief John Seto is out of town. Warpehoski is asking his colleagues to move the change forward to second reading. He characterizes it as a balance between the right to privacy and the interests of law enforcement. He ventures that there’s a lot on the agenda. So he suggests a more in-depth discussion when it comes back for second and final reading.

Petersen asks for clarification of some changes. Briere thanks Warpehoski for his work, but says that this ordinance is not her favorite idea. Lumm says she was hoping it would be postponed. She points to the fact that Seto is not here. She also notes that new revisions had been given to the council only last night. She doesn’t think the council should pass ordinances at the first reading just to get them to the second reading. Lumm won’t support it.

Kunselman appreciated Warpehoski’s work to bring the ordinance forward. But he feels it’s a solution in search of a problem. He knew he wouldn’t support it when it came to the second reading. He feels it tied the city administrator’s hands. Privacy is already protected, he says. Surveillance cameras do work, he says, giving the West Willow neighborhood as an example. He asks: Where’s the budget for this? Asking the city administrator to run around getting permissions from residents didn’t seem sensible, he said.

Kailasapathy indicates support for postponement. She moves for postponement. Warpehoski seconds that motion. Taylor indicates support for the postponement. He said he’d have probably been inclined to support it at first reading.

11:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the video privacy ordinance until July 1, when police chief John Seto will be available.

11:21 p.m. Ordinance: Fire code. This first reading of the ordinance would amend Chapter 111 (Fire Prevention) of the city code so that it refers to the 2009 International Fire Code instead of the 2003 version.

11:30 p.m. Warpehoski says that he’ll support the ordinance at first reading, but he has some concerns about the inspection of certain areas. Lumm asks fire chief Chuck Hubbard about frequency and cost of fire inspections. He contrasts inspections with re-inspections. If there are violations found, then an inspector will return to confirm that the violation has been corrected. Hubbard allows that inspections have been stepped up. It’s being done for the benefit to the property owners, he says.

Powers says that the performance of the fire inspection program is being reviewed. Kunselman notes that the building department is already using the 2009 code, but the fire department is using the 2003 code. What are the differences? Kunselman gets confirmation that the council’s approval is more or less a formality. It’s like “housekeeping.” Anglin asks how many staff are allocated. Hubbard says it’s been increased from three people to seven. Anglin feels the overall safety of the community is being improved.

11:31 p.m. Taylor says he’s delighted that the city is conducting more fire inspections.

Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the adoption of the 2009 fire code.

11:31 p.m. CTN truck upgrade. The upgrade is for high-definition production equipment for the Community Television Network (CTN) truck. The $77,711 contract with VTP Inc. was included as part of the FY 2013 budget, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the CTN truck upgrade.

11:31 p.m. Resolution of commitment: 721 N. Main. This is a resolution of commitment from the council that it’s willing to spend up to $750,000 of city general fund money to undertake planned improvements to the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. If the city’s plan unfolds as it expects, then none of that general fund money would be needed. Of the $1.2 million estimated cost for the trail and stormwater improvements to the site, the city plans to use $150,000 from the city’s stormwater fund. To cover part of the remaining $1.05 million, the city hopes to use $600,000 from a grant it hopes to receive from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) – through SEMCOG’s transportation alternatives program (TAP). The council approved the application for the SEMCOG grant at its April 15, 2013 meeting.

To cover the remaining $450,000, the city hopes to use $150,000 from a Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Connecting Communities grant and $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) grant. The council approved the application for those last two grants at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting. Tonight’s resolution comes in response to an MNRTF grant requirement that the council commit the city to funding the other grants itself – from general fund money – if the grants fail to materialize. The $750,000 figure comes from adding the $600,000 SEMCOG grant to the $150,000 Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation grant.

11:42 p.m. Briere stresses that the commitment is not an expenditure. Lumm thanks Briere for her service on the North Main Huron River task force. She’ll support it. Kunselman wondered if any park millage dollars would be spent on this project. Briere notes that the property is not a park. When will it be a park? asks Kunselman. That’s a decision for park advisory commission (PAC), not for her, Briere responds.

Taylor, who serves as an ex officio member of PAC, notes that park staff is sensitive to the funding requirements of maintaining existing parks. Hieftje describes the general context of 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main and how the two city-owned properties fit into the context of greenway planning. Hieftje is talking about the need to focus on the provision for long-term maintenance. Anglin says it’s important that this resolution commits money. He says a chain of parks through the city – like the greenway – would have a positive economic impact.

11:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to commit the funds for the 721 N. Main site.

11:43 p.m. Opposition: SEMCOG long-range plan. This is a symbolic resolution opposing expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County. The Washtenaw County board of commissioners passed a similar resolution at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The interstate highway expansion is a part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion.

11:45 p.m. Warpehoski says there are a lot of good elements in the SEMCOG plan. But there are not forecasts for additional traffic and population, so it didn’t make sense to expand the highways instead of maintaining. Warpehoski quotes Picasso: “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” He’s copied much of the resolution from others that have been passed, he says.

11:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to pass the resolution opposing SEMCOG’s 2040 plan.

11:45 p.m. Ann Arbor Housing Commission operating support funding. The resolution, which provides $382,000 for operational support for the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC), is held over from the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting, when the council took several steps to move the commission forward along a path to converting the properties it manages to project-based vouchers. A similar operations funding resolution had appeared on that meeting’s agenda, but was withdrawn. Of the total amount, $159,000 is appropriated from the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund, and $223,000 would be appropriated from the general fund. The housing and human services advisory board has voted to recommend the $159,000 be appropriated from the city’s trust fund.

11:54 p.m. Briere introduces the resolution, noting that this resolution will empty the affordable housing trust fund – but it will receive $100,000 on July 1, because of the budget allocation the council passed. Kunselman asks Crawford if there were sufficient funds in the general fund reserve. Crawford projects a fund balance of $13.9 million at the end of the fiscal year. That’s about 17%. He does have some concerns, he says. At the end of FY 2015, based on the council’s recent action, the fund balance would be around 13%. In general, he has some concerns about how the fund balance is being used.

Powers notes that the current council policy is 8-12%. Hieftje reads aloud from the staff memo. Lumm thanks executive director of the AAHC Jennifer Hall for her work.

11:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the AAHC allocation.

11:54 p.m. Appointment: City planning commission. One of the city planning commission members is drawn from the city council. Since November 2012, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) has served in this capacity. Terms for planning commission members are made through June 30. The resolution extends her term until Nov. 7, 2013 at which point the membership on the new city council will be settled. Briere is unopposed in the Democratic primary. An independent candidate, Jaclyn Vresics, has taken out petitions to run for that seat but has not yet filed them with the city clerk’s office. The deadline for independent candidates to submit petitions is Aug. 7.

11:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve Briere’s appointment to the planning commission.

11:55 p.m. FY 2014 Budget: Correction to park capital improvement millage rate. This resolution corrects the millage rate that was listed in the FY 2014 budget resolution that the council approved at its May 20, 2013 meeting. The park maintenance and capital improvements millage was listed at 1.0969 mills when it should have been listed as 1.10 mills– with the corresponding correction from the total millage rate from 16.4470 to 16.4501 mills. Measured in dollars, the correction is estimated to bring in an additional $14,460 in revenue.

11:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the correction to the millage rate.

11:56 p.m. Council rules changes. For Chronicle coverage on these changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.” Highlights include adding public commentary to council work sessions, but reducing public speaking time to two-minute turns. A “frequent flyer” rule would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row.

11:56 p.m. Higgins is introducing the proposed rules. She says that she’d like to see it postponed.

11:57 p.m. Outcome: With no further discussion, the council has voted to postpone the rules changes until July 1.

11:57 p.m. Site plan: State Street Center. The rezoning of the parcel for this site plan was given final approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. The project calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house on this site. In its place, the developer plans a one-story, 1,700-square-foot drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street.

11:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the State Street Center site plan.

11:58 p.m. Site plan and brownfield plan: 544 Detroit Street. The planning commission gave the 544 Detroit St. project a recommendation of approval at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. It’s planned to be a three-story building at 544 Detroit St. with offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors. It’s a “planned project” to allow an additional 3.5 feet of building height for a “decorative parapet” on the building’s north end and a stair enclosure to access a roof deck. [.jpg image of proposed design]

The two items on the council’s agenda for this project are the site plan approval and the brownfield plan. The parcel is the site of a former gas station. According to a staff memo, the brownfield component – which allows tax increment financing (TIF) to reimburse the developer for eligible costs – includes a total of $698,773 in eligible activities. Some of those eligible activities include soil remediation ($174,620), infrastructure improvements ($70,350), and vapor mitigation ($32,000).

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve both the site plan and the brownfield plan for 544 Detroit.

11:58 p.m. Brownfield plan: Packard Square. This amends a previously approved brownfield plan for the former site of the Georgetown Mall. The amendment adds to the list of eligible activities – including underground parking and urban stormwater management. The total cost of eligible activities is not changed.

12:04 a.m. Higgins asks about payment of back taxes. Nathan Voght is fielding Higgins’ questions. Higgins notes that the demolition is in progress. Voght gives an update. May 28 was the start of demolition. MDEQ indicated that additional asbestos mitigation was needed. Soil excavation to remove contamination is ongoing. A vapor barrier will probably need to be installed. He thinks by mid-July the demolition will be done. The developer indicates that construction would begin as soon as possible after that. Higgins says that residents are pleased to see the project going forward. Hieftje thanks Higgins for her efforts.

12:04 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Packard Square brownfield amendment.

12:04 a.m. Street resurfacing: Packard from Anderson to Kimberly. This is a contract with MDOT that the city will act as project manager on the resurfacing project. Total cost for the work is $1,447,900, with the city’s share working out to $620,900. The rest will be paid with federal funds.

12:05 a.m. Kunselman says he’s excited to see the project. It shows that investment is taking place along Packard. He ventures that it starts on June 22. Hupy says he won’t swear to that date, but it will happen soon. The contract hasn’t been awarded yet, he cautions.

Outcome: The council has voted to approve the street resurfacing contract.

12:05 a.m. Drinking water system: Pump station electrical upgrade. The contract with Shaw Electric Company to upgrade electrical systems for the city’s drinking water system is worth $2,619,000. The work would cover replacement of the primary and secondary switchgear at Barton Pump Station and replacement of electrical controls and a check valve at South Industrial Pump Station.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the contract with Shaw Electric.

12:06 a.m. Development agreement: The Varsity. This resolution approves a revision to the development agreement for The Varsity, a 13-story, 177,180-square foot apartment building containing 181 dwelling units (415 bedrooms) and 78 off-street vehicle parking spaces. A minimum of 76 off-street parking spaces were required. Only 69 were provided onsite. The others were provided through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The seven spaces were approved by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The Varsity is located at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor.

12:07 a.m. Briere recites the background of the situation.

Outcome: The council has voted to approve the revision to the development agreement.

12:07 a.m. Labor contracts: Wage increases. Re-openers for the final year of their contracts resulted in new contracts with six police department unions, which the council is being asked to approve on separate votes: Teamster Civilian Supervisors, Teamsters Local 214; Police Professional Assistants, Teamsters Local 214; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association – Police Service Specialists; Command Officers Association of Michigan; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association; and Deputy Chiefs, Teamsters Local 214.

