Vivienne Armentrout and Chuck Warpehoski as seen through the viewfinder of a video camera that recorded the July 22, 2012 Ward 5 Democratic forum. (Photos by the writer.)

Chuck Warpehoski and Vivienne Armentrout are contesting the seat that will be open because sitting councilmember Democrat Carsten Hohnke is not seeking a third term. The winner of the Aug. 7 primary will face Republican Stuart Berry in November’s general election.

The format of the forum – hosted by the Ward 5 Democratic Party organization, and moderated by Gus Teschke – allowed Warpehoski and Armentrout to offer a clear contrast to prospective voters. They had four minutes to respond to each question, with an opportunity for a rebuttal and additional follow-up by the person who’d submitted the question.

Both Armentrout and Warpehoski were obviously knowledgeable about the range of topics they were asked to address by questioners.

The contrast emerged mainly in terms of the types of themes they emphasized, rather than differences in specific policy points – but some policy differences emerged as well. Throughout her remarks, Armentrout stressed her experience, knowledge and study of policy. For example, she introduced broad policy issues into the topic of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s administration of the city’s public parking system – in part by calling the parking system the “parking utility,” drawing a parallel between that and utilities like water or electric service. And she explained her thoughts on providing affordable housing and human services by appealing to her understanding of the history of federal grant funding to the city of Ann Arbor.

On that same topic, responding to a question from local activist Alan Haber, Warpehoski said he would spearhead – and is already spearheading – an effort to replace 100 units of affordable housing that were lost when the old YMCA building was condemned and demolished. His effort on that issue is a function of his day job as director of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice. He frequently appealed to the skills he uses in that job – the notion of listening, and working to bring people together for the common good. He described several times the kinds of conversations he’s been having with residents of the ward as he goes door-to-door canvassing, relating some of the specific stories from each neighborhood. He pointed to those kinds of conversations as the kind that he’d like to continue if he’s elected, as part of an effort to hear all the voices in the community.

Warpehoski fielded some pointed questions from attendees, including one about his endorsement by mayor John Hieftje. Did that mean he’d favor decision-making behind closed doors? Warpehoski told the audience he’d made clear to Hieftje that if elected, he’d push the mayor on two issues: public process and the independence of board and commission appointments. Responding to another audience question, Warpehoski also said he’d recuse himself from votes if it were appropriate to do that – due to his wife’s job as director of the getDowntown program.

Warpehoski was also challenged to account for his use of the phrase “transit opponents” in an op-ed piece he’d written about the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s effort to expand its governance and service area to a countywide region. He explained his use of that phrase by saying you have to look at people’s actions and whether those actions actually support transit – drawing an analogy to someone who says they are for “health” but who sits on the couch eating Kentucky Fried Chicken all day.

Support for a current countywide transit proposal was one clear policy difference between the two candidates. Warpehoski supports the framework embodied in a four-party agreement – between Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – while Armentrout does not. At its Aug. 1 meeting, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners is expected to give final approval for that agreement, which the other three parties have already ratified.

After the jump, more detail is presented on questions and responses from the two candidates.

The paraphrases of candidate responses are presented in mostly chronological order. In some cases, a thematic grouping dictated re-ordering.

Opening Statements

Like most candidate forums, there was an opportunity for opening and closing statements.

Warpehoski began by thanking everyone for coming out – he said it was good to see people attending and trying to make an informed choice for the election. It’s good to see people taking part in democracy, he said. He told forum attendees that he was running for city council to represent Ward 5 and noted that his day job as executive director of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice is also about community service.

Chuck Warpehoski, Ward 5 Democratic candidate for Ann Arbor city council.

What he tries to do every day at that job, he said, is to try to bring people together who have different backgrounds and different perspectives and different faiths, to see how people can work together – despite their differences – toward the common good. With a name like Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, he said, you can tell that progressive values are dear to him, and that is why he is running as a Democrat.

Since he announced his candidacy, he said, he’s been getting an education that is not possible from reading the Ann Arbor Chronicle or by reading AnnArbor.com or in any other way – by going door-to-door throughout the ward listening to people, trying to hear what’s on people’s minds about city issues. One thing he’s learned, he told the audience, is that each neighborhood has its own story. When he was knocking on doors up by North Seventh Street, the story was West Park. When he was knocking on doors on Abbott Street, just south of Jackson Avenue, he continued, the story was about motorists cutting through the neighborhood trying to avoid the traffic on Jackson Avenue.

This listening is what a good public servant does, he said. It’s an important skill for public office, he contended, and that’s something he’s committed to bringing to the city council, he said. He ventured that in the rest of the forum the audience would hear more about specific policy positions – but what he would bring to all of that would be a basic approach of listening to all of the people and all of the stakeholders, and he’d try to bring them together for the common good.

Armentrout began by saying that she is running for the city council based on her experience – but noted that she is not a career politician. She described herself as a citizen who cares about issues and who has taken many different paths to try to make a difference in our community.

Vivienne Armentrout, Ward 5 Democratic candidate for Ann Arbor city council.

She described how when she first arrived in Ann Arbor, she got involved in local Democratic politics. She volunteered in the Ecology Center, Project Grow, and the League of Women Voters. She was appointed to the city’s solid waste committee, she continued, just as recycling and composting was becoming a new part of the waste management plan for the city. She also served four years on the city budget review committee. She was then recruited to run for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, and served in the district that covered most of Ward 5 as a county commissioner for eight years.

When she retired from the county board position in 2004, she said, she thought she was done with politics. But she couldn’t help but notice that there were some trends in city government that did not seem right to her. She felt that the city council was pursuing its own agenda without caring much about what the citizens thought. That’s why she was an early supporter of Mike Anglin, who challenged an incumbent [Wendy Woods] in 2007. In 2008, she noted, she ran on her own behalf for the city council.

[She lost a narrow race to Carsten Hohnke in the 2008 Democratic primary. Mike Anglin won the Ward 5 race against Woods in 2007 and was re-elected in 2009 and 2011. So the winner of the 2012 election will serve alongside Anglin as one of two ward representatives. Each of the city's five wards has two representatives; with the mayor, the council is an 11-member body.]

Then in 2009 she launched her local issues blog, Local in Ann Arbor. She’d done all that, she said, because she has a vision of what a healthy community is. Her idea of quality of life doesn’t just include parks and other amenities – but also extends to neighbors who feel secure in their homes and can expect the government to put them first, above lofty goals. She said we should expect our taxes to support our well-being as residents and local business owners. That’s why she’d made a quest, she said, to defeat the proposed conference center on the Library Lot. That experience – of working with so many community members to achieve that goal – is something she will always carry with her, she said.

Public Process

[Questions were posed by audience members through submission on cards and then were read aloud as submitted. So the some questions themselves reflected a clear perspective on the part of the questioner. The first question is a good example of that.]

Question: The mayor has not favored or encouraged robust public process. How would you change this? If elected, how will you promote more transparency in city government?

Armentrout began by saying she’s been studying this question of public process for some time. She described her time on the county planning commission, saying she was the founding chair of the planning advisory committee. She told the audience she’s attended many conferences about planning. She has also edited a book on planning, she said. One of the central problems of planning is to meaningfully involve the public in decision-making, she said.

Implicitly alluding to Warpehoski’s emphasis on the importance of listening, she said that public process is not just a matter of listening – as there is a methodology, she said. And it’s complicated, she said. One of the conclusions she’d reached from her reading on the subject, she said, is that it’s important to bring the public in when public policy is first being formulated.

She contended that recently there’s been a tendency to maintain the appearance of public process by having a public hearing the night that the city council votes. She also characterized many public meetings as basically “marketing presentations.” That presents the illusion of public engagement, she said. If she were elected to the city council, she said she would work to involve community members early on in the process. She said she had a history of doing that during her service as a county commissioner.

Warpehoski called the concern about public involvement an important one. It’s one of the areas that the current city council has not done a very good job on, he said. As an example, he gave the proposed rail station at Fuller Park. What came forward, he said, was a proposal: Here’s what we would like to build, and here’s where we would like to build it.

[A partnership between the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor – to build a 1,000-space parking structure and rail station at the Fuller Road site across from UM medical center – ended on Feb. 10, 2012, when UM withdrew due to its desire to add additional parking to its system in a more timely fashion.  Currently the city has moved ahead with a site alternatives analysis, using a $2.8 million grant from the Federal Rail Administration, matched by $0.7 million in money the city has already expended in connection with the earlier partnership.]

Warpehoski felt that a lot of the contention could have been avoided and a better process could have been created, if the process had begun with questions like these: What are our needs for rail transit? How do we move forward with that? What are the possible sites? What are the criteria to evaluate the sites? On a short list of sites, what is good and bad about each? How do we deal with the fact that the Fuller Road site is parkland? Does that need to go to a vote? Do we need to find other parkland to offset that lost parkland?

The Fuller Road rail station situation is an example of how the failure to have a robust public process led to an increase in tension around the issue, and we lost opportunities to deal with some issues that would have come up and surfaced through that public engagement process, Warpehoski said.

The Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, which he directs, is a grass roots organization, so it’s member-led, he noted. Within each of the organization’s task forces, his role is to serve those activist volunteers and members. So his experience every day is working to say: What is our vision going forward?

There are two key challenges that he thinks the city council and the city government need to face with respect to a public involvement process, he said. The first one is casting a broad net. When he’s attended city council meetings or other attempts the city has made at public involvement, he said, he’s noticed that there are essentially two groups that tend to be represented there. One is a group of people who are in some sense “paid to be there.” When he appears to speak on behalf of the Interfaith Council Peace and Justice, that is the hat he’s wearing, he said. The other group that is represented, he said, are people who have tremendous time and passion and will show up at 7 p.m. on Monday, or whenever the meeting is.

Both of those kinds of voices need to be a part of the process – but that isn’t all of the process, he said. That doesn’t represent all of the community, he said. So a robust public engagement process has to address how to involve the people who are not around the table – who are not getting all the messages from the city about when the next planning commission meeting is. He picked up on Armentrout’s point about public hearings, adding that public hearings don’t necessarily represent people who are working the second shift downtown. So we need to do better at reaching those who have been excluded, who are not around the table already.

The second challenge, he continued, is that there are multiple sources of information for making a decision. Public involvement is one source of information. There is also the involvement of looking in depth at the data, and consulting expertise and expert opinion. He picked up on Armentrout’s point about the existence of a methodology for public involvement. He noted that the expertise of city staff has to be included systematically as well. Public involvement and public transparency are important, he said, and we need to do a better job at including more people and including all the sources of information that are necessary to make informed, engaged decisions.

Follow-up: The questioner invited the candidates to explore the timing of the public involvement and how that might be managed so that it happens at the beginning – before a request for proposals is sent out, for example.

Armentrout she said the questioner had put her finger on the most difficult part, which is how to reach people and let them know to be involved. It also depends on the type of issue, she said. If it’s something that’s going to affect a particular neighborhood, she pointed out, you have to seek out all of the connections that you can in order to find the affected people. If it is a more general issue, she said, you have to use a variety of media – e-mail sign-up and public notices. She concluded by acknowledging that the hardest part is to find a way to get the appropriate people to the table.

Warpehoski felt like both he and Armentrout had affirmed in their answers the importance of early involvement by the public. He called it an area where they both agreed. The timing of that involvement would be different depending on different issues, he said. The kind of involvement required for the future redevelopment of the old YMCA lot [at Fifth & William], for example, would require a different level of involvement than a proposal to redo a neighborhood park.

Addressing the difficulty of getting people involved, he said that his campaign had made him appreciate the opportunity to talk to people face-to-face at their doorsteps. He’s hoping that time would permit him, if elected, to continue to engage in those kinds of conversations. Otherwise, he felt that people are not getting adequate information or having their voices heard.

Follow-up: In a follow-up to a question that came much later in the forum, the questioner told Warpehoski that Warpehoski claims he wants robust public process, but appears to be aligning himself with the mayor’s group – which the questioner felt is more concerned with closed-room decision-making processes. He felt there was some dissonance there, and invited Warpehoski to explain that.

Warpehoski he stated that he does want robust public process – and acknowledged that he also had mayor John Hieftje’s endorsement. One of the things that he’d told Hieftje, he said, is that he would push him on two things: public process and the independence of board and commission appointments. Those are two areas where he thinks the city has done a poor job and could improve, Warpehoski said.

Parkland

Question: What is your position on parkland repurposing, including the need for voter approval? In 2008 Ann Arbor voters approved a charter amendment to require a popular vote if parkland sale is proposed. Do you support another charter amendment to close a loophole to prevent leasing for non-park use of parkland? Why? How do you feel about councilmember Jane Lumm’s proposed council resolution to place a ballot question before voters in November that would amend the city charter with respect to the parkland issue?

Background: At the city council’s July 16, 2012 meeting, a resolution was considered that would have placed a ballot question before voters on Nov. 6. The ballot question would ask voters to amend the city charter to require a public referendum on any long-term lease of parkland for a non-park purpose. In 2008, Ann Arbor voters had approved an amendment that prohibited the sale of parkland unless it was authorized by a voter referendum.

Warpehoski observed that parkland has been a big issue this year, and it’s been receiving a lot of discussion. He stated that he supports public involvement before making decisions about parkland. For example, he said, if the Federal Rail Administration recommends the Fuller Road site for a rail station, he thinks that should go to a popular vote. He allowed that the letter of the current charter does not require a popular referendum, but he feels that the spirit of the charter provision does require it.

As far as the ballot question on a charter amendment to require a popular vote – before any long-term lease on city parkland is signed – he feels that the spirit of that resolution is important and he supports the spirit of it. As far as the particular language in the resolution, he still has questions. He told the audience that they did not want an elected official who is making up his mind before he’s gotten all the information. That’s an issue he still researching, he said. He would like to hear the park advisory commission’s view on the subject.

He also noted that the proposal talks about repurposing and long-term leasing. He wants a better understanding of what is, and what is not, included in that. There’s a concession stand in Gallup Park where you can get a coffee and a snack from Zingerman’s. If there were a proposal for another concession stand in another park, would that be considered a long-term lease or a repurposing, and would that require voter approval? he wondered. He described a bicycle rental in Traverse City by the bay right by the waterfront – something he thinks is privately run. If that bicycle rental company approached the city of Ann Arbor and said, “Hey, we’d like to do bicycle rentals at the Gallup canoe livery,” would that be considered repurposing, and require a popular vote?

Those are the kinds of questions he still has about the resolution, he said – before he could say yes to that particular wording he can support. However, the concept he supports is this: These are our public parks and these are our public lands, they serve the public good and they deserve a public process.

Armentrout she noted that she is already “on record” as supporting a charter change to prevent leasing and repurposing of parkland without a public vote. She agreed with Warpehoski that it’s important not to have unanticipated consequences. She felt that’s a matter of tweaking the language to make sure that things that we all agree serve a legitimate park purpose  are not prohibited. Bike rental, she allowed, might be a good example. That she would leave to the lawyers and people who are currently working to formulate the exact language, she said.

The parks are a public trust, she stated. The park system is the history of accumulation of citizen efforts, and often private citizen investment, she said. Each park is a historic marker of citizen involvement, she said. Parks are very crucial to our quality of life, in terms of their preservation of natural communities, their environmental impact – with respect to cooling, air recycling, and the like. She felt that getting too legalistic with this particular charter amendment is not needed, as long as we make sure we don’t have unanticipated consequences.

Follow-up: The questioner was not happy with the responses of both candidates. She was sorry to disagree with them. She felt bad that the city needs the charter amendment because of the ethics of some councilmembers, if voters “don’t get the right people in.” She contended that there was a done deal with Miles of Golf – but because of the efforts of the Huron Hills golf course committee and community input and community support, that proposal was squelched. If they hadn’t spoken up, Miles of Golf would be operating the Huron Hills golf course, she said. She’d like to believe that everybody has the best interests of the city at heart, but it’s obvious from watching the city council in action with its current membership, that’s not the case. That’s why she thinks questions about the use of parkland must go to the voters.

[Responding to the follow-up, both Armentrout and Warpehoski appeared somewhat perplexed.]

Armentrout wondered what the conflict was between what the questioner had said and what she herself said. She’d meant to say that she supports the charter amendment that would require a public vote on the use of parkland.

Warpehoski picked up on the specific concern the questioner had raised – about the example of contracting with Miles of Golf to operate Huron Hills. That example, he explained, is one reason that he wants to do more research on the issue of the charter amendment. He noted that councilmember Sabra Briere – who had co-sponsored the city council resolution on the charter amendment ballot question, along with Jane Lumm and Mike Anglin – had raised the question of the Miles of Golf proposal in connection with the proposed charter amendment language.

Briere had questioned whether the currently proposed wording for the charter would have caused a popular vote to be triggered by the Miles of Golf proposal. [According to the city attorney's analysis, the proposed wording of the amendment would not trigger a popular referendum if something like the Miles of Golf concept were to be proposed.] Warpehoski reiterated that he supports the concept, but just wants to make sure that the details are right.

Question: Should the council obey the letter and spirit of the city charter clause about the protection of parkland, or override the charter when the majority is determined to accomplish its agenda?

Armentrout began her answer by stating, “The charter is the charter and the council has to obey the charter.” When you start talking about the spirit of the charter, that’s hard to define, she noted. If she were elected to serve on the council, she would try to obey the spirit of the charter, but she would certainly obey what the language says.