Common to all the contracts are a 2% wage increase starting July 1, 2013 and a 1% increase starting Jan. 1, 2014. Also common to the contracts is the acceptance of the change in pension board composition, which was approved by voters on Nov. 8, 2011 with a 68% majority. The change retained the body as a nine-member group but distributed them differently: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire employees. Eliminated from the mix was the city administrator.

Membership in these unions breaks down as follows: Deputy Chiefs (2); Teamster Civilian Supervisors (35); Teamster Police Professionals (5); AAPOA (90); COAM (22); and Police Service Specialists (5).

12:11 a.m. Higgins thanks staff. It’s the first time since she’s been on council that all the contracts have been resolved before expiration. Lumm thanks the staff and recites the nature of the agreements.

12:12 a.m. For the AAPOA an administrative correction was made to the phone allowance – $600, instead of $550.

12:13 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the police department union contracts.

12:13 a.m. Appointments: Among those to be confirmed tonight, having been nominated on June 3, are Bonnie Bona to the planning commission and LuAnne Bullington to the taxicab board.

Although Tony Derezinski’s name had appeared on the list distributed to the council at the June 3 meeting as a nomination to the city planning commission, and was reported (mistakenly) by The Chronicle as having been nominated, Derezinski’s name was not actually read aloud that evening. On the council’s agenda is a different nomination, who will replace Derezinski – Jeremy Peters. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs, with Ghostly Songs.

Derezinski was filling out the remainder of Evan Pratt’s term – through June 30, 2013. Pratt was elected as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in November 2012 and resigned from the planning commission. At its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, the council had voted, over dissent from Lumm, to appoint Derezinski to that partial term. Up to that point, he’d served as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, but he did not prevail in the August 2012 Democratic primary in his Ward 2 race against Sally Petersen.

Also up for confirmation by the council are nominations to the downtown citizens advisory council.

12:14 a.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council confirms all the appointments in one vote.

12:15 a.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:31 a.m. Thomas Partridge takes the podium. He expresses disappointment with the council and the mayor for leaving the city without sufficient affordable housing. He says they lack the courage to stand up and bring the facts to the voters for support of tax increases to fund what’s needed.

Diane Chapman introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. She reports that she’s been physically attacked and complains about the lack of response by AAHC.

Seth Best and Peggy Lynch address the council on the idea of the fee waiver for Liberty Plaza. They’d like something in writing and they’d like it to be possible for humanitarian aid to be distributed in any park. Caleb Poirer says it feels wonderful staying up late with the council. He asks the council to wrestle with the language that would make an ordinance work to allow humanitarian aid to be distributed. He thinks there’s a lot of people who want to do kind things, and not let fees get in the way.

Michael Benson thanks the council for staying late. He commends the rules committee, saying that the proposed rules represent a step forward. He suggests that when people hand over written remarks to the clerk, those documents should eventually be added to the agenda. He tells the council they should consider constraining their own question time during the meeting. He also suggests that reserved time be confined to true action items.

Jeff Hayner said he thought it’s great that someone talked about the rules. He agreed with Benson’s point about the ability to submit written remarks.

12:31 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

From left: Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Budget deliberations pushed the meeting until nearly 2 a.m.

The council considered several amendments to the FY 2014 budget. But the total impact on the general fund of all the successful amendments was not significant, leaving mostly intact the “status quo” budget that had been proposed by city administrator Steve Powers a month earlier. That was a budget with $82.9 million in general fund expenditures. [.pdf of one-page summary of possible amendments] [.pdf of longer detail on FY 2014 budget amendments]

Most of the successful amendments were voted through with relatively little debate, and involved amounts of $100,000 or less. For example, the Washtenaw Health Initiative received an additional $10,000 allocation, and the Miller Manor senior meals program received a $4,500 boost. Allocations to human services nonprofits were increased by $46,899. And the general fund balance was tapped to conduct a $75,000 study of sidewalk gaps so that projects could be prioritized.

The affordable housing trust fund received an infusion of $100,000 from the general fund reserve. The council also approved an amendment prohibiting the spending of $326,464 that was set aside in the FY 2014 budget for public art, in anticipation of a final affirmative vote on a change to the public art ordinance. A vote on amending that ordinance is likely to take place on June 3, before the fiscal year begins on July 1.

The “parks fairness” amendment, which came after deliberations on all other amendments, was a straightforward calculation in accordance with a city policy. The policy requires that any increase in general fund spending be matched by a parallel increase for parks. The council approved that $22,977 amendment with scant remark.

Just three issues took about 80% of the council’s roughly 4.5-hour budget deliberations: (1) the budget of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, (2)  the possible reduction of the 15th District Court budget in order to pay for three additional police officers, and (3) the proposed restoration of loose leaf collection in the fall.

Of the most time-consuming items, the change to the DDA’s budget was ultimately approved – after escalating political rhetoric led to a kind of compromise that had almost unanimous support. The DDA compromise budget amendment called for a $300,000 transfer from the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) fund to the DDA’s housing fund, and a recommendation to spend $300,000 of TIF money on the replacement of Main Street light poles. Only Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) dissented.

The lone dissenting vote on the budget as a whole was Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who issued a verbal spanking of her colleagues and the city administrator – for proposing and approving a budget she did not feel reflected a priority on public safety. Countering Lumm was Taylor, who pointed out that roughly half of the general fund expenditures are related to public safety.

Budget: Time Overview

For a time-stamped chronological account of the deliberations that was posted live during the meeting, see “May 20, 2013 Ann Arbor City Council: In Progress.” The summary of deliberations below is presented in the rough order of time spent on each of the amendments.

FY 2014 budget: Time spent on deliberations, by topic. The proportionate times are estimated from time stamps from The Chronicle’s live updates. Time from the roughly 10-minute recess was assigned to the immediately preceding item of discussion, which was the DDA budget debate.

Occupying most of the council’s time – around an hour and a half – was discussion of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s budget. The council wound up with a compromise that transferred $300,000 from the tax increment finance (TIF) fund to the housing fund, and a recommendation from the city council to spend $300,000 on replacement of light poles on Main Street. The sole dissent on the compromise was Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The second-longest amount of time spent in the council’s budget deliberations related to a service previously provided by the city but discontinued a few years ago: collection of loose leaves in the fall. The loose leaf collection program invited residents to push leaves into the street, where the leaves were collected on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood schedule. That’s been replaced with collection through carts and bags – a purely “containerized” approach. The discussion lasted over an hour and did not result in the restoration of the mass leaf collection service. The proposal got support only from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

And taking a bit under an hour’s worth of deliberations was a proposal to reduce the 15th District Court’s budget by $270,000 and to use the recurring savings to hire three additional police officers. That proposal failed on a 5-6 vote – with support only from Lumm, Anglin, Kailasapathy, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). A proposal to fund a single police position – by eliminating an FTE in the city attorney’s office through a retirement – received shorter debate and less support, with yes votes coming only from Lumm and Kailasapathy.

DDA Budget: Background

In the summary of possible amendments compiled for the council before the meeting, there were competing amendments on the DDA budget – one championed by mayor John Hieftje, with the other put forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Both dealt with the fact that the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture is now expected to be $568,000 more in FY 2014 than the roughly $3.9 million on which the DDA based its FY 2014 budget.

Hieftje’s version of the amendment specified three areas on which the additional revenue was supposed to be spent: housing, replacement of failing Main Street lamp posts, and the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK. It specified a $100,000 transfer to the DDA’s housing fund. Kunselman’s version was confined to housing, and transferred $500,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund.

The council considered Kunselman’s amendment, and ultimately approved it in amended form – transferring $300,000 to the housing fund from the TIF fund and recommending that an additional $300,000 be spent on light poles on Main Street.

By way of background, the DDA is financially a “component unit” of the city. The DDA captures some of the taxes that would otherwise go to the jurisdictions that levy taxes within a specific geographic area. But it’s just the initial increment – between the taxable value of an unimproved property and the value of a property after improvements are built – on which the Ann Arbor DDA captures taxes.

The Ann Arbor DDA was established under a city ordinance in Chapter 7 of the city code, which appears clearly to limit the amount of the TIF revenue the DDA is supposed to receive to an amount that’s a function of the forecasted revenue in the TIF plan – a foundational document of the DDA.

The Ann Arbor DDA has given Chapter 7 a different interpretation since 2011, when the implications of Chapter 7 were reportedly first noticed. On the Ann Arbor DDA’s interpretation, the relevant language does not actually limit the amount of TIF revenue that the DDA receives. That led to an attempt earlier this spring by the city council to clarify the language of the ordinance so that the DDA did not have the flexibility of interpretation in the future. At its May 6, 2013 meeting, the council postponed that effort at clarification until September 2013.

The Ann Arbor DDA also operates the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city. Under the terms of that contract, the city receives 17% of gross revenues from the parking system.

With respect to the DDA’s budget, the state’s enabling statute for downtown development authorities indicates that an authority is supposed to adopt its budget after the governing municipality approves it [emphasis added]:

125.1678 Budget; cost of handling and auditing funds. Sec. 28. (1) The director of the authority shall prepare and submit for the approval of the board a budget for the operation of the authority for the ensuing fiscal year. The budget shall be prepared in the manner and contain the information required of municipal departments. Before the budget may be adopted by the board, it shall be approved by the governing body of the municipality. Funds of the municipality shall not be included in the budget of the authority except those funds authorized in this act or by the governing body of the municipality. (2) The governing body of the municipality may assess a reasonable pro rata share of the funds for the cost of handling and auditing the funds against the funds of the authority, other than those committed, which cost shall be paid annually by the board pursuant to an appropriate item in its budget

However, the Ann Arbor DDA board has typically adopted its budget before the city council approves the city’s fiscal year budget, of which the DDA’s budget is a component. That was the case this year as well, when the DDA board adopted budgets for FY 2014 and 2015 on Feb. 6, 2013. [.pdf of DDA FY 2014-15 budget]

DDA Budget: Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off the deliberations by reminding his council colleagues of some proposals he’d mentioned at the council’s May 6, 2013 meeting. That was the occasion on which the council postponed the DDA ordinance amendments until Sept. 3.

On May 6, Kunselman had sketched out a number of possible proposals: (1) 10% of the DDA’s TIF capture would be earmarked for affordable housing; (2) the DDA’s housing fund would be reserved for affordable housing at 30% of the area’s average median income; (3) 50% of the city of Ann Arbor’s TIF “rebate” would be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund; and (4) for the FY 2014 budget, $0.5 million of the DDA’s TIF would be transferred to the DDA’s housing fund.

On May 20, Kunselman continued deliberations by specifying how he wanted to see the DDA spend the $500,000 that his budget amendment would transfer into the DDA housing fund. Kunselman wanted it to be used on Miller Manor, an Ann Arbor housing commission property located at 727 Miller Ave. Miller Manor is not located within the DDA district.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. The size of the dot is proportional to the number of units in the location. The largest dot is Miller Manor. (Map by The Chronicle. Image links to interactive map.)

However, under an adopted Ann Arbor DDA policy, investments of DDA TIF can be made outside the geographic boundary of the district, as long as they are within 0.25 miles of the boundary. The western edge of the DDA district boundary on Miller Road is Chapin Street, and Miller Manor is located about 0.21 miles from Chapin – within the area described in the DDA’s policy. But Kunselman noted that the city could not tell the DDA how to spend the money – saying the city could simply put the money into the housing fund. And that meant it would have to be spent on housing.