Warpehoski agreed with Armentrout on that question – that obviously the letter of the charter has to be obeyed. The spirit is something that is sometimes difficult to interpret, he allowed. On federal issues he is not a strict constructionist – not someone who says that we have to follow exactly what the founders meant on issues. With respect to the Fuller Road station issue, he felt that it’s not within the letter of the charter to require a vote on that, but it is within the spirit of the charter, and that is why he supports a popular vote on it – if the Federal Rail Administration selects the Fuller Road site, or any parkland site, for a proposed train station.

Follow-up: The reason for the question, stated the questioner, was that in 2008, when the charter amendment question had been put on the ballot, members of the local Sierra Club tried to “fix the amendment” because they recognized the loopholes that were in it. The mayor and council majority, she contended, “flat out refused” to make the change of language that would have protected parks from repurposing and leasing. She called it a cynical gesture on the part of the council and the mayor at that time. Voters thought they were actually protecting parklands when they passed the 2008 amendment to the charter, she continued. She asked the candidates again if they would honor the intent of the voters.

Warpehoski stated that in the form the charter amendment of 2008 had been approved, it does protect parkland. It might still need to be strengthened, he allowed, but what the amendment did was to prevent what happened in another Michigan community. He described a situation where a parcel was rezoned and then sold [to avoid the prohibition in the Michigan Home Rule Cities Act against sale of parkland and cemeteries]. Ann Arbor had recognized that we did not want that to happen here and passed a charter amendment that prevented it from happening, Warpehoski said. So the charter amendment, as passed in 2008, did provide additional protection, he said. He added that he could not interpret what everybody’s spirit was when they voted for that amendment. But for the issues that the city is confronting now, he felt he had explained where he stands on them.

Armentrout didn’t add to her previous response.

Development

Question: What will you do to protect near downtown neighborhoods from developments like City Place?

Background: City Place is a residential development that’s nearing completion on South Fifth Avenue, south of William, and that’s marketed to students. It was built as a matter-of-right project under the city’s R4C zoning. A different project, Heritage Row, would have at least partly preserved the seven older houses on the site, which were eventually demolished. But Heritage Row would have required a rezoning of the land under a planned unit development (PUD). The city council could never muster more than 7 votes on the multiple occasions when it attempted to approve that rezoning. An 8-vote majority was needed. The council also could not achieve the necessary votes to establish the area as a historic district, following recommendation of a study commission to do so. The history of proposed development on the site dates back at least to 2008.

Warpehoski described the location of the City Place site – near Bethlehem Church just south of the downtown library. He described the two different proposals that had been made for the site. The proposal that wound up getting built, he said, was one that conforms with city zoning and demolished some historic buildings. He characterized that as the worst possible outcome for that site. He noted that there had also been a proposal to maintain the facades of the older houses and redevelop behind those facades. And there were also many people in the community who were hoping that neither of the two development proposals would go forward, and that the houses on the site would simply be maintained.

Warpehoski observed that the planning commission has just gone through a process to modify the way the zoning works in those areas that are zoned for multi-residence buildings [R4C zoning]. The reason that both City Place and Heritage Row were even possible, he noted, was that the current zoning practice allows for parcel consolidation – that is, it’s possible to purchase several properties and combine them into one parcel for development. That changes the math for what can and cannot be built there. There’s currently a proposal – he thought it had been passed through the planning commission, which is now working on developing the ordinance language for it – to make sure that parcel consolidation like that does not happen again. That’s something he supports, he said.

Armentrout began by saying that the particular development had a historical preservation component to it. Either development could have been prevented – if the city council had followed the recommendation of a historic district review committee to establish the area as a historic district. Ultimately, city council chose not to approve the district, she said. She picked up on Warpehoski’s characterization of the committee recommendation against parcel consolidation for R4C areas, and ventured that the planning commission has not actually considered it yet.

But in any case, Armentrout said, she supported the findings in the citizen advisory committee’s report, which include constraints on the consolidation of lots. The city council also needs to take more responsibility for evaluating site plan approvals, she said. The council has the ability to reject the planning commission’s recommendation, she noted. But in more recent years, she felt the city council has become really intimidated, saying, “Well, it seems to fit the criteria, so I guess we have to pass it!” She felt that the council must take into consideration how a site plan affects our overall planning goals and the community’s goals, including health and safety – to the extent that the law allows. [At the council's July 16, 2012 meeting, the issue of health, safety and welfare was cited by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) in casting a vote against the Maple Cove project, which was presented to the council as a matter-of-right project.]

Warpehoski ventured that it would be possible to get some clarity right then at the forum on the issue of what the current status of the R4C citizen advisory committee’s report is – noting that Erica Briggs was in the audience, who until recently served on the city planning commission. Ask to clarify, Briggs said she thought it had made its way through a working session of the commission. [The committee's report was presented to the planning commission at its May 8, 2012 working session. The commission's ordinance review committee has met twice to work on changes to the ordinance, most recently on July 30.]

Affordable Housing

Question: How would you balance the need for mixed-use projects or multi-family projects and a desire for historic preservation? What about low-income housing? How would you replace the 100 units of affordable housing? Will you support downtown low-income housing?

Background: In connection with the construction of the new YMCA building located at Second and Washington streets, the city acquired the old YMCA building (at Fifth and William) in 2003 in order to preserve the 100 units of single-resident occupancy (SRO) affordable housing that the building offered. The YMCA had no plans to incorporate residential units at its new site, and neither did the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which had contemplated redeveloping the old building as a transit center and office headquarters.

In 2005, mechanical systems in the old YMCA building failed to such an extent that residents needed to be moved out of the building. City staff led by Jayne Miller, who was community services area administrator at the time, worked over the following few years to find alternate accommodations for the residents, which they did. The city maintained a stated commitment to eventually replacing the 100 units, but not necessarily at the site of the old YMCA. A private development at that site, William Street Station, was to include some affordable units, but city council pulled the plug on that project when the developer failed to meet various deadlines. The site was converted to a surface parking lot, after the city decided to demolish the building. Demolition was funded by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Armentrout stated that where multiple-family housing is built is a question of zoning. She places a very high value on historic preservation, but noted that zoning decisions are a matter of a public planning process. In the case of City Place, the multiple-family housing that is being built there is marketed to students, and it’s going to be very high rent – she does not consider that affordable housing. Affordable housing means different things to different people, she said. For a lot of people, affordable housing means that “I can afford to buy it.” For others, it has to do with the technical formula for levels of income.

Building new housing that is affordable for very low-income people, she said, simply requires public subsidy. There is just no getting around that, she said. You’ll not find any developer building new affordable housing without a public subsidy, she said.

Something she’s followed with a great deal of unhappiness, she said, is what she described as the dismantling of our revenue and processes for providing affordable housing. At one time, Ann Arbor had a city community development department, she recalled. The city had two citizen committees to oversee these issues. Ann Arbor was one of the first block grant communities in Michigan, and because of that, Ann Arbor had $400,000 a year grandfathered in for human services that came to Ann Arbor from the federal government. That money was available for use without further application, she continued – “it was just ours.” And what we’ve done, she said, is that we have turned that money over to the Urban County, and it has become a county function. She described the previously grandfathered-in human services money as having been lost to the whole system. She allowed that because Ann Arbor had joined the Urban County, some additional money had been obtained.

[What Armentrout was referring to is that Ann Arbor had a "grandfathered-in" ability to spend more of its CDBG (community development block grant) on human services than other communities. Joining the Urban County meant that without an additional waiver, Ann Arbor would become subject to the same 15% cap as every other community for its expenditures on human services. In actual dollars, this meant dropping from $396,000 to about $196,000 in human services expenditures. But it did not affect the amount of the CDBG funds for Ann Arbor – just the way it could be allocated. Based on an email to The Chronicle from Mary Jo Callan, head of the joint city/county office of community and economic development, Ann Arbor is currently operating within the 15% cap.

The additional money, to which Armentrout alluded, stems from the fact that Ann Arbor's joining the Urban County, according to Callan, created a "... large enough entity to receive a direct allocation of ESG (Emergency Shelter Grant) funds from HUD [the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development]. These funds are directed to housing and homelessness agencies, just as CDBG human services funds had been previously. In addition, we began utilizing a previously-unused eligible activity within the CDBG funding, called Community Based Development Organization (CBDO). Through this designation, we were able to provide funding to Community Action Network and Peace [Neighborhood Center] (previously funded through either CDBG or General Fund human service dollars) that carry out neighborhood revitalization efforts.” Peace Neighborhood Center, coincidentally, is where the candidate forum was held.]

In her remarks at the forum, Armentrout also noted that the city had spent a lot of money buying the old YMCA building and then demolishing it – to turn it into a parking lot. That means we’ve lost our capital resources, revenue stream and our policy mechanisms, she said. She supposed that what she would have to do is look at what other avenues might be open.