Leaving most of the additional money in the TIF fund – as mayor John Hieftje’s proposed amendment would do – still provided complete flexibility for the DDA to spend the money as it wished, cautioned Kunselman. Under his own amendment, Kunselman argued, the DDA would need to spend it all on housing. But he argued for spending the money on Miller Manor, because it was public housing stock, which was meant to be accessible to those with incomes of 30% of the area median income (AMI). Kunselman described the kind of housing the DDA had supported with City Apartments, a private development under construction at First and Washington, as supporting the 80% AMI level.

Kunselman also contended that it was not a surprise to anyone that the DDA would be receiving the additional $568,000, and he didn’t understand why the DDA had not put that additional revenue in its proposed budget when it was adopted in February. Kunselman called it a “lowballed” budget. The additional funds had not been brought up until he’d advanced his proposed amendment to the DDA ordinance earlier in the spring, he said. Kunselman’s contention was that the DDA could have reasonably known that its TIF revenue would be closer to $4.5 million than to the $3.9 million it budgeted near the end of February.

Hieftje invited city CFO Tom Crawford and Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, to the podium to answer questions. Hieftje asked Pollay when the numbers for the tax assessment are available to the DDA. She said that the DDA saw the numbers when the council did – April 1. Pollay contended that the DDA is not privy to the estimates that are being formulated. So the DDA does its best to estimate based on previous years, she said.

Kunselman asked Crawford to confirm what Crawford had told Kunselman in response to the question of when estimates of assessed value were available – saying he’d been told it was Jan. 1. Crawford said there are a lot of things that go on between January and April. It’s closer to April when it’s final, explained Crawford. But Kunselman pointed out that the board of review notices are sent out in March, which means that the numbers are available before then. Crawford responded by saying that “they have to process that stuff.” It’s around April that the numbers are actually known. Crawford allowed that estimates can be done on fairly good data in January, but the final numbers are available in April.

Pollay then responded to Hieftje’s prompting about the nature of the DDA board’s discussion at a special meeting on May 13. Hieftje contended that the DDA achieved a quorum on that occasion and reached a consensus on the allocation of additional TIF revenue. A quorum would be seven of the 12-member DDA board.

Later in the meeting, Hieftje described his own resolution as based on the “DDA action last week.” [In an email to the council, DDA board chair Leah Gunn had characterized the May 13 meeting as "informal." That description is consistent with the fact that no resolutions were voted on or discussed. Gunn's email indicated that seven board members had attended. The Chronicle recorded only the following six board members as present: Leah Gunn, Joan Lowenstein, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt and Newcombe Clark.]

Pollay told the council that there’s an interest on the board in replacing the lamp posts on Main Street, which are rusting from the inside.

Ann Arbor Main Street rusted light pole. (Photo from April 2012 by city of Ann Arbor staff.)

Pollay also indicated that the DDA wants to support some affordable housing efforts and economic development, which are council priorities. She described the possibility of sending DDA board members and SPARK officials to other communities to find out what they’re doing better than Ann Arbor. Specific places to visit, for example, were Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and Madison, Wisconsin. [.pdf of DDA's summary of May 13, 2013 meeting]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the amendment proposed by Kunselman is to allot 100% of the additional TIF revenue to affordable housing. She asked Pollay how those funds would be used in the future.

Pollay responded by saying that that the DDA is planning to meet with housing providers in the near future, and that will help determine how the board might spend the $500,000 on affordable housing.

Briere asked if the DDA has a plan for housing that has criteria to determine how grants are made to housing. Pollay responded to Briere by describing the “full spectrum” of housing. The DDA is interested in housing at all levels for all people, Pollay said.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) contrasted the alternative amendments – Kunselman’s compared to Hieftje’s. She wanted to see if they could be combined. She asked Kunselman if he’d consider lowering the amount to $300,000 – as a friendly amendment to his budget resolution. [Amendments that are considered friendly by the sponsors don't require a vote.] Kunselman rejected Petersen’s offer by saying he felt a vote should be taken on that.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) reminded the council that the public hearing on the DDA ordinance – on April 15 and May 6 – made clear there’s a gap that’s perceived by the community in affordable housing. [Several members of the homeless community spoke during that hearing in support of the DDA.] Some residents have been left behind, she said. Not everybody is meant to be a Google worker. She wanted to stick with the $500,000 for affordable housing that was in Kunselman’s resolution.

Hieftje then invited public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium to talk about the urgent need to replace the light poles on Main Street. Hupy indicated that no provision has been made in the city’s budget to replace them. Up to now, Hupy said, the discussion has been centered on the idea of the DDA paying for the light pole replacement, because the DDA did the original installation. He identified the general fund as the source of the funding, if the city were to pay for the light pole replacement.

[At the May 13 gathering of the DDA board, Pollay indicated that she'd been informed that if the city undertook the installation, it would take a more functional approach and install a fewer number of replacement light poles – using "cobra head" fixtures, instead of the decorative lamp posts currently in place. That cost for the functional approach was estimated at $50,000.]

Responding to a question from Kunselman, Hupy described an interest in not having the same “design error” going forward. [At the May 13 gathering of the DDA board, Pollay had described how the light poles that are rusting sit flush on the concrete and may sit in water. A newer design has the base of the poles elevated on "fingers."]

The cost is estimated to be around $465,000, Hupy said. [In a follow-up email responding to a query from The Chronicle, Hupy indicated that no detailed specification and bidding has been done at this point. So the pricing is somewhat "soft," indicating that when staff puts initial estimates together, they try to make sure they can do the job for the price that's estimated.]

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) got clarification from CFO Tom Crawford about how much the council could control in the DDA’s spending. Essentially, Crawford indicated that the council could make transfers between funds, but could not mandate which projects the money was spent on or in which year it was spent. Warpehoski said the light pole replacement is important – as they’ve been falling down. He proposed a change from $500,000 to $400,000 for the transfer to the DDA’s housing fund, with $100,000 for light poles. Kunselman indicated that would be a friendly amendment. Kunselman stressed that it would actually just reduce the amount of the transfer to $400,000, but not specify the $100,000 be designated to light poles.

Some back-and-forth ensued between Crawford and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) about the nature of one of the resolved clauses and the importance of recognizing the additional revenue to the TIF fund.

Briere drew out the fact that the unbudgeted TIF amount, not originally anticipated by the DDA in its budget, is actually $568,343. She wanted to know why the full amount is not being dealt with. City administrator Steve Powers explained that it’s because $500,000 is the amount Kunselman put in the resolution and city staff didn’t take the liberty of changing it. Briere wanted to change the amendment to reflect the actual amount. The council was amendable to revising the amount of additional TIF revenue recognized to $568,343.

Briere highlighted another project the DDA wants to undertake – South University improvements. Pollay also mentioned that the brick streets of North Fifth Avenue are “waiting for us” to be improved.

Kailasapathy described the additional TIF revenue as a “windfall.” Pollay countered Kailasapathy by saying that $3.4 million will go toward debt service. Pollay also brought up the $508,000 that the DDA gives the city annually – as part of an $8 million grant the DDA awarded toward the bond payments for the new Justice Center.

Warpehoski introduced an idea promoted by Dave DeVarti and Alan Haber – that the DDA would pay off the loan on the former Y lot, located between Fourth and Fifth avenues, north of William. Such an action would free up the proceeds of the eventual sale of that city-owned land to be dedicated to affordable housing. This approach has the advantage that the proceeds wouldn’t have to be spent on properties within the DDA district, he noted.

Alluding to Hieftje’s version of the DDA budget amendment, Briere indicated that she’s not a 100% fan of SPARK. But she’s still concerned about allocating funds for some kind of economic development.

Referring to a resolution approved by the council earlier in the meeting, Petersen indicated she’s not expecting the need for the economic development task force to incur expenses by traveling to other cities. The task force was not set up with a budget, she noted. She was grateful for the spirit of generosity in Hieftje’s amendment that would put the DDA in a position to provide those funds. But she figured any expenses would be nominal and would be shared among the entities represented on the task force – the city, the DDA, and SPARK.

Hieftje returned to the issue of the light poles on Main Street. Hupy indicated that it would not be possible to hang banners on the poles until the poles were replaced. Responding to Warpehoski’s idea that the light poles could be replaced over a period of time, Hieftje asked Hupy if efficiencies would be gained by replacing them all at one time. Essentially, Hupy’s response was yes. He identified issues like a need to inspect the light poles that were in need of replacement, and the possibility that replacing only selected poles could result in mismatches in the style of poles.

As far as other projects the DDA is looking to pursue, Hieftje returned to the issue of South University and Pollay described wanting to finish off the Fifth and Division street project in the Kerrytown area.

Hieftje then said he had some concerns about trying to tell the DDA what to do. He referred to Kunselman’s approach as a command-and-control strategy. He reiterated his concern about the light poles on Main Street.

Taylor concurred with Hieftje, saying that the resolution was an attempt to micromanage the DDA. Downtown is a complex place, Taylor said, and the city doesn’t understand the downtown as well as the DDA – “that’s just the truth.” He called on the council to approach the DDA’s budget with humility, in light of the fact that the council does not have all the information – but the DDA does. He contended that the amendments offered by Hieftje and Kunselman took different approaches. [The original amendments differed materially only with respect to the dollar amount to be transferred from the DDA TIF fund to the DDA housing fund – $500,000 versus $100,000. With the friendly amendment that was in place at the time of Taylor's remarks, the difference was $400,000 versus $100,000.] Taylor called Kunselman’s amendment a blunt instrument for a delicate task, and stated that he’d vote against it.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) responded to Hieftje’s characterization of the amendment as a “command-and-control” approach. She stressed the fact that the message the council had heard in response to the proposed DDA ordinance changes was clearly about affordable housing.

Kailasapathy disagreed with Taylor’s assessment of the DDA as a sophisticated organization. She quoted from an email Pollay wrote back in October 2008 to a resident. [The resident was Peter Zetlin, who subsequently pasted Pollay's email to him in a comment on The Chronicle's live updates filed from the meeting.] Pollay wrote:

For what it’s worth, the proposed parking structure would be paid for with parking revenues (not tax dollars), and unnoted in the local press, the demand for public parking has been increasing every year – including this year, where the numbers of people paying to park exceeds the numbers in all previous years.

Kailasapathy noted that it did not prove to be the case that the new Library Lane parking structure was paid for only with parking revenues. This year, she noted, 87% of the TIF dollars went to bond payments. She disagreed with the idea that the DDA was a sophisticated organization. She said it was good to have oversight of the DDA and important to give guidance.

Hieftje reminded Kailasapathy that she wasn’t serving on the council back in 2008: “Just to point out, Councilmember Kailasapathy, because I know you weren’t here, the underground parking structure was fully supported by city council.”

[The Feb. 17, 2009 vote on issuing the bonds for the underground parking structure was 10-1, with dissent from Mike Anglin. Hieftje's remark was reminiscent of one he made at the council's Dec. 1, 2008 meeting, in reminding Sandi Smith, Kailasapathy's predecessor in that Ward 1 seat, that she had not served on the council at the time the former YMCA property had been purchased.]

Kunselman then told Hieftje, “Of course, you’re not going to support anything that I bring to the table.” [Kunselman was in some sense echoing Hieftje's opening to an email that Hieftje had sent to Kunselman a few weeks earlier, which Hieftje began with: "I understand your need to automatically oppose anything I may be in favor of but wanted to reply just to try and put us all on the same page."]

Kunselman pointed out that there’s only a $300,000 difference between the amended amendment Kunselman was proposing and Hieftje’s proposal. Kunselman indicated he felt that Hieftje’s criticism of the approach as “command and control” could be applied to Hieftje’s own proposal. Kunselman contended that “This is about loyalty to the DDA; this is not about loyalty to the citizens of Ann Arbor.”

Kunselman pointed out that next year, the DDA’s bond payments made out the TIF fund will go from $3.4 million down to $2 million – $1.4 million less. That could be spent on all kinds of light poles, he said. Kunselman discounted the idea that $300,000 was a big difference in that context. He ventured that Hieftje would not have even proposed a DDA budget amendment if Kunselman had not indicated his intent to bring one forward.

Kunselman then addressed Hieftje’s description of the DDA’s board meeting on May 13 and the attendance by the press. From what Kunselman understood from the press, the board didn’t pass a resolution at that meeting, and the DDA didn’t amend its budget. He characterized it as “all talk.” Kunselman accused Hieftje of playing politics.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) then said she was not opposed to putting more money toward affordable housing. But she was not sure that this support for affordable housing should come through the DDA. Even if the council transfers $400,000 to the DDA housing fund, the council has no guarantee that the DDA will spend that $400,000 in the way the council would like to see it spent. If the council really wants to support affordable housing, it should simply take money out of the general fund, she said, and put it in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. If the council wants the DDA to be independent, she didn’t see how the resolution did that.

Higgins noted that the light poles fell down a year ago, so she wondered why it had become a crisis situation that had to be dealt with. She didn’t remember hearing about how it was a crisis. She indicated a lack of support for either Kunselman’s or Hieftje’s amendment.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she had the words “micromanagement” in her notes as well. She wanted to work with the DDA collaboratively, not by directing the DDA. She wanted the city to be the entity that supports affordable housing. She didn’t want the city to tell the DDA “how to run their business.”

Briere responded to Kunselman’s remarks about the resolution being about “loyalty to the DDA” – saying she didn’t believe the vote is a litmus test on blind support for the DDA or not. She was disappointed by the direction the rhetoric had taken. Responding in part to Higgins’ question about why the light poles had suddenly become a crisis, Briere reported that she’s been nagging about the light poles for a year. City staff have said they don’t have it in the budget, she said. The Main Street Area Association asked the DDA if the DDA could pay for the light poles, and Pollay had responded by saying the DDA would have to find a way to pay for it, Briere reported. Briere stressed that the DDA is responsible for downtown infrastructure. For her, spending the money on infrastructure is the most important part of the DDA’s work.

Briere stressed the fact that the DDA’s housing fund is not specifically designated for affordable housing. She again rejected the idea that the vote on the resolution is a loyalty test.

Hieftje responded to Kunselman’s earlier remark by saying he didn’t disagree with everything Kunselman brought forward. Hieftje just wanted to make sure the light poles are fixed. He suggested a compromise, splitting the amounts between light poles and affordable housing.

Kunselman agreed to the split, saying it was a nominal difference anyway.

Lumm then proposed to divide the question on affordable housing and to vote separately on affordable housing and light poles. Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying that’s not what he was proposing to do.

The specifics of the compromise budget amendment resolution were to transfer $300,000 of the additional TIF to the DDA’s housing fund and to request that the DDA spend $300,000 on Main Street light poles.

Outcome: The council approved the DDA budget amendment, with dissent only from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). After the vote, the council went into a short recess.

Leaf Collection

By way of background, leaf collection is now provided as part of the city’s containerized compost pickup program. Residents can place yard waste, including leaves, in carts – which can be emptied with automatic robot-arm-equipped trucks. The city also collects yard waste in paper bags.

In the past, the city invited residents to push their leaves into the street after they fell every autumn. The pickups occurred on a predetermined schedule, with each area of the city serviced twice per autumn. The city then used street sweepers equipped with pusher adaptations to pile the leaves together, and then used front-end loaders to load dump trucks with the leaves. Eliminating the loose leaf pickup program was originally estimated to save $100,000 a year starting in FY 2011. According to the city, it’s proven to save closer to $300,000 a year.

From left: Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and public services area administrator Craig Hupy.

The solid waste fund is supported by a millage levied at a rate of 2.4670 mills. A mill is $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value. That millage generates roughly $11 million a year. The funds are used for compost collection, recycling collection as well as garbage collection. [.pdf of solid waste fund status]

Details of the resolution brought forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) were as follows: Use $395,000 of the solid waste fund balance to buy two street sweepers; use projected savings from reduced tipping fees and other expenses to cover the $311,000 annual recurring cost. The proposal also included the restoration of holiday tree pickup. It was essentially the same proposal she’d brought to the council last year, when it approved the FY 2013 budget. Last year in Lumm’s bid to have fall loose leaf pickup restored she was joined only by her then-wardmate Tony Derezinski and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

This year, Ward 2 was again unified in its support – with recently-elected Sally Petersen substituting for Derezinski. Anglin was also consistent in his support. The effort picked up one other vote – from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). So Lumm’s attempted resolution was defeated on a 4-7 vote, but not before the council took an hour and 10 minutes to debate the issue.

Leaf Collection: Council Deliberations

When she introduced the amendment, Lumm described her attempt the previous year, as well as the technical details of the funding. She contended that for some areas of the city, taking away the service had been a hardship. She contended that loose leaf pickup is a basic service that residents reasonably expect the city to provide – especially in light of the fact that they pay a dedicated solid waste millage that generates over $11 million a year. The holiday tree pickup, she allowed, might not be considered a “core” service, but she felt that it’s a nice, convenient service that can be provided cheaply, for $26,000 a year. Bagging and mulching for some residents isn’t a feasible option, she said. So residents still wind up paying someone to haul their leaves away, which loses the economy of scale that the city could achieve, Lumm contended.

She allowed that there are risks to the fund balance of the solid waste fund. [In round numbers, of the $28.6 million solid waste fund balance, only about $8.6 is "available" for use. Up to $9.4 million in risk has been identified by city staff just to cover the cost of building a replacement drop-off station and to cover requirements of GASB 68, a new accounting standard that must be implemented starting in FY 2015.] But Lumm felt that using $395,000 of the fund balance was appropriate, characterizing it as 4% of the fund balance. The recurring cost was only 2% of the revenue brought in by the millage, she said. Lumm saw value in restoring the service.

After the amendment was introduced by Lumm, Anglin was first to be called on to speak by mayor John Hieftje. Anglin said that in certain areas of the city, leaf pickup is a problem. Ward 2 makes a contribution to the city with its plentiful trees, he indicated, through regulation of stormwater runoff and temperature regulation. He said he wanted to see the amendment approved and “see how it works out.” He said he’d continue to rake his own leaves and put them in the compost carts – because he lives in that kind of neighborhood. In a limited part of Ward 5, he said, there’s a similar problem to Ward 2 for leaf pickup. He cited the stress that the aging population feels about the situation.

Kailasapathy argued from the perspective of economies of scale. She stated that the role of a local government is to provide good services to its citizens. She compared privatizing a certain part of the leaf collection to school busing: If you eliminate school busing, a few children might walk instead, or a few might ride their bicycles, but most parents will drive their children in cars. She stated that it’s more efficient to pick up holiday trees all at one time, instead of thousands of people taking their individual trees to a drop-off point.

Petersen, Lumm’s wardmate, also said she’d support the amendment. She compared the leaf pickup service in its monetary impact to that of the service the city provided recently – on Feb. 28 – when a storm hit and brought down a lot of branches. The city’s effort to pick up storm debris after that happened had been extended to residents citywide, Petersen pointed out, not just to Ward 2 residents. The city was able to absorb that into the budget, and she felt that the city could absorb leaf pickup into the budget as well. Leaves would fall onto the street, whether the city picks them up or not, so she figured it made sense to try to pick them up and take advantage of the economies of scale.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that she’d previously argued against continuing this kind of leaf pickup service. She noted that the city still provides leaf pickup, but it’s done differently now – with compost carts. She felt that the community’s values are in keeping the Huron River as clean as possible and in keeping the streets as clean as possible.

Responding to photographs that Lumm had circulated of piles of leaf bags, Teall said she was sorry that’s happening – but said she didn’t know why those leaves were in the street, because they were not supposed to be in the street. She noted that leaves can be raked every week and a few bags can be put out every week. “There are ways to do this.” She expressed concern about bike lanes – when leaves freeze in the street. She advised keeping holiday trees in your backyard for the birds. So there are ways to deal with the issue that don’t cost the city any money, she ventured.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and mayor John Hieftje.

Teall argued against Petersen’s point about the city’s effort this year to pick up storm debris – by saying that if the city spends money on loose leaf pickup, it might not have the capacity in the future to implement pickup of storm debris as it did this year.

At Briere’s request, public services area administrator Craig Hupy and solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie came to the podium to field questions. Briere asked Hupy for an explanation of why the city had changed its policy. She reported she’d received emails from people that same day advocating for keeping things the way they were – with no loose leaf pickup. Hupy told Briere the change to the current system of containerized pickup originally had been advocated by those who were concerned about pollution loading to the streams, but that argument had never gained traction.

However, when the “Great Recession” occurred, the city was forced to look at it from an economic point of view, Hupy said. Using only the containerized approach had been expected to save $100,000, Hupy said. Now that the city has gained some experience with that approach, the city saves about $300,000, he said. Community feedback has been heard on both sides, he said. Some people miss being able to rake the leaves out into the street, Hupy said. Others say the streets are cleaner and neater. If he were asked which sentiment was more prevalent, he felt that unscientifically, the “cleaner streets” had it by a margin. But the reason for the change was the economic reality, he reported.

Briere ventured that the amount of compost collected has decreased as a result of the change in leaf pickup method. McMurtrie explained it’s been reduced in part because people mulch the leaves into their lawns or compost leaves in their backyards. Hupy also noted that the amount of leaves picked up by the city is measured by the ton. And when leaves sit in the street, they pick up moisture, making them heavier. When they’re bagged, they stay drier. So the staff believe, Hupy said, that less weight is being recorded on the scales due to drier leaves.

McMurtrie allowed that the tonnages have declined since the containerized program was implemented. He also added that there are seasonal variations. Briere offered an anecdote about a mother and her kids who now use a tarp to drag the leaves out to the back of the house into the woods.

Lumm asked about the private contractors who are now hauling leaves for people: Are they hauling the leaves to the city’s compost site? Yes, said McMurtrie. He noted that haulers are not being charged a tipping fee for bringing in the material.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) inquired about the quality of the composting product you get from a cart-based approach versus storing the leaves on the street for a while. He recalled reading in the city’s “Waste Watcher” publication that the advice to residents is not to put street leaves into their home compost. Hupy reported that the city has sampled the quality of the leaves. There’s not a difference revealed in the testing so far, he said.

Warpehoski’s question was motivated by the fact that the product resulting from the city’s composting operation is sold. Hupy said that nothing has triggered Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regulations. Hupy indicated that the city’s concern was actually with the reduced amount of organic material that was swept up by street sweepers in the fall – because the leaves were not being swept into the street as a result of the leaf pick up program. So far things are ok, Hupy said. There’s one more round of sampling to be done this fall.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Warpehoski asked about an anticipated revenue shortfall in the city’s solid waste fund. It’s anticipated to come in FY 2016, he said. Later clarification confirmed that a $375,000 shortfall is projected for that year.