Warpehoski said that affordable housing and making sure that Ann Arbor is a community for everyone is something that is near and dear to his heart. He’s been working with members of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance on an advocacy committee to find out what some of the opportunities are to continue pushing for replacement of the 100 units of affordable housing. The loss of the 100 units of housing in the old YMCA building was significant, he said. He reviewed how there’s a range of options in the affordable housing spectrum. One option is a shelter that provides short-term housing. Family housing is different from individual housing, which is different from supportive housing, which Avalon Housing does such a great job with, he said. What we lost with the demolition of the YMCA building was 100 units of single-residence occupant housing with a staffed front desk – which makes sure that there was some level of security in the building.

Referring to the homeless encampment that was recently dismantled, he said, many of the people who lived out at Camp Take Notice were actually working – but even while working, they still couldn’t afford to pay for housing. It’s really important, he said, that we work to re-establish those 100 units of housing.

Warpehoski then picked up on Armentrout’s mention of the capital side and the revenue side of the equation. In connection with Camp Take Notice, he said there’s been some conversation with the state about identifying funds to create housing opportunities for the chronically homeless – that is one avenue forward. If affordable housing is not part of any of the plans that come out of the Connecting William Street planning process, he feels that some of the capital revenue from the sale of those properties should be put into capital needs for affordable housing, in order to make good on that promise to restore the 100 units.

There are definite advantages to having affordable housing downtown, he said – in terms of access to services for people who need it. At the same time, downtown land is expensive, so if we had an opportunity for one unit downtown and two units outside of downtown, but located close to transit, that would be a balance we’d need to look at. The push to consolidate and coordinate is coming from beyond Ann Arbor, he noted. It’s a push that the feds are making – and we would be in danger of losing a lot more funding if we didn’t do that. He said he still has questions, but he felt it’s important to listen to the perspective of those who are most intimately involved – both on the city staff and in the nonprofit world.

Picking up on Warpehoski’s mention of the use of proceeds from the possible sale of city-owned downtown parcels, Armentrout cautioned that talking about any sum of money from the sale of a city lot and funneling it toward a particular use, means talking about a competition of priorities. So would you rather have a park downtown, or would you rather sell the land to the highest bidder? she asked. She would not even get into police and fire protection, she said.

Warpehoski said Armentrout was right about the need to balance priorities, saying service on the city council would be easy if it were about saying, Oh, this is a good thing, so let’s do that! But the challenge of serving on the city council, he said, is choosing between good things, and making hard choices. That’s the challenge of any leadership position, but especially a public leadership position, he said.

Follow-up: It was activist Alan Haber who’d asked the question about affordable housing. He wanted to see both candidates recognize that there has been a hostility on the part of the city council to looking at the situation, and contended that the city council has not made it a priority, and has not listened to the people who’ve spoken before the council. He said there needs to be a change in the council’s attitude on this issue. He asked if either of the candidates would spearhead that change and say: This is an important priority.

Warpehoski answered Haber by saying, “Yes, I will spearhead it and I’m spearheading it now.” That’s why when the city was looking at its budget last budget cycle – and human services were one of the first things that the city was considering to cut – he had worked with other nonprofit leaders and business leaders in the community to say: No, don’t balance the budget on the backs of the poor, because this is the time when they need those services most.

He said he’s working with other nonprofit leaders and advocates to see how we can keep the promise that was made to restore those 100 units – that’s something that is near and dear to his heart, he said. He wants Ann Arbor to be a city for everybody – not just the One Percent, he said. Having a strong social safety net is part of that, he concluded.

Armentrout agreed that affordable housing is a desirable goal. She said she did not know how we can achieve it. It’s a matter of a lack of resources and competing priorities, she said. It would take real effort to work out, she said.

Transit

Question: What is your view on the four-party agreement? Warpehoski wrote an opinion piece for AnnArbor.com in which he characterized his fellow citizens who have concerns about the countywide transit plan as “transit opponents.” How is this an example of deep listening?

Background: A recent initiative by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to expand its governance structure and service area on a countywide basis dates back at least to December 2009. A four-party agreement – between the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA – would provide a framework and chronological sequence for the transition of the AATA to a new governance and funding structure. The Washtenaw County board of commissioners is expected to ratify the agreement on Aug. 1 – the other three parties have already ratified it. The agreement would require a voter referendum on a funding mechanism, before a transition to the new transit authority could take place.

With respect to the four-party agreement, Warpehoski said – as a Democrat, and as someone who is committed to the values of environmental protection and services for people who otherwise would not be able to get services – he is a strong supporter of public transit. He thinks that transit will help us address the climate crisis, noting that it had been an unbearable summer for canvassing door-to-door.

Transit is important for ensuring that people with disabilities and young people and people who can’t afford to drive have access to their community and can maintain their independence, he said. So he’s a proponent of transit. He’s been working with transit advocates like Jeff Irwin, as he’s tried to help the county move forward towards a more regional approach to transit. [Irwin, a Democrat, is a member of the state House of Representatives. He represents District 53, which covers Ann Arbor.] There have been years of public process done by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, intergovernmental negotiations and discussions – that included Jeff Irwin and Terri Blackmore of Washtenaw Area Transportation Study. There’s been a lot of study about the best way improve transit in the area, he said.

Ann Arbor has a decent transportation structure 9-5 Monday through Friday, Warpehoski said, but it doesn’t do a good job of providing evening and weekend service. Also, he said, his life does not stop at the city boundary, and the current level of service offered by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority doesn’t do a good job of connecting people to everywhere they need to go. In that context, and in the context of all the research and background that went into developing the four-party agreement, he characterized himself as a supporter of the document. He does not think it is a perfect document, he said. There were some things that could have been improved on, he allowed. “But I don’t want that nitpicking to say it’s not perfect so we’re not going to do it.” He continued, “I’m glad that my wife did not approach our marriage that way.”

So he concluded that the four-party agreement is an appropriate way to move forward. In terms of the op-ed piece that he had written, he said he believes it’s important to look at people’s actions about whether they support transit. After years of negotiation, the four-party agreement is the proposal on the table to help improve transit for the community both in Ann Arbor and in the broader area. If someone says they are for health but they are sitting on the couch every night eating Kentucky Fried Chicken, he said, you have to look at their actions. So that’s what he’s looking at, he said: What actions will support transit and what actions will leave us behind?

Armentrout began by saying that she is “burdened with too much information.” She described how much she has written on this topic and how she has attended meetings of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board since 2008, and how she has been following the process closely.

With all due respect to Warpehoski, she said, she thinks that “nitpicking” is what governmental representatives have to do. The details of funding and implementation are crucial, she said. Armentrout said she wanted to make it clear that she strongly supports transit – she considers transit to be very important to the quality of life in the community, the environment, to our ability to “self actualize” and everything else. It’s not a question of being opposed to transit, she contended. It’s a question of whether we will destroy our transit system – by implementing a risky system in its place.

She said she didn’t have time in four minutes to go into the details, but noted that what we’re talking about is creating a new entity, a new regional transit authority, which will have the power to tax, to change fare structures, to encumber itself with debt. She sees a lot of dangers connected to the proposal, including the idea that the new transportation authority would be expected to realize the vision of the WALLY rail system – which she described as having no foreseeable form of financial support. And WALLY is not about our local transit system, she contended. WALLY is about a train to Howell. The new countywide authority, she said, would not empower Ann Arbor residents to travel outside the borders of the city – it would only fund commuter systems to bring workers to the center of Ann Arbor and then leave again at the end of the day.

[At its June 21, 2012 meeting, the AATA board authorized the expenditure of funds for planning the north-south commuter rail project – from Howell to Ann Arbor, known as WALLY (Washtenaw and Livingston Railway). The money had previously been included in the AATA’s approved budget for fiscal year 2012, which ends Sept. 30, 2012. But the board had passed a resolution that requires explicit board approval before the money in the budget could be expended. AATA’s portion of the $230,000 in planning costs is $45,000, with the remainder contributed by a range of other public entities – the federal government, the city of Howell, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and Washtenaw County. ]

Armentrout continued by saying the documents involved would weigh pounds if you printed them out. Her concern is that we are going to lose our transit system – and that’s why she’s been a strong opponent of this particular change. She also said that under the proposed agreement, accountability would be lost, compared to the seven-member AATA board that is appointed by our own city government. In the new system, Ann Arbor would have a minority stake, she cautioned. One of the first things that has been proposed is to raise fares by $.50, she said. So she does not see the four-party agreement as enhancing transit, but rather sees it as a danger to transit.

Warpehoski picked up on Armentrout’s comment about the importance of looking at details. He pointed out that those details were negotiated over years with a lot of stakeholders. Trying to understand the concerns of all the people who need to be part of this process is a difficult balancing act, he allowed. What he sees, however, is that people outside of Ann Arbor are worried that they are simply going to be subsidizing buses within Ann Arbor. And people in Ann Arbor are worried they’re going to be subsidizing buses that are not for Ann Arbor. That’s a difficult balance, he said.