Warpehoski asked Hupy to comment more on pollution-loading issues. Hupy explained that back in the timeframe of the early 2000s, there was more concern about pollution loading, with a focus on phosphorus. Hupy indicated that the concern is at the level of TSS (total suspended solids) – the particulate matter itself, not necessarily the chemical makeup. Warpehoski referred to a letter that the council had received from Washtenaw County water resources commissioner Evan Pratt about the impact of sedimentation in places like the Sister Lake area. Hupy indicated that leaves on the bottom of such lakes don’t necessarily decompose. He ventured that the containerized approach would cause less sedimentation. Hupy also ventured that the approach of sweeping leaves into the street could lead to a detrimental effect on stormwater detention facilities – like the one at Pioneer High.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got clarification that the city sweeps the leaves that happen to fall naturally into the street. Residents aren’t asked to sweep those leaves. Hupy indicated that whatever falls into the street naturally is well within the capability of a street sweeper to handle. Kunselman described last winter seeing places where no sweeping had been done. He ventured that it’s just a guess as to the environmental loading. He felt it would be a great service if the city could provide the loose leaf collection. He also understood the environmental issues.

Kunselman’s statement “I don’t bag leaves by any means” prompted Warpehoski to kid him: “Do you burn ‘em?” This was a reference to a discussion the council had previously about the fees charged to residents for open burning.

Kunselman questioned whether there is now any enforcement against people pushing leaves into the street. Hupy said that people are given a door-tag notice. Kunselman said when he lived on Seventh Street near Pauline, he watched the neighbors push the pile of leaves down in front of somebody else’s house. “Have you ever actually issued a ticket?” Hupy told Kunselman he didn’t think so. The city had, however, made repeated “educational visits.” Kunselman concluded that enforcement is a cost.

Kunselman got clarification that the $311,000 recurring cost would be for two pickups in the fall. On the $395,000 one-time purchase cost for sweepers to push the leaves, Hupy also explained that the pushers the city had used in the past were modified with a blade for pushing. Renting wasn’t an option, because the rental companies would not accept the vehicles being returned with weld and burn marks on them from the necessary modifications. Kunselman indicated he was not sure how he would vote.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Hupy to explain the capital expenditures in the solid waste fund budget. Hupy described an expansion of two programs – residential recycling into multifamily residences, and the addition of food waste to the composting stream. A long-term goal is concern about the drop-off center at Platt and Ellsworth. It’s sitting on the old landfill, Hupy said, and it’s slowly becoming part of the landfill. One corner is sinking and will need to be rebuilt.

McMurtrie described discussions with Recycle Ann Arbor and other jurisdictions to see which of them might be willing and able to partner on construction of a new facility. In the coming months, he hoped to be able to bring forward some proposals. The draft solid waste plan needs to be approved by the council, McMurtrie indicated. After that, there can be some capability added for food waste composting. Hieftje asked Hupy and McMurtrie to confirm that there was, in effect, a plan to spend the fund balance in the solid waste fund.

Hieftje then explained that he’d be opposing the restoration of loose leaf pickup. He reiterated Teall’s point that the city still does pick up leaves – in compost carts and paper bags. Hieftje then described how he lives in a relatively leafy neighborhood, but is able to dispose of them with the compost carts and by composting them in his back yard.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Kailasapathy then inquired about the cost savings that were supposed to have resulted from a conversion to single-stream recycling. McMurtrie confirmed that collection costs have gone down, even with an upwards contract adjustment with Recycle Ann Arbor. But he allowed that revenue has declined. Two factors contributed to that. First, the market has dropped. And the material the city previously processed from Lansing and Toledo no longer comes to Ann Arbor, McMurtrie explained. That’s due to competition, he said.

Petersen then opened up a line of inquiry about alternative solutions to pushing the leaves into big piles, and asked about the possibility of using trucks equipped with large vacuums. She mentioned Cummins engines as the possible power plant for such trucks. [That's a reflection of employment with Cummins early in her professional career.] She wanted to know why the city can’t explore that kind of approach?

Hupy explained that “pushing and loading” is more efficient than vacuums. He explained that sticks, branches and pumpkins after Halloween get included in the piles that are put on the street, which clogs the vacuums. This has been demonstrated by vendors who’ve sought to sell the city on the idea of using large vacuums, but then discover that when the “pushing and loading” method is matched against vacuuming, the “pushing and loading” method has proved superior – to the surprise of the vendors.

Briere inquired if other options exist besides pushing or vacuuming. Responding to Briere, Hupy described a conveyer system as a possible alternative. Briere ventured that whatever method the city uses, it’s still labor intensive for her. She reported that of the various methods, she prefers bagging or putting leaves in the carts. About the current containerized approach, she keeps asking herself, “Is it broken?”

At that point Hieftje indicated that he was hoping the council could soon move to a vote on the question. However, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked for a more detailed explanation of the impact that Lumm’s amendment would have on the solid waste fund.

Hupy reviewed Lumm’s list of cuts, which she proposed to offset the expense of loose leaf collection. The $105,000 reduction in tipping fees might or might not be achievable, Hupy explained. He indicated that street leaf pickup could have the impact of heavier loads, which based on his previous remarks would result from increased moisture. And that would cause increased tipping fees.

For the $14,000 in contingencies for field operations, those are step increases based on labor contracts if they progress in their skill levels, Hupy explained. The $25,000 in solid waste systems planning would take away from the consultant work to be done on an educational campaign. Hupy described the retirement of a person in the solid waste department who works on communication issues. The city is proposing that some of her work would be picked up by a consultant. The $15,000 in printing of promotional material would be for “Waste Watcher,” a publication that is sent out each year to residents. The $76,500 in other service budgets identified by Lumm as a source of savings is for equipment and contracted services – which he described as a difficult cut to make.

Teall then followed up on her earlier point about the storm debris collection this year. She asked how much the storm debris pickup cost earlier this year. Hupy reported that cost at about $375,000. The staff would be coming to the council with a request for an appropriation from the solid waste fund balance, Hupy said. Teall ventured that storms generating debris that might need to be picked up could be happening more frequently. Hupy allowed that if money had to be taken out of the fund balance, then it left less in reserves to deal with various issues.

Teall also highlighted the problem that in-street leaf collection had caused for streets like White Street, where there is parking on both sides of the street. It’s a student neighborhood where the vehicles aren’t moved frequently.

Lumm then defended the savings that she’d identified to fund the restoration of loose leaf pickup, responding to Hupy’s assessment of the impact of her identified savings. She gave a shout-out to the Ann Arbor Newshawks’ satirical treatment of the loose leaf pickup issue – inviting people to look for the video, which is posted on YouTube. She described living in her neighborhood for 35 years, saying that previously the leaves didn’t sit as long in the street before they were picked up. Eventually, she declared: “I think I’ve exhausted this topic.”

Hieftje reiterated his objections, based on the stress it would place on the solid waste fund, given the projection of a shortfall in FY 2016.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman asked for a description of practices in comparative communities. McMurtrie listed off communities that collect leaves in a containerized way (Lansing, Ypsilanti, Beverly Hills, Hazel Park, Troy, Saugatuck, Plymouth Township, Douglas, Tecumseh), compared to loose leaf collection (Berkeley, Birmingham, Clawson, Ferndale, Huntington Woods, Oak Park, Pleasant Ridge, Royal Oak, Adrian, Midland and Holland).

Taylor stated that if the city could provide the service perfectly, he might have a different position – but he stressed “might.” Even with the city’s best efforts, however, he felt there’s no possibility the city would be able to perform the service well. “Leaves will not cooperate, rain and wind and snow will not cooperate,” he said. The costs are material, he said. The cost and benefit were not right for him, so he wouldn’t support the amendment.

Anglin then contended that the failure to provide this service targets those who take virtually no services from the city – the elderly. Even though their kids are out of school, they still pay school taxes, he said. They don’t use the parks, yet their taxes go to support that. The elderly are asking what they get from the city in the way of service.

The council should look at all the demographics of people and ask what services are provided by the city to them. The elderly feel they’re not being fairly treated, he said. The projected shortfall is just a projection, not a reality, he said. So Anglin indicated he’d vote for the amendment.

Warpehoski said he still wasn’t sure how he’d vote. He asked for more information about the financial impact of leaf pickup in the context of freezing weather. Warpehoski also asked about the impact of flooding due to clogged storm grates. Hupy said it’s more labor intensive to clear storm grates when the approach to leaf collection is to push leaves into the street.

Hieftje called on Petersen to speak, but Higgins offered a mild objection, venturing that the councilmembers were exceeding their allotted two speaking turns. Hieftje contended Petersen had a speaking turn left.

Petersen countered Taylor’s point about the ability of the city to perform the task well. She ventured that the city doesn’t do snow plowing well, either, but it’s still a basic service that the city should try to provide.

Kunselman then stated he’d vote no. He cited technological advancements that people can use to take care of their lawns: “Why anybody would vacuum their lawn I have no idea, but they do.” He didn’t want to base leaf collection policy just on the needs of the older population. They’d still have to rake their leaves or hire someone to do it, he said. He suggested that if the city were to provide the service, then some kind of subscription service might be best.

Outcome: The vote on the leaf collection budget amendment was 4-7, getting support only from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Police Officers/15th District Court

Another amendment put forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) was to provide funding for three police officers, with $270,000 taken from the 15th District Court budget.

Lumm indicated that she’d been encouraged by the city council’s identification of public safety as a priority at its December 2012 retreat. She’d also been encouraged by a success statement embraced by the council that defined success in terms of police officers having 25-30% of their time available for proactive policing.

Lumm said the amendment was not meant to “pick on the courts.” She cited the court’s decreasing caseload as one reason to decrease the court’s budget compared to the previous year’s amount.

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s caseload downward trends are in line with the overall trend for other comparable courts [.pdf of caseload trends for 15th District Court]:

               Misdem       Civil Inf    Gen Civil
D15 Ann Arbor  3,109 ‐31%   13,894 ‐49%  1,742 ‐16%

-

In her proposal, Lumm was comparing the FY 2014 request of $4,379,290 to the FY 2013 budgeted amount of 4,066,865. She reasoned that the $270,000 by which she was proposing to reduce the FY 2014 budget still left the court with more money than was budgeted in FY 2013.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) compared 2002 and 2013 FTE levels across departments. The police department has been reduced by about 40%, she said, which was the most of any department. She wanted to restore FTEs. She pointed out that Lansing and Ann Arbor have comparable populations, but Lansing has 226 sworn officers. She allowed that Ann Arbor also has the University of Michigan campus police, but contended that Lansing does as well. She said it was an “apples to apples” comparison. She noted that Ann Arbor’s police force was effective on a reactive basis, but she wanted to make sure it was also able to be proactive, to enhance quality of life and a sense of security that Ann Arbor residents deserve.

Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that Lansing doesn’t have campus police, because Michigan State University is in East Lansing.

Keith Zeisloft, the administrator for the 15th District Court, was asked to come to the podium to answer questions.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Zeisloft what the impact would be of a $270,000 reduction. He replied that the court would need to look at the only area that’s not mandated by law – the probation department. He felt that a $270,000 would mean losing three of six probation officers. He felt that would mean the loss of the “eyes and the ears of the court.” Without probation officers, the judges would have less ability to sentence offenders in a way that was thoughtful and had any real meaning, he said.