That’s a balance that the governance structure in the four-party agreement tried to strike – where Ann Arbor has representation far in excess of its population. It tries to strike a balance between income-based representation and population-based representation, he said. [On the 15-member board, a population-based representation would give Ann Arbor just 5 seats. Based just on millage rates without attention to population, the 2 mills currently levied by Ann Arbor plus the 0.5 mill likely to be levied countywide would give Ann Arbor at least 12 seats.] He noted that Ann Arbor under the proposed governance structure [with 7 seats out of 15] is just one vote away from being able to get whatever it wants. That’s the kind of balance that the four-party agreement tried to strike, he said. And that’s why he supported it.

Armentrout allowed that Warpehoski is right – both township folks and city folks are worried about their contribution to the future system. If you listen to some Washtenaw County commissioners, they characterize it as a “power grab” on the part of Ann Arbor – that Ann Arbor is trying to get the townships to subsidize their buses. The facts are, she said, that Ann Arborites will be paying somewhere around 75-80% of the taxes to support the system, because Ann Arbor will begin levying its current 2 mills transit tax plus another 0.5 mill for the countywide tax. She also noted that the median income for Ann Arbor is lower than the entire western side of Washtenaw County. In fact, she continued, most of Washtenaw County has a higher median income than Ann Arbor. The only exception is Ypsilanti, she said – and she does feel that we should do something about Ypsilanti.

Follow-up: The questioner said it’s alarming to her to consider that Warpehoski could be her future representative and to hear him saying essentially that the plan couldn’t be improved on – and if you attempt to do so, you are one of “those naysayer obstructionists.” To her, that does not sound like he is listening.

Warpehoski noted that one of the factors is the role that he plays in different situations. The role he was playing when he was writing that op-ed piece, he said, was as an advocate for transit. He was not thinking about running for office, and he was not thinking about how to represent the whole community in writing that piece. He’d been thinking about how to represent those constituents for whom he had invested the deep listening in order to bring them together – that was the role he was playing when he wrote that piece.

That’s a different role than the one that a city councilmember plays, he said. He felt it would be possible to find things in other people’s writings, where you might conclude that someone is not listening – but they could be playing a different role. If Armentrout wrote something on her blog that he does not feel represents his concerns, he did not think that means she would not be able to listen to him if she were to serve on the city council.

DDA: Downtown Parking

Question: Do you agree with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s action of building a new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue that cost around $70,000 per space to build, and charging two dollars a day for airport parking?

Background: The “airport parking” is provided by the DDA in partnership with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s new AirRide service between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro airport, which was launched earlier this year. The introductory parking offer was $2 for up to two weeks of parking at the Fourth and William structure. The DDA will be transitioning to a rate of $2 per day.

Armentrout she began by saying that the Ann Arbor DDA is using parking as a policy instrument. She questioned whether that is appropriate. She posed a rhetorical question: Is parking a public utility that should be available to all people who are living in and visiting and doing business in Ann Arbor? Or is it to be used as an instrument to achieve certain policy goals? She felt that lately it’s been the second of those two possibilities. She felt it’s an issue that could use broad discussion.

Warpehoski recast the question essentially as: Do you support the subsidizing of the AirRide airport service with a $2-a-day parking fee in order to help the AirRide service? He noted that the AirRide service has been very popular, and he is still looking at that specific question. With respect to the parking structure, he noted that whether you supported or opposed it, now we have it. And now we have to pay for it, he observed. He did not feel that $2-a-day parking fees for the AirRide service would help that much.

He mentioned that the special rate structure in connection with the AirRide program is not the only instance of the Ann Arbor DDA using special prices to give people incentives to park in different places – alluding to the reduced costs for monthly permits that have been offered in the new underground parking garage. One of the questions he has: Is this an introductory thing that will be around for six months or a year until the usage of the underground parking structure increases significantly? Or is it going to be a permanent thing?

[In connection with the opening of the new underground parking garage, the DDA has also announced temporary lower rates for monthly parking permits for the new garage, to encourage its use. The incentive rate of $95 per month in the new underground structure – for current permit holders in certain other structures, or for new users – is good for two years. That compares to the $145-$155 monthly rate at other structures.]

Those are some of the questions Warpehoski said he has and he’s still trying to work through them. He’d be happy to hear what people think about this issue.

Armentrout followed up by saying she wanted to give an example of the Ann Arbor DDA using parking as a policy tool. As the underground parking garage was being planned and built, she said people were told it was because Ann Arbor suffered a parking deficit and that the merchants needed the parking to keep businesses viable. But now, she said, a considerable amount of the new garage will be assigned to a new office building that is being built downtown. So, she contended, the underground garage is being used to subsidize office development.

[The public commentary and deliberations at the Feb. 17, 2009 city council meeting when the bonds for the parking garage were approved included voices calling for increased parking to support merchants. The meeting also reflected arguments based on more general economic development. The office space to which Armentrout alluded is not a new building, but rather the old Borders corporate headquarters downtown at 317 Maynard. Barracuda Networks is expanding into the space. According to DDA staff, no parking spaces are being assigned to Barracuda. However, as new monthly permit applicants, individual employees of Barracuda would enjoy the same reduced rate as other new permit applicants, if they opt to park in the new underground garage instead of the Maynard Street structure immediately adjacent to their work place. An industrial development district at the 317 Maynard location, which would need to be established in order for Barracuda to apply for a tax abatement, will likely be on the Aug. 9 city council agenda.]

DDA: Planning

Question: What could be done to require the Ann Arbor DDA to engage in real public input? What is the role of active community members in planning for public spaces? The Connecting William Street survey was very biased against green space. What could be done to require the Ann Arbor DDA to engage the public in real public input?

Background:  The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is undertaking the Connecting William Street project at the direction of the Ann Arbor city council. The council passed a resolution on April 4, 2011 that gave the DDA direction to explore alternative uses of city-owned parcels – currently used for surface parking – in a limited area of downtown. The area is bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets.

Parcels included in the area are: the Kline’s lot (on Ashley, north of William), Palio’s lot (at Main & William), the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure, the old Y lot (Fifth & William), and the top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage.

Warpehoski said he’d heard a lot of concern about the initial survey and some of the public involvement – that there has been a “shaping of the path” to push people toward particular discussions. There are a couple of factors with that, he said. One factor is that the multiple choices presented on the initial survey had a set of options – and “open space” was not a part of that. That had resulted in a lot of people writing it in.

Also not included on the survey was affordable housing, he said. When the city purchased the former YMCA building, there was a promise made to replace the 100 units of affordable housing that were lost when the building was condemned and then demolished. So his concern is how that promise is to be kept. That wasn’t one of the multiple-choice checkboxes, either – so he had written that in. Pushing the DDA has to come partly from citizens and partly from the city council, he said. What would come out of the Connecting William Street process is a recommendation that would then go to the city council for approval. That’s a chance for the council to say: Well, this is what was left out!

With respect to the issue of open space as it relates to the top of the underground parking structure, he feels there are multiple stakeholders who need to be involved in that discussion. Whatever the future of that space is, it needs to include an open space component, he said. Questions include: How big? How much? What goes around it?

Public involvement should include citizen groups, including groups like Friends of the Library Green, he said. But it should also include the Ann Arbor District Library board – because the library sits directly adjacent to the parcel. It should also include other stakeholders in the area, he said – and some merchants are very supportive of a proposed park there. But just the previous day, he reported, he’d been knocking on the door of one Ward 5 resident who owns a downtown business – and who is absolutely opposed to having a park there. So he felt it’s important to have all the voices at the table.

His frustration with the process so far, he explained, is that he has seen park proponents and park skeptics talking past each other. He hasn’t seen the level of real engagement on the concerns that he would like to see. The process could be better, he said, and he would like to see an approach of shared problem-solving.

Armentrout began by saying she did not know how to get the Ann Arbor DDA to encourage more public participation – except to tell them really nicely that it would be really nice. She said we don’t have any direct influence on the DDA. As Warpehoski pointed out, she noted, whatever decisions are made by the DDA as a result of the Connecting William Street planning process would have to be endorsed by the Ann Arbor city council. That’s a place where citizens can bring up issues that they perceive as a lack of public participation. She traced the history of some failed request for proposals (RFP) attempts by the city – to find a solution for the YMCA lot and for the top of the underground parking garage. The RFPs tried to do too many things, and had very poor public process associated with them, she said.

The RFP that led to the conference center proposal from Valiant Partners had an appearance of public process, Armentrout said. But she said that the RFP advisory committee that was supposed to be considering the proposals had shown its bias – and didn’t really consider an open space proposal. So there’d been some bad blood about it, she said. There’d been outright rejection of open space, she said.

[The RFP advisory committee reviewed the six proposals that responded to the city's RFP. Two of them were essentially proposals for open space. The proposal selected as the most preferred by that committee was from Valiant Partners. However, on April 4, 2011, the city council vote to terminate the process of RFP review – as the city was poised to move ahead on a letter of intent with Valiant Partners.]

The DDA has had numerous discussions at their board table about how parks don’t belong downtown, she noted – how parks are suburban, and downtown shouldn’t have green space. She was dismissive of the kinds of open space that are sometimes mentioned – Main Street, where people sit outside and dine, or the ability to close off downtown streets and have parties there. There has been every effort to avoid the idea of open space downtown, she said. We’ll have to work as a community to change the conversation, she added, saying she did not have a magic bullet.

[In the DDA board discussions The Chronicle has documented, the distinction between the suburban and the urban has been highlighted by DDA board member Russ Collins. His view, however, is more nuanced than "parks don't belong downtown." From a March 2, 2011 DDA meeting report: "But the types of parks that are effective in a suburban area, Collins said, are not necessarily effective in an urban area. In urban areas, he said, density, activity and noise are positive attributes, even though those features are considered anathema in suburban areas. It’s important to separate the urban from the suburban, Collins concluded."]

Warpehoski agreed with Armentrout’s read of the initial request for proposals for the top of the underground parking garage. She was right, he said – that it was a terrible process start to finish – and he called it rushed, not transparent. He said it was a real problem. He stated that we do have open space downtown, pointing to Liberty Plaza [at the corner of Liberty and Division], saying the challenge is how to make that space work. He pointed to near-downtown parks such as Hanover Square by Blimpy Burger [at Packard and Division] and Sculpture Plaza [at Catherine and Fourth] – so we do have downtown open space, he said. He also believes that whatever goes on the top of the underground parking garage should have an open space component.

Armentrout responded to Warpehoski’s use of the word “stakeholder,” saying that word always causes concern for her. She described the typical process for “stakeholders” as one where you get one person from the merchants, one person from the library, one person from the chamber of commerce, and one citizen – everyone’s at the table, so what’s the problem? She said there are a lot of complexities with the way we make decisions, and once we start talking about “stakeholders,” it always makes her nervous, she said. [For a review of the term "stakeholder" and its original coinage, see "Column: Ann Arbor Parking – Share THIS!"]

Follow-up: Is there any way to redirect the Ann Arbor DDA to include green space in their Connecting William Street planning process – because that’s what the citizens want. The questioner noted that there were a very high number of mentions of parks and green space in the open-ended responses to the Connecting William Street survey.

Armentrout said she’d begun to count and enumerate the responses to that survey – but she had not finished because “a campaign came along” and interrupted some of her activities. But she noted that a very high percentage of the surveys that had been returned did say that people wanted open space or a park in the downtown area. She suggested that what citizens need to do is a proper job of tabulating the responses and then presenting that information to the DDA.

Warpehoski reiterated that in his day job as a community organizer, his job is to try to organize people and to get them to speak, to get them to weigh in on public issues. And often when he’s trying to do that, his job is to make the perspective he’s advocating for the loudest voice in the room. The challenge of an elected official, he said, is to work to hear every voice in the room. Those are different goals, he said.

He feels that stakeholder involvement is important, and what happens at that site affects merchants up and down that street more than it affects him – so we need to hear their voices, too. We need to hear all of the voices – including people who live in the neighborhoods. We need to push hard to consider what are the trade-offs – because when we say yes to something, we are also saying no to something, and we have to engage with that, he said. We need to think about how we can do a better job of hearing everybody, he said. He agreed that so far the Connecting William Street process has not done a good job of that.

DDA: TIF Capture, Conflict of Interest

Question: Should Ann Arbor continue with the Ann Arbor DDA and its current financial structure – which encourages bigger and more expensive financial development? For Warpehoski: Do you feel any conflict of interest voting on issues for the city government, DDA, and the AATA – given that your wife is so connected?

Background: The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, like all downtown development authorities in the state of Michigan, is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) district. TIF allows an entity like the Ann Arbor DDA to “capture” a portion of the property taxes in a specific geographic area that would otherwise be collected by taxing authorities in the district. The tax capture is only on the increment in valuation – the difference between the value of property when the district was established, and the value resulting from improvements made to the property. The Ann Arbor DDA TIF applies only to the initial increment, not to inflationary gains.

Ann Arbor’s DDA also manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. As a part of that contract, renegotiated and finally ratified in 2011, the city receives 17% of the gross revenues from the parking system.

Warpehoski’s wife, Nancy Shore, is director of the getDowntown program. This is a program that was initially funded in a four-way partnership between the city of Ann Arbor, the AATA, the DDA and the Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce (now the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber). Initially, the chamber acted as the employer. In 2009, the chamber essentially withdrew from the partnership, which meant that the getDowntown program needed to find alternate quarters – part of the contribution made by the chamber had been to provide office space. The getDowntown program then moved to offices at 518 E. Washington, with the financial support of the DDA. But it’s the AATA that now acts as the employer for getDowntown staff.

So currently, getDowntown is funded through a three-way partnership: city of Ann Arbor, AATA and the DDA – and Shore is an employee of the AATA. The new Blake Transit Center is planned to include office space for the getDowntown program. The go!pass program, administered by getDowntown, is funded through a nominal charge per go!pass ($10) to downtown employers who participate, and a grant from the DDA. The DDA grant for the go!pass program is funded from the city’s public parking system revenues. The DDA has allocated $438,565 in FY 2012 and $475,571 in FY 2013 for the go!pass program.

Armentrout felt it would be valuable to assess the role of the DDA within the city government. There was a 30-year renewal of the DDA’s charter in 2003, she noted. She did not know what legal recourse we would have to re-examine that. The role and the scope of the DDA, however, she feels needs to be re-examined. She contended it has become like an “unaccountable government in its own right.” The DDA is setting agendas and priorities and has a substantial revenue stream. It’s like an organism, she said, and when given lots of fuel, it grows. The priority of the DDA in recent years has been to increase development that adds to the taxable value of property, so that they get more tax increment finance (TIF) funds – it has become a kind of development engine, she said. She felt that we need to ask: Is this what we really want? The original idea of the DDA, she said, was to keep the downtown alive – not necessarily to turn it into an economic development engine, she said, which seems to be what it’s attempting to do now.

Warpehoski began by saying that there are some things that the DDA does well, and there are some things that the DDA does not do well. He noted that the city had been sued over the sidewalks and their accessibility – and the DDA had funded installation of curb ramps in the downtown area to ensure ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] compliance. So, some of the things that the DDA does provide real public benefit and need to be supported, he said.

He pointed to the getDowntown program – which his wife Nancy Shore directs – as a program that encourages people to get out of their single-occupancy vehicles and use alternative forms of transportation. The DDA has been funding a lot of Shore’s program to get downtown employees to use the bus and other alternative transportation – and he thinks that’s a good thing. On the other hand, now that the DDA has the debt from the underground parking garage and the new parking contract under which it pays the city 17% of gross revenues, there’s been an increase in focus on parking revenue. He did not feel that that’s an appropriate part of the DDA’s mission.

In terms of the DDA’s structure overall, he said, he illustrated how the DDA’s TIF capture works by talking about a proposed redevelopment for the former Georgetown Mall, which lies outside the DDA tax capture district. He gets excited about the future new Georgetown development for two reasons, Warpehoski said. Neighbors want the blight in their neighborhood removed. The proposed development to that site will also add a half million dollars in property taxes to the community – across all the taxing authorities, he believed. That’s not taxes for the sake of taxes, but when we talk about things like paying for safety services, or funding leaf pickup, he said, that helps to close the gap.

But when there is a new development inside the DDA taxing district, he pointed out, that doesn’t address the citywide tax need in the same way [due to the DDA's capture on the increment in value between the original assessed value and new construction.] So it is worth asking: How do we make sure that we have a vibrant downtown? We need to ensure a vibrant downtown, Warpehoski said, and he thinks we can have a vibrant downtown. A lot of different groups deserve the credit for it – including the local business community. But it’s important to make sure that those TIF capture funds are serving not just the downtown, but also the broader community.

Warpehoski came back to the issue of his wife, Nancy Shore, noting that her position is with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Her salary, he said, is funded by federal grants, and some of the programs she administers are funded with DDA money.

The first issue related to conflict of interest, he said, is disclosure. There is no secret about the funding of his wife’s position, or his relationship to her, he said – as they are married, with a child. He’s very proud of the work that Shore does, he said, and he would not do anything to endanger her great work in promoting sustainable transportation. If a particular vote came up that warranted recusal, he would recuse himself, so that the law is obeyed, and that he does not endanger the work that he does or his wife does.

Armentrout added her view that it leads to confusion when the DDA is playing two roles – administering the “parking utility” as well as filling its role as a development authority. When we look at the role of the DDA in the future, she said, we need to make sure we’re not talking about apples and oranges. On the whole, the DDA has done a good job administering the parking utility, she allowed. But using parking as an instrument of policy worries her, she said.

Open Meetings Act

Question: Does the city council have too many closed sessions? What would you do when another closed session is called?