Zeisloft also raised the possibility of impacts to the specialty court dockets: veterans court, sobriety court, domestic violence court, and street outreach court. He said the loss of probation officers could “severely cripple” those programs. The court would lose a probation officer who arrives at work at 6 a.m. every day to conduct preliminary breath tests. That ensures that participants in the sobriety court start the day sober. Zeisloft also pointed out that there’s a reduction in revenue that would come from probation fees. Reducing probation officers might reduce the recovery rate of fines, he said.

Chief financial officer Tom Crawford and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Kailasapathy highlighted the 49% decline in civil infractions – from 2007 to 2011. Responding to Kailasapathy, Zeisloft allowed that there’s been a dramatic decrease in the number of cases. In the last six months, however, there’s been a one-third increase in citations. He described how the workforce has also somewhat declined as the caseload has declined.

Zeisloft called the court “frugal.” Lumm responded by saying she had a different definition of frugal. She listed out increases in various categories.

Lumm and Zeisloft went back and forth about an executive secretary position that was restored last year. She told Zeisloft that historically, the 15th District Court has not met its budget reduction targets.

Then Lumm cited an average 9.6% pay increase given to court workers in October 2012, which was authorized by chief judge of the 15th District Court – Libby Hines. Zeisloft allowed that’s correct. But he pointed out that until then, the court employees had four-and-a-half years of a wage freeze, with a decrease in one of those years. Retention of workers had become an issue.

Zeisloft described how human resources had been asked to do a comparative analysis, and that some of the workers had been found to be dramatically underpaid – in some cases $10,000-$16,000 less than their counterparts in other courts. The increase brought them up to a competitive wage. He ventured that this “softened the blow” of a 9.6% average wage increase. Lumm seemed unpersuaded: “It doesn’t soften the blow for me.” She pointed out that the council had heard from the Ann Arbor Housing Commission director about her struggles with keeping her staff’s pay at a competitive level.

Kailasapathy pointed out that the wage increase given to court workers was an average of 9.6% increase – which meant that some workers would have received an even higher increase.

By way of background, this increase did not apply to judges’ salaries, which are reimbursed to jurisdictions based on state statute. However, the district courts in Michigan fall under the administrative orders of the state Supreme Court, and do not have complete latitude to set wages of their employees independently of their governing municipality.

From Administrative Order No. 1998-5, which applies to district courts, among others.

II. COURT BUDGETING If the local funding unit requests that a proposed court budget be submitted in lineitem detail, the chief judge must comply with the request. If a court budget has been appropriated in line-item detail, without prior approval of the funding unit, a court may not transfer between line-item accounts to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits, except to implement across the board increases that were granted to employees of the funding unit after the adoption of the court’s budget at the same rate, or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. A chief judge may not enter into a multiple-year commitment concerning any personnel economic issue unless: (1) the funding unit agrees, or (2) the agreement does not exceed the percentage increase or the duration of a multipleyear contract that the funding unit has negotiated for its employees. Courts must notify the funding unit or a local court management council of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer. The requirements shall not be construed to restrict implementation of collective bargaining agreements.

It’s not clear if the 15th District Court is required by the city of Ann Arbor to submit a “lineitem detail” budget.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Zeisloft to review the cuts that would have to be made. Zeisloft again identified non-mandated services – probation. He reviewed how three out of six positions would have to be eliminated.

Lumm pointed out that the cut would still leave a slight increase comparing the FY 2013 budget to the FY 2014 budget.

Hieftje asked chief of police John Seto to field questions. In 2011, Ann Arbor crime levels were at a record low, Seto reported. In 2012 there was a slight increase, but it was still relatively low.

Hieftje argued that 226 Lansing officers compared to the 179 in Ann Arbor – when you count UM campus safety officers – is comparable, when you consider the reduced crime in Ann Arbor compared to Lansing.

Briere said she sees both the courts and the police officers as safety services. We need the police officers but we also need the courts as well, Briere said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) agreed with Briere that this amounts to a service cut. His focus was not the change in the budget from this year to last year, he said, but the amount of services those budgets could purchase. He didn’t think the three police officers who would be added would add to the actual or perceived safety in the community. The total city budget for FY 2014 reflects around 50% in support of safety services, so he felt the administrator’s budget reflected the council’s priority on public safety. He wouldn’t support the amendment.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked where the court revenue goes. It’s based on a state formula, Zeisloft explained.

Kunselman ventured that there would be other ways to accommodate the $270,000 reduction besides laying people off. Zeisloft countered Kunselman by saying that the main costs of the court, like any governmental entity, is personnel.

Hieftje recited some statistics in support of the idea that Ann Arbor is safe. Hieftje indicated he’d be supporting the allocation of DDA budget funds for police in the downtown area. He didn’t think that the proposed budget amendment would have a net public safety benefit when it would have a negative impact on the probation system.

Lumm drew out the fact that in the last 10 years, the DDA hasn’t provided any money for beat cops. She did this by asking CFO Tom Crawford how much money the DDA had allocated for downtown beat cops. Crawford, who was visibly under the weather at the meeting, said he didn’t know off the top of his head. Lumm told Crawford it was a softball question. She’d previously submitted that question to staff, she said, and “The answer is zero.” [.pdf of memo from Crawford on beat cops]

Kunselman asked Hieftje how the DDA could provide recurring revenue to support downtown beat cops, when it can’t plan to replace light poles.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, traced the original parking agreement from 2005 between the city and the DDA as originating in a desire to provide support to downtown beat cops. A $300,000 allocation escalated to $1 million a year, she noted, but even that did not result in the preservation of beat cops downtown.

Kunselman objected to the idea that increases in parking rates might be used to fund police officers. He cited $1.20/hour parking in Pasadena, which he recently visited, compared to $1.50/hour in Ann Arbor.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted to send a message about support for public safety that would come from hiring more police officers.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) observed that there seems like a lot of agreement that more police are needed downtown, but she wonders what that would mean for this amendment.

Kunselman indicated he’d support the amendment. He didn’t take the possible cut to three probation officers lightly but thought there could be other ways to deal with a reduced budget. He pointed out that the 15th District Court had a nice new building. And responding to Hieftje’s count of UM campus safety officers with the total number of sworn officers in Ann Arbor, Kunselman said the campus police don’t help Ann Arbor neighborhoods.

Outcome: The amendment to reduce 15th District Court funding by $270,000 failed on a 5-6 vote, getting support only from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Police Officer/City Attorney

Another public safety amendment was to allocate $90,000 of the recurring savings from the retirement of assistant city attorney Bob West to the police services area – to pay for an additional police officer. The recommendation associated with the amendment was to eliminate an FTE from the city attorney’s office for next year – that is, FY 2015.

In introducing the amendment, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) noted the attorney’s office has had the least amount of decline in FTEs over the last 10 years.

From left: Ward 1 councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) seconded Kailasapathy’s amendment. But she offered a friendly amendment that specified the assignment of the saved funds simply be returned to the general fund. That is, the outcome of the amendment was simply to reduce the FTE count by one, without specifying that a police officer would be added. Briere was interested in staying consistent with the argument that she’d given against the 15th District Court budget reduction, which was based on the idea that she didn’t favor shifting funds between two positions that served public safety.

Kailasapathy appeared amenable to the amendment.

Then Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she had been set to support the original amendment, but only because it would have added a police officer. Lumm knew from her experience serving on the liquor license review committee that West played a significant role in that. If it meant that West’s position would have to be absorbed with no hire of an additional police officer, Lumm would not support the budget amendment.

Faced with a choice between having Briere’s support or Lumm’s, Kailasapathy reverted to her original amendment – which specified that a police officer would be hired with the savings.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked chief of police John Seto to come to the podium. Taylor wanted to know if he’d been asked about this change. Seto indicated that the police department worked closely with West.

City attorney Stephen Postema explained that West did more in his job function than just prosecute civil infractions. Among those duties was the defense of police officers in lawsuits and the training of the officers. In contemplating West’s replacement, that person would take more time than West does to complete those duties, Postema said. It’s incorrect to say that the attorney’s office has been reduced less, he contended. He described going from 14 FTEs to 12 FTEs. He said that eliminating the position “willy nilly” would do a disservice to the police department and the city attorney’s office.

Outcome: The amendment to eliminate the retiring assistant city attorney position failed on a 2-9 vote. Only Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) supported it.

Affordable Housing

This budget amendment brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) tapped the general fund for $100,000 and placed it in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. She led off deliberations by saying that before she was elected to the council, the city transferred $100,000 every year into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. That practice had ended even as the city continued to spend money in the fund, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje hoped there’d be agreement and that the vote could be taken quickly. Briere called the $100,000 a modest amount. She said that in the context of the earlier discussion about altering the DDA’s budget to transfer $300,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund into its housing fund, she wanted the city to demonstrate that it, too, had some “skin in the game.” She wanted it to be a recurring amount each year, not just a one-time allocation.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she wouldn’t support the budget amendment. She asked that her name be removed as a sponsor, saying that had been mistakenly attached. She supports affordable housing, she said, but did not support the amendment. She would prefer to use the increased DDA TIF revenues as the funding source for additional affordable housing support.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) indicated that if Lumm’s name was coming off as a sponsor, that would leave room for Petersen’s name to be added as a sponsor. Like Briere, Petersen felt the city should have “skin in the game.” Affordable housing is one of the council’s priorities, she noted. One of the outcomes of the economic development task force, she said, was to help determine when support for affordable housing would come from the DDA and when it would come from the city. Until that could be done, both entities should have skin in the game.

Lumm reiterated that she supported affordable housing and also thought the city should have “skin in the game,” but stated that it matters where the “skin is found.” She felt the $100,000 should be transferred from identified savings, not simply by making an additional expenditure – saying that in this regard she was a fiscal conservative. She asked CFO Tom Crawford if he could identify $100,000 in savings. Crawford was circumspect: “Staff’s work is reflected in the city administrator’s recommendation.”

Hieftje ventured that early in his service as mayor, the city’s budget was such that $100,000 could be found somewhere. Now that the city is leaner, it’s not easy to find that $100,000, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that she’d support the $100,000 transfer because the direction is for staff to find a way to put it in the budget every year.

Outcome: The $100,000 transfer from the general fund reserve to the city’s affordable housing trust fund was approved, with dissent only from Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Washtenaw Health Initiative

This amendment, brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), was to allocate $10,000 to the Washtenaw Health Initiative (WHI), a countywide collaboration focused on how to make healthcare more accessible and improve care coordination for disadvantaged populations. It was meant to help prepare for federal healthcare reform.

The WHI is co-chaired by former county administrator Bob Guenzel and retired University of Michigan treasurer Norman Herbert, along with Ellen Rabinowitz, executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan. The city joined the WHI on July 2, 2012. Washtenaw County is also a member of WHI.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the $10,000 for WHI without debate.

Public Art Funding

The amendment proposed eliminating $326,464 in spending on public art. This anticipates possible approval of revisions to the public art ordinance. If the council enacts those revisions – likely on June 3, 2013 – it would require a subsequent vote with an eight-vote majority to restore the public art monies to their funds of origin.