Warpehoski said the hard thing about a closed session is that you don’t know what’s going on in there – so you can’t say whether it’s appropriate or not. Certain topics are appropriate for a closed session. Personnel matters and some legal issues are appropriate to have a discussion and have some level of confidentiality to them. If you are around a table in a closed session and the discussion is not appropriate for a closed session, he’d be pushing back and saying: Wait a second, this is not something we should be having closed-door discussions on.

Armentrout noted that Michigan’s Open Meetings Act outlines what topics are appropriate for closed sessions – personnel matters, purchase of property, and litigation, among others. She said she also doesn’t know what’s going on in there, and said that it puts a tremendous amount of pressure on city councilmembers. As a Washtenaw County commissioner, she said, she participated in closed sessions, and they were told that if they revealed to anyone what was said inside the session, they would be breaking the law and could be prosecuted. That was a terrific burden, she said.

She was not sure if a single city councilmember could challenge whether a closed session is appropriate. But she noticed that the current city attorney [Stephen Postema] seems to have an “expansive view” of what attorney-client privilege is. She would like to bring whatever small influence she might have as a city council person to re-examine some of that.

Pension Fund Liability

Question: What specifically would you like to do about the pension fund liability?

Armentrout began by saying that she does not have a solution – as she has not studied the question in depth. She felt that it’s a valuable area to look at. She would not, however, consider altering the existing pensions that employees are getting. We have to keep the promises we’ve made, she said. It’s going to take a lot of analysis to figure out how to fix the pension system on an ongoing basis. It’s much more than she could take on in four minutes, she concluded.

Warpehoski called it an important issue – years in the making, which would take years to fix. But it’s an issue that the city council needs to address through the mechanism of the budget process. His understanding, he told the forum, is that there are two elements that have to be looked at – one is the city pension fund liability, and the other is the retiree health benefit liability. Both of them are concerns, he said. He allowed that he would probably misidentify which one was which, but he ventured that one of them had been fully funded before the stock market crash back in 2008 – and for that fund, the city is much closer to having a fully funded system than for the other. [Fitting that description is the pension fund liability.]

He also thought there had been changes in the federal accounting rules that had put a lot of municipalities into an “Oh, no!” situation. Like Armentrout, he allowed, he does not have a five-point proposal for how to address the problem – but said we absolutely have to look at it for the long-term financial health and sustainability of the city.

Closing Statements

Armentrout she was really glad that the Ann Arbor Ward 5 Democratic Party put on the forum – she felt it was very valuable and felt that it had allowed attendees to get a good sense of the two candidates. She called it a very stimulating discussion on the issues. The reason she’s running is that she’s really asking people to put her to work for them. She felt that people know what they need to know about her, and what her concerns are, so she’s hoping for people support.

Warpehoski echoed Armentrout’s thanks to the Ward 5 Democratic organization. After leaving some of the other candidate forums, he said, he wondered if people had heard enough to make a decision. But he felt that the Ward 5 forum had allowed candidates to engage some of the key issues of the community. His commitment, he said, is a commitment to service – for the common good. That’s the reason he works with the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice. It’s a commitment to what is best for the community, what’s best for the world, and what is best for future generations, he said. That commitment is key if he is elected to office, he added.

People had heard the candidates talk about the issues and their perspectives on the issues, he said, but what’s important going forward are broader questions. When he was first considering running, he said he’d set up a meeting with Sabra Briere. One of the things she had told him was that she is more interested in knowing what a candidate’s values are – not their positions on issues. Positions will change as the issues change, she’d told him, but the values will stay. That thought from Briere had an impact on him, he said. [This is part of Briere's standard "Advice to the Candidate."]

He felt that his record of service with the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice shows that he is committed to the common good, shows that he is committed to bringing people together – and that’s part of what he’ll to bring to the city council, he said, if he is elected.

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!

Shaded areas indicate Ann Arbor’s five wards. Colored dots denote the address of a donor to a campaign – brown for one candidate and orange for the other candidate. Which ward’s race does this map show? Details below.

The two candidates in Ward 5 raised a combined total greater than any other ward – with Chuck Warpehoski raising $9,558 and Vivienne Armentrout receiving about $2,000 more, at $11,350. Warpehoski’s total came from a significantly greater number of donors than Armentrout’s contributions, but were on average much smaller. Armentrout and Warpehoski are competing for the Democratic nomination and will face Republican Stuart Berry in November. Sitting Ward 5 Democrat Carsten Hohnke decided not to seek re-election.

Raising slightly less than Ward 5 candidates were incumbent Ward 2 councilmember Tony Derezinski ($8,475) and challenger Sally Petersen ($7,947). The distribution of donation sizes was similar for the Ward 2 candidates, and both showed a much higher per-donor average than the citywide figure – $163 for Derezinski and $139 for Petersen.

In Ward 4, Democratic primary voters will have the same choice they had in 2010 – between incumbent Margie Teall and challenger Jack Eaton. This year, they have raised roughly the same amount of money – Teall with $4,685 and Eaton with $4,305.

Ward 1 showed the greatest difference in the amounts raised by the two candidates, as Sumi Kailasapathy raised about 70% more than Eric Sturgis – $4,220 compared to $2,510 for Sturgis. The seat will be open because Sandi Smith is not seeking re-election.

A common theme across all the campaign finance reports is the significant support candidates receive from outside the ward they’re seeking to represent. That’s a trend visible in the maps we present after the jump.

Part of that trend can be explained by the number of city residents who donate money to more than one campaign. Out of the nearly 500 different donors across the eight campaigns, 58 donated to two or more campaigns, and 23 donated to three or more. The Chronicle counted nine donors who contributed to four different city council campaigns.

Many observers perceive a grouping of candidates based on shared basic philosophies – Kailasapathy, Petersen, Eaton and Armentrout on the one hand, contrasted with Sturgis, Derezinski, Teall and Warpehoski. While there’s likely considerable room for disagreement about what the common thread is that ties those candidates together, the multiple-campaign donors bear out a perception of some commonality: Of the 58 multiple-campaign donors, all but three squared up with that candidate grouping.

The three donors identified by The Chronicle as flouting that grouping included 22nd circuit court judge candidate Carol Kuhnke, who gave money to both Ward 2 candidates (Derezinski and Petersen) as well as Sturgis and Teall. Past Ward 2 candidate Stew Nelson gave money to Petersen and to Sturgis. And former Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member Ed Shaffran donated to Teall and to Armentrout.

Which group had more multiple-campaign donors? There the nod goes to the group with no incumbents – Kailasapathy, Petersen, Eaton and Armentrout – with 39 of the 58 multiple-campaign donors.

Vignette from the County Clerk’s Office

On Friday, July 27, with the filing deadline for pre-primary campaign finance reports about 15 minutes away, folks in the waiting area at the Washtenaw County clerk’s office got a reminder that the county clerk holds an elected position.

Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum emerged from behind the counter, took a seat in the waiting area and chatted with The Chronicle a bit before handing in his pre-primary campaign finance filing. He noted that he always hands in his election paperwork from that side of the counter.

Kestenbaum’s staff then took his paperwork, disappeared into a back office, and a few minutes later, the documents were scanned and uploaded to the clerk’s campaign finance database, available for perusal by the public.

One topic of conversation with The Chronicle was speculation about whether all the candidates for Ann Arbor city council would submit their paperwork before the deadline. Only one of the eight candidates in the contested primary races had not filed by then – Vivienne Armentrout. Armentrout wrote to The Chronicle later to report that she’d emailed the clerk’s office to let them know she wouldn’t be filing that day. When she files on Monday, she’ll need to pay a relatively minor fine – $25. Failure to file for a longer period could get expensive – because the fine is $25 per day.

Even though she did not make the Friday deadline, Armentrout forwarded her data to The Chronicle later that evening, which was used in the analysis for this article.

Distribution of Donations

For all bar graphs with donation distributions, the images are linked to a higher resolution file. The vertical axis is scaled identically for all eight races, to allow for sensible visual comparisons across wards.

Ward 1 Sumi Kailasapathy. The Chronicle counted 58 donors, who contributed a total of $4,220 – an average of $73 per donor, and a median of $50.

Ward 1 Eric Sturgis. The Chronicle counted 29 donors who contributed $2,510 for an average of $86.55 per donor, and a median of $75.

Ward 2 Tony Derezinski. The Chronicle counted 52 donors who contributed a total of $8,475 for an average of $163 per donor and a median of $100.

Ward 2 Sally Petersen. The Chronicle counted 57 donors who contributed a total of $7,947 for an average of $139 per donor and a median of $100.

Ward 4 Margie Teall. The Chronicle counted 48 donors who contributed a total of $4,685 for an average of $97 per donor and a median of $100.

Ward 4 Jack Eaton. The Chronicle counted 39 donors who contributed a total of $4,305 for an average of $110 per donor and a median of $100.

Ward 5 Vivienne Armentrout. The Chronicle counted 83 donors who contributed a total of $11,350 for an average of $137 per donor and a median of $100.

Ward 5 Chuck Warpehoski. The Chronicle counted 127 donors who contributed a total of $9,558 for an average of $75 per donor and a median of $50.