By way of background, the current Percent for Art funding mechanism sets aside 1% from all capital projects, to be used for public art. Those monies are pulled from numerous funding sources, depending on how the capital project is funded. The ordinance revisions that are being brought forward would, if approved, eliminate the Percent for Art approach.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) questioned whether it’s possible to make this amendment, under the existing ordinance. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained that the amendment continues the public art set-aside, but prevents spending it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that he expects there’ll be a change in the public art ordinance, but until it’s changed he wants to stay the course and support the existing program. So he’d oppose the amendment.

Mayor John Hieftje concurred with Taylor’s reasoning.

Outcome: The vote on preventing the spending of the FY 2014 public art set aside was 7-4, with dissent from Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Sidewalk Gaps

This budget amendment would tap the general fund for a one-time use of $75,000 to fund a sidewalk gap prioritization study.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked why neither Act 51 money nor the sidewalk millage could be used for new sidewalk construction. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy explained that millage money is supposed to be used only for repair and maintenance of existing sidewalks. Act 51 is not for first-time improvements, Hupy said.

Citywide, there’s more than $25 million worth of sidewalk construction that could take place, Hupy explained. That’s why it’s important to prioritize.

Mayor John Hieftje said that reductions in transportation by the Ann Arbor Public Schools have highlighted where some of the sidewalk gaps are. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that some neighborhoods have no sidewalks at all. How does that fit in? Hupy indicated that’s the reason the prioritization study is needed. Kunselman wanted to know if the study will be done in-house. Hupy thought it would require a fair amount of community engagement. So outside assistance would be tapped for that.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she’s inclined not to support it, but probably will.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) told Hupy that he’s glad conversations are happening between the city and AAPS.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the sidewalk gap prioritization study.

Miller Manor Senior Meals

This amendment would replace $4,500 in funding lost due to federal sequestration for a senior meals program. Miller Manor is an Ann Arbor housing commission property.

Outcome: Without debate, the council unanimously approved the $4,500 for Miller Manor senior meals

Human Services

This item increased by $46,899 the amount of funding available for human services nonprofit entities. The city allocates this money through a coordinated funding process with the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, the United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County and the Washtenaw Urban County. The city has participated in this coordinated funding approach for three years now. Initially the agreement was for two years, and the partners extended for a year.

In introducing the amendment, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the total amount of funding allocated in the budget for human services nonprofits could change after this year. The additional $46,899 brings the amount to $1,244,629, which is the same as the last two years.

Outcome: Without discussion beyond Briere’s introductory remarks, the council unanimously approved the $46,899 increase in funding to nonprofits that provide human services.

Parks Fairness

Under Ann Arbor city policy policy, the general fund allocations to parks and recreation must not suffer any decrease beyond what other areas in the general fund do. So in the course of making amendments to the other parts of the budget, that can have implications for adherence to this policy.

At the end of all the amendments, financial services staff provided the council with the adjustment that needed to be made to the parks budget, in order to comply with the policy. This year, that amount is an increase of $22,977.

Outcome: The council approved the “parks fairness” adjustment without debate.

FY 2014 Budget Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) explained why she’d be opposing the budget again this year, like she did last year. She contended that this year’s budget makes no progress toward making public safety a priority.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) understood Lumm’s position, but said that politics is the art of compromise. He’d seen a lot of compromise that night. He pointed to the small increases in the number of firefighters. [This was an increase by four firefighter positions compared to FY 2013, but the positions had been added after the FY 2013 budget was adopted.] He pointed out that there’s no longer a plan to close fire stations, which he counted as progress. Kunselman said he believes in patience and putting his shoulder to the pile, as in rugby, and pushing toward a score.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as well as other councilmembers thanked staff for their hard work in preparing the budget. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she wouldn’t vote against the budget because she has to “own it” even if she doesn’t like every item in it.

Outcome: The council voted 10-1 to approve the FY 2014 budget. Dissenting was Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Monday, June 3, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

From left: 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft, Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers, 15th District Court judge Joe Burke. Before the meeting, the men were setting up a slide presentation. (Photos by the writer.)

All three judges of the court attended the session and addressed the council: Elizabeth “Libby” Hines, Chris Easthope and Joe Burke. Court administrator Keith Zeisloft also attended the session, but did not formally address the council.

At around $3.7 million, the 15th District Court’s budget makes up roughly 4.5% of the city’s general fund – which is in the range of $80 million. The budget for the 15th District Court has decreased from a high of $4.2 million in 2009. Staffing levels of the court, according to the city’s comprehensive annual financial reports, have decreased from 41 in the early to mid-2000s to 36 FTEs for the FY 2012 budget year.

The district courts handle all civil claims up to $25,000, including small claims, landlord-tenant disputes, land contract disputes, and civil infractions. Washtenaw County has three district courts – 15th District Court for the city of Ann Arbor, 14B District Court for Ypsilanti Township, and the 14A District Court (with four physical venues) for the rest of Washtenaw County. Ann Arbor’s 15th District Court also handles preliminary exams for felony cases – which do not show up in official court statistics.

Part of the basis for the court’s presentation to the council was a recent report from the State Court Administrative Office. It includes metrics on the number and kinds of cases handled by the court, as well as collection rates. The judges focused their remarks, however, on the “problem-solving” programs of the courts – those that address sobriety, homelessness, veterans issues and domestic violence. This article includes vignettes from a session of the sobriety court attended by The Chronicle.

Other topics covered during the Feb. 11 work session included the city’s capital budget and the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. Presentations on those topics will be covered in separate Chronicle reports.

The substantive conversation about the budget and its relation to the council’s established priorities is expected to begin to unfold at the council’s March 11 work session. Before then, a second work session is scheduled for Feb. 25, with an additional session slated for March 25, if necessary.

City administrator Steve Powers is required by the city charter to submit his proposed budget to the council by the second council meeting in April, with any council amendments required by the second meeting in May. The city’s fiscal year begins July 1.

15th District Court: General Background

Judge Elizabeth “Libby” Hines began her remarks by saying that the court works with Ann Arbor police chief John Seto.

Judge Elizabeth “Libby” Hines.

They try to schedule court proceedings to minimize overtime by officers. Court officials meet regularly with city administrator Steve Powers, and city attorney Stephen Postema works closely with the court as well, Hines said.

The court had recently implemented a new system for bringing jurors in. The jurors are brought in only when the court is as sure as possible that the trial will move forward, she said, so thousands of dollars have been saved in jury expenses. Equally importantly, she said, is that the court is not wasting citizens’ time as jurors unnecessarily.

By way of additional background, data from the city of Ann Arbor’s A2OpenBook confirm that the 15th District Court’s jury and witness expenses do show downward movement from FY 2011 to FY 2012 and are on pace to continue that trend this year:

Jury & Witness Expenses
YEAR    BUDGETED        SPENT 
2013	$21,000		$3,835 [YTD, 7.5 mo. into fiscal yr.]
2012    $21,000		$11,682	
2011	$20,000		$18,016

-
Hines referred to the report from the state court administrator’s office about how the 15th District Court is doing. She noted that the report is unredacted – saying it is exactly the same report that the state court administrator’s office gave the 15th District Court.

It’s a “report card” on how the court is doing, she said. “As you can see, according to the report, I think we’re doing well.”

She offered some clarifications to the report. The section that lists out data by judge is not quite accurate because it includes former judge Julie Creal. When Creal left the court, her cases were not re-assigned, Hines explained. Judges Chris Easthope and Joe Burke covered those cases. [Creal's resignation took effect in January 2012, but she had been on medical leave since mid-2011.]

Also as a clarification, Hines mentioned that the court is not given credit for hundreds of felony cases that the court also handles. There is a special system in Washtenaw County, she explained, where cases that are normally filed in other counties as district court filings, are filed here as circuit court actions. The 15th District Court does not get credit for those. The court kept count last year and tallied 933 hearings related to felony cases in the last year. In the state’s report, she said, that category is recorded as zero or seven. The state court administrator’s office is aware of the situation, she said.

Hines said the report shows that the 15th District Court is a very busy court but has no backlog. She showed the council a slide on collection rates, comparing the 15th District Court to other comparable courts in the region and statewide. “We do a really good job at collecting,” Hines noted. But what she was especially proud of, she said, is that the court collects money in a humane way. The court doesn’t put people in jail who can’t pay, she said.

15th District Court collection rates for 2010 assessments for civic infractions. Collection rates for other categories in other years show a similar pattern: The 15th District Court does a somewhat better job at collection of assessments than other courts statewide or in its region.

But the numbers don’t tell the whole story, Hines continued. She told the council that the judges wanted to spend the rest of their time describing in more detail how their “problem-solving courts” work.

Three of the programs operated by the 15th District Court are unique, Hines told the council. “We do not just process cases. We actually try to address the underlying issues that bring people to court before us – such as mental health, addiction, substance abuse, PTSD, and domestic violence and homelessness.”

Domestic Violence Court

Hines highlighted two different courts over which she presides. She handles all the domestic violence and intimate partner stalking cases. She also handles the homeless court. Hines explained that since 1998 the 15th District Court has had the good fortune of receiving large grants from the Department of Justice office for programs dealing with violence against women.

For five years the court had several million dollars to undertake a massive project, Hines told the council. The Department of Justice had selected three sites in the United States – Boston, Milwaukee, and the district courts in Washtenaw County. The goal of this study was to determine what works best in the case of domestic violence. The money was used to do lots of things, she said – to develop best practices that are used all over the state and all of the country. There is a grant-funded specialized domestic violence probation officer, who offers support for both victims and defendants.

Hines didn’t go into detail, but wanted to say that at the end of probation, she brings people back from the long-term batterer intervention program to which they were ordered. She tells them they can say anything they want. Almost every one of them says something like: I wish they’d offer this information in the high schools – because if they did, I’d never have been here. Hines concluded: “The bottom line is that most of us who handle domestic violence cases feel that it’s really homicide prevention, if we do our job right.”

Homeless Court

Hines also wanted to touch on the homeless court, which was created in the community with numerous social service agencies and criminal justice players, including: police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and social service providers. It’s called a “street outreach court,” she said. She alluded to an article written by Jo Mathis, editor of the Washtenaw Legal News, that profiled two of the participants. ["Clean Slate: Street outreach court offers fresh start for those at risk of homelessness"] The court actually helps people who are experiencing homelessness help themselves get back on their feet and off the street, Hines said.

Many people don’t go to court if they are homeless, Hines said, because they might have all their belongings in a bag. They might not have received notice that they have to appear in court – because they’re moving from place to place. And they might have other things on their mind, she ventured, like: Where can I stay tonight and what can I do with my kids?

So many times homeless people don’t show up in court and as a result they receive a misdemeanor charge. That means there’s a warrant out for their arrest, Hines said. She alluded to a study from years ago in San Diego, on Vietnam veterans who are homeless, which concluded that the No. 1 barrier for getting them off the street was not food, clothing, or shelter. Rather, it was misdemeanor bench warrants. They’re always looking over their shoulder, she said, and they can’t get jobs, benefits, or treatment if they have a warrant.

Hines described the court as an incredible collaborative approach in which someone works with a social service agency, and if they are really working hard they can create an action plan, and get credit for what they have done. She tells participants in the homeless court that they are just paying their fine with a different form of currency. Rather than paying $150, which the court could never collect, they might do weeks and months of mental health treatment, or substance abuse treatment – and they leave the court with a “clean slate” and a fresh start.

Hines then invited judge Chris Easthope – a former Ann Arbor city councilmember – to talk about the newest problem-solving court: the veterans treatment court.

Before talking about that court, Easthope took the opportunity to praise Hines. He pointed out that she is a nationally known expert on domestic violence. “You have somebody in your midst who is well-known across the country, who is sought after across the country,” he told the city council.

All three of the judges of the 15th District Court are members of the American Judges Association, Easthope said. That group had recently named an award after Hines, for her expertise and excellence in domestic violence work. Last year Hines was the first recipient of the AJA’s annual Judge Elizabeth Hines Award, to honor judges who have developed innovative strategies to reduce domestic violence. Also, the Michigan District Judges Association started an outstanding jurist award last year – and the very first recipient of that award was Hines, he said.

Veterans Court

Moving to the topic of the veterans treatment court, Easthope told the council that because of all the wars that the U.S. had fought, a lot of veterans are returning from those conflicts. Immediately following the Vietnam War, he said, there was a lot of criticism of the U.S. Veterans Administration and how it hadn’t reached out to returning veterans. Now they try to do a better job of that, he said.

Judge Chris Easthope.

In 2008, a judge in Buffalo, New York, started the very first veterans court, Easthope told the council. The idea is to recognize veterans for the service that they have given to the country and to make sure that they are not “lost in the shuffle.” It’s important that nobody who voluntarily put themselves on the line becomes lost in the criminal justice system, Easthope said. “It doesn’t mean we give them breaks,” he cautioned.

The purpose of the court is to recognize that something about a veteran’s service might have caused them to go astray. Veterans who saw combat, he said, may suffer high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. Veterans suffer from a high level of depression and have a high suicide rate, he said. That’s caused by their service, he said – because they didn’t go into the service that way.

Easthope reported that the 15th District court is now the fourth court in Michigan to start such a program – which includes treatment of veterans in coordination with the Veterans Administration hospital. It involves mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, housing, and life skills. There’s a regular team meeting, he said, where each veteran’s case is reviewed, and a plan is formulated about how to best serve them.

The veterans court docket is “veterans only,” he said. It can involve any war or peacetime veteran, as long as that person was honorably discharged. Easthope also described how it’s possible in Washtenaw County to accept veterans who’ve been dishonorably discharged – even though the Veterans Administration itself can’t provide services to those individuals. The court was just started in November 2012, he said, and already has 20 participants. Generally the term of probation is 18 months, but you can get up to 24 months, he said.

The court’s activity focuses on keeping the veterans drug- and alcohol-free and getting the treatment they need. Through the court, two homeless veterans had recently received housing vouchers and had moved into housing here locally.

Easthope told the council there are not currently any grants available to fund the veterans court. But the veterans court service is being provided at no cost to the citizens of Ann Arbor, he said. Every veteran who is diverted from the county jail is “a dollar saved” for local governments, Easthope said. Of the 20 participants in the program so far, only two have had to spend any time in jail, he said. “That’s real money saved for local municipalities,” he said.

The program runs based on volunteers in the probation department, internships done by students at Eastern Michigan University and Cooley Law School, Easthope said. The 15th District Court was very fortunate to be able to run the veterans court at no cost to taxpayers. Easthope said he expected the program to grow a lot, based on the initial response.

The veterans court convenes every other Wednesday, Easthope said. The team meets at 9 a.m. in the jury assembly room and then goes to his courtroom at 10 a.m. for the docket.

Easthope recalled how he used to scour the city budget as a city councilmember. He said that mayor John Hieftje used to make fun of him for “over-scouring” the budget – for items like vehicle purchases. Easthope concluded his remarks by saying: “We get it, in terms of the budget. We all are really budget conscious … I assure you we are not trying to spend money that we don’t have.”

Sobriety Court

Judge Joe Burke was appointed about a year ago to replace Julie Creal. He subsequently won election to the job in November 2012. He was unopposed in that election. He led off his remarks to the council by saying: “Of the many lucky things that happened to me last year, sobriety court is one of them.”

Sobriety Court: Remarks by Judge Burke

Burke described how former judge Julie Creal had started the sobriety court in the mid-2000s. He described the court as up and running – and running wonderfully – when he took it over about a year ago. It runs much along the same model as the court that Easthope had described. “If you walk into one of our court sessions, you’d be wondering whether you’re watching Oprah, or whether you’re in court,” he ventured. He elaborated on that description by saying the sessions include a lot of back-and-forth conversation.

In a follow-up interview with The Chronicle, Burke described the sobriety court as “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing. The full-time probation officer assigned to the sobriety court is Steve Hill. The program lasts 18-24 months and includes monitoring of participants’ attendance at treatment programs, their progress in treatment, how they’re spending their time at work and doing community service. Reporting requirements are extensive. Participants must take frequent portable breath tests (PBTs) and urine tests. The majority of sobriety court participants are second-offender DWI cases, but offenses need not be driving-related. Also eligible to participate in sobriety court are, for example, retail fraud (shoplifting) offenders and misdemeanor drug possession offenders.

Participation in sobriety court provides an alternative to incarceration in the Washtenaw County jail. Based on the statistics provided to the court by the state court administrative office, from January through November 2012, DWI offenders in the 15th District Court’s sobriety court wind up spending an average of about 7 days in jail, compared to almost 15 days statewide. That’s balanced against a greater number of sanctions (punishments handed out that are less severe than jail time) – an average of almost 12 in the 15th District Court compared with about 2 per participant statewide.

But the stat that Burke is proudest of, he told The Chronicle, is that 88.2% of sobriety court participants are discharged from the program with full-time or part-time employment. That’s not a credit to the 15th District Court, he noted, but rather to the Ann Arbor community of local businesses – like Zingerman’s or Blimpy Burger – who are willing to support employees as they make their way through recovery. The required treatment program, sessions with the probation officer and drug-testing mean that supervisors have to be willing to schedule workers around those obligations.

Comparing his work in the sobriety court to his 30-year legal career before he was appointed to the bench – most of which was spent in prosecution – Burke told the city council at their Feb. 11 work session: “I like this a lot more.”

The numbers speak for themselves, he said. There is a far lower rate of recidivism, and less jail space being used up. The court does receive a grant, he said, and this year it was $95,000. The team meetings take place on Thursday afternoons, with about 10 people. Participants include workers from the nonprofit Dawn Farm, juvenile court workers, mental health workers, court staff, police, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. You really get to know all the people as they come through the court, he said.

Recidivism rate for 15th District Court sobriety court: New conviction of any kind within two years.

Burke highlighted the rate of recidivism for people who don’t go through a sobriety court. He described the 15th District Court’s sobriety court as “doing very well,” but not quite as well sobriety courts statewide. The reason for that, he explained, is that the 15th District Court doesn’t operate a “strict” sobriety court, but rather a “hybrid court.” So the 15th District Court’s sobriety court includes not just drunk driving offenders, but also drug offenders, if they are nonviolent.

The previous Friday, Burke told the council, the court had graduated a heroin user – a 50-year-old man who’d been using the drug for 20 years. He’s now been clean for two years and wants to stay clean, Burke said. So if the 15th District Court’s sobriety court numbers on recidivism are a little bit higher, the reason is that it accepts a broader range of offenders.

Burke invited anyone to visit the sobriety court on a Thursday or Friday, to observe how the proceedings work.

Sobriety Court: Court Visit

Until he was appointed to the bench by Gov. Rick Snyder, replacing the retiring Julie Creal, Burke had worked as chief assistant prosecuting attorney for Washtenaw County under prosecutor Brian Mackie. Mackie attended the Feb. 15, 2013 sobriety court session on behalf of the county. Assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom was there on behalf of the city of Ann Arbor, along with probation officer Steve Hill and other court officials.

Judge Joe Burke.

The hour-long session of sobriety court on Feb. 15 fell on the one-year anniversary of Snyder’s announcement that he had appointed Burke as judge on the 15th District Court. It was not a milestone that was observed Friday morning.

But milestones that were recognized included 11 months of sobriety, when two different participants announced that achievement during their one-on-one interactions with Burke. That recognition took the form of spontaneous applause by the roughly two dozen sobriety court participants who were in attendance.

Sobriety court on Friday morning was filled with longer-term participants – like those with 11 months of sobriety behind them – as well as first-time participants. Burke greeted a first-timer by saying, “Welcome to your first trip to the podium. You look a little scared. Chill.”

The young woman told Burke she’d had a tough week of school, and it had been hard to cram in all of her treatment meetings – but she’d managed to do it. She told him that when she found herself really not wanting to go to a meeting, that meeting would turn out to be the most helpful. Responding to her balancing of school and treatment, Burke told her to not let anything be put ahead of recovery – not even school. He also encouraged her to follow the advice that the court’s staff and her treatment groups gave her – even if it seemed stupid to her. “Just do it,” Burke said.

Most of the interactions between Burke and the participants were briskly upbeat, as Burke generally tried to separate the good news from any bad news. After imposing a sanction of one day in the jail work program on one young woman – for turning in some documentation late – Burke moved to the positive: “Let’s get on to the better things. What are you up to?” Her initial reply: “I’m alive!” She told him about surviving a harrowing ride on US-23 during a recent heavy snow.

For one participant, Burke wasn’t able to find much positive to talk about. As he reviewed recent updates to the participant’s file, Burke described several bad decisions made by the young man, including one to quit his job – without informing probation officer Steve Hill about it. Documentation of his participation in his treatment program was missing and Burke characterized the young man’s behavior as not entirely honest. Burke felt like he’d had the same conversation with the young man two weeks earlier. Burke told him he felt like the young man was ignoring everything Hill was telling him. Burke invited the young man to give a different side to the story: “Argue with me, if I’m wrong.” But no argument was registered. So Burke imposed a sanction of three days in jail.

Another young man narrowly escaped a jail-time sanction for arriving late to court that morning – because he’d communicated by text with Hill. It was a case of sleeping through his alarm. Burke told the young man he’d been ready to issue a bench warrant for his arrest. But because he’d texted Hill and eventually arrived before the session ended, the young man needed only to serve a day in the jail’s work program.

Burke led off another interaction by telling a young man, “Welcome back to regular clothes [not jail-issued] – it’s good to see you this way.” The man then responded to Burke’s queries by telling him that he’d been attending his Alcoholics Anonymous meetings every day and he’d been doing a lot of homework for his sponsor: writing out 10 examples of how he was powerless; writing out 10 examples of how he’d hurt other people; writing out his life story.

Burke’s interactions were based the review of each participant’s case the previous day by the sobriety court team. And Burke’s conversations with participants seemed to be looking for confirmation or refutation of the most recent reports in their file. “Things seem to be going very well with you. Tell me about it.” Given the opportunity, many participants elaborated beyond summary statements. After telling Burke that things were “fairly normal,” one participant described how he’d been trying to be more honest when he participates in his support group, saying he understood it was not helpful just to say always, “Things are great.”

Strict compliance with all the objective requirements of the program isn’t always enough to satisfy Burke. Burke allowed that one young woman was faithfully compliant with all the requirements, but still had a lot of friction with the court’s supporting staff. He noted she’d had a very difficult session with Hill recently. He ventured that she ignored the supports around her and didn’t show the kind of gratitude that was appropriate: “I think you need to try to be a nicer person.”

She told Burke that she was, in fact, grateful, and ventured that she could try to be more welcoming of the support around her. Burke assigned her to write out a list of four gratitudes every day – then quipped that she could make it five, by listing one for the fact that she didn’t have to appear before him every day. She clarified with Burke she didn’t really have to list that fifth item.

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!