Mapping the Donation Distributions

Maps below are available in dynamic form at geocommons.com: “Ann Arbor City Council Primary 2012 Campaign Finance.” Layers corresponding to each candidate’s contributions can be toggled on and off. The geocoding for the maps (that is, the matching of longitude and latitude to street addresses) is not guaranteed to be accurate for every colored dot depicting a campaign contribution. However, The Chronicle is confident that the accuracy is adequate for claims about overall trends.

Ward 1 Sumi Kailasapathy. Ward 1 is the red shaded area. Colored dots denote the location of campaign donations. Kailasapathy enjoys a lot of support in Ward 5 (blue) as well as in the ward she’s seeking to represent.

Ward 1 Eric Sturgis. Ward 1 is the red shaded area. Colored dots denote the location of campaign donations. The map shows that most of his financial support is in Ward 1, but citywide it’s sparse compared to Kailasapathy’s.

Ward 2 Tony Derezinski. Ward 2 is the light orange shaded area. Colored dots denote the location of campaign donations. Both Derezinski and Petersen draw a lot of support from the southern part of Ward 2. 

Ward 2 Sally Petersen. Ward 2 is the light orange shaded area. Colored dots denote the location of campaign donations. The northern two precincts, where former Ward 2 councilmember Stephen Rapundalo was always strongest in terms of votes, offers little financial support for either candidate this time around.

Ward 4 Jack Eaton and Margie Teall. Ward 4 is the light green shaded area. Colored dots (Teall, brown; Eaton, orange) denote the location of campaign donations. Teall and Eaton’s contributions are combined onto one map. Without additional background information, it would be difficult to guess that the map shows contributions for a Ward 4 race – as the majority of contributions come from outside the ward. The visual perception is accounted for partly by the fact that the middle swath of Ward 4 offers has no residential  areas – because it’s University of Michigan property.

Ward 5 Chuck Warpehoski. Ward 5 is the blue shaded area. Colored dots denote the location of campaign donations. Warpehoski enjoys a lot of support within the ward, but also outside Ward 5 within the city. Outside the city, in Ypsilanti, he’s also received several contributions.

Ward 5 Vivienne Armentrout. Ward 5 is the light blue shaded area. Colored dots denote the location of campaign donations. Armentrout enjoys strong support within the ward, as well as in Ward 2 (orange). That could be explained in part by the fact that Ward 2 councilmember Jane Lumm sent out a fundraising letter to her own supporters on Armentrout’s behalf. Lumm contributed to Armentrout’s campaign as well as to the campaigns of Kailasapathy, Petersen, and Eaton.

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!

Ward 5 Ann Arbor city council candidates Chuck Warpehoski and Vivienne Armentrout. (Photos by the writer.)

The Ward 5 seat will be open this year, because incumbent Carsten Hohnke chose not to seek a third two-year term on the 11-member council – which includes the mayor and two representatives from each of the city’s five wards. Democratic primaries are contested this year in just four of the five wards, as Christopher Taylor is unchallenged in Ward 3.

Hohnke was first elected to the council in 2008, winning the general election against Republican John Floyd. In the August primary that year, Hohnke won a very close race against Armentrout, who is competing for a Ward 5 seat again this year.

Armentrout said she’s running based on her experience – and her involvement in the civic life of Ann Arbor. She cited her involvement with organizations like the Ecology Center, Project Grow, and the League of Women Voters. She also cited her service on public bodies like the city’s solid waste commission, the city budget review committee, as well as the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, an elected position that she held for eight years.

After she left the board of commissioners, she worked as a journalist, she said, focusing primarily on city issues for the Ann Arbor Observer. And she’s been writing a local issues blog since 2009 – Local in Ann Arbor. She wants to apply her experience to represent the residents of Ward 5.

Warpehoski told the forum attendees that he is running because he wants to serve the community. He stressed his strong Democratic values – like environmental protection, and a commitment to a strong social safety net. In his day job as executive director of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, he is already serving the community, he said, but service on the city council is another way to serve the community. He stressed the importance of the mix that Ann Arbor offers – of a vibrant downtown and great neighborhoods.

Warpehoski noted that elections end up being a discussion about candidates. But fundamentally, he said, he does not believe that public service and elected office is about the candidate – rather, it’s about the community. That’s why the center of his campaign has been knocking on doors all across Ward 5, he said. And when he approaches the door, he said he’s not starting with a commercial for himself. Instead, he begins with a question: What’s on your mind about what’s going on in the city?

The single main policy issue that candidates were asked to address was a possible new train station at the Fuller Road site – and transportation is an issue on which Armentrout and Warpehoski have the most different perspectives. But the Fuller Road Station was touched on just briefly. Armentrout listed several reasons why she’s opposed to a rail station at Fuller Road, while Warpehoski is supportive of the idea. But he indicated that if the ultimate recommendation of a current study that’s being conducted is to locate a new facility at Fuller Road, he thinks it deserves a public referendum, because it is public land.

Aside from opening and closing statements, not a lot of specific local policy ground was covered by questions put to the candidates – due in part to a time constraint of about an hour for eight candidates. But the candidates did talk a great deal about issues of transparency and group dynamics on the city council – in response to the leadoff question from forum moderator Mike Henry, co-chair (with Anne Bannister) of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party.

Responding to the question of working as a group, Warpehoski described the techniques of “deep listening,” and stressed the importance of assuming good intent. For her part, Armentrout stressed the importance of  expressing mutual respect and in making decisions based on data and on the merits of the case, and “arguing politely,” whatever the case is.

Broadcast live earlier in the week on the Community Television Network was a League of Women Voters candidate forum that included Armentrout and Warpehoski, which is available online.

The deadline to register to vote in the Aug. 7 primary has passed. Oct. 9 is the last day to register to vote for the Tuesday, Nov. 6 general election. Information on voter registration can be found on the Washtenaw County clerk’s elections division website. To see a sample ballot for your precinct, visit the Secretary of State’s website. The League of Women Voters also has an online voter information site – Vote411.org – which includes biographical information on some candidates, stances on issues, and a “build my ballot” feature.

Opening Statements

Warpehoski: He led off by saying that voters could find out more about him by visiting his website: voteforchuck.org.

As he goes door-to-door, he reported, people ask him why he is running for city council. His answer, he said, might sound almost anachronistic, but the reason he’s running is because he wants to serve the community. He loves Ann Arbor, and in his day job as executive director of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, he sees an opportunity to serve the community. And service on the city council is another way to serve the community, he said.

Part of what makes Ann Arbor so unique, and so great, is that it has a really unique mix, Warpehoski said. The library is sited downtown, and people come from all over the state to experience what Ann Arbor’s downtown offers. And right next to the downtown, there’s a transition to great neighborhoods – he noted that the location of the candidate forum’s venue, at the Ann Arbor Community Center on North Main, is an example. The council needs to preserve both of those areas, he said.

As a Democrat, the values of environmental protection and human services funding are near and dear to his heart. That needs to be well-represented on the city council. The other thing he’s committed to, he said, is responsive government – whether that’s customer service trying to get a permit to build a deck or to get a pothole filled. It also means listening to and involving citizens in decision-making. From his work at the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, he’s learned that people can get across their differences by listening and engaging – and that’s what he hopes to bring to the city council.

Armentrout: She also gave the URL of her campaign website – viviennearmentrout.com.

She is running on her experience, Armentrout said. She represents all of the progressive ideas that she also thinks probably all the other candidates have. What she’s especially emphasizing, she said, is her past involvement in the civic life of Ann Arbor. When she arrived in Ann Arbor 26 years ago, the first thing she did was to get involved in the Democratic Party. The next thing she did was to volunteer at the Ecology Center. She got involved with Project Grow, and the League of Women Voters. She was appointed to the solid waste commission, and she served on the city budget review committee for over a year.

Then she was elected to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners and served eight years on the board. After she left the board of commissioners, she worked as a journalist, focusing primarily on city issues for the Ann Arbor Observer. Since 2009 she has written a local issues blog – Local in Ann Arbor. That’s experience, she concluded, but it also shows she has a real concern for this community and she hope she can apply her experience to represent the residents of Ward 5.

Working as a Group

Question: As a member of a legislative body, one of the things you’ll be judged by is what you can accomplish as a group. There’ll be group dynamics and differences of opinion. Mike Henry’s question invited candidates to talk about how they would approach finding solutions amid that difference of opinion.

Background: Henry’s question implicitly recalled  the sentiments of Democratic county clerk Larry Kestenbaum, who wrote as a citizen to the entire city council in the fall of last year, roundly castigating councilmembers for decisions that resulted in the demolition of seven houses on South Fifth Avenue, to be replaced by two large apartment buildings (City Place). Kestenbaum had stressed the importance of working as a group: “A city council is not judged by the good intentions of its members. It is judged by what it accomplishes, or fails to accomplish, as a body.”

Warpehoski: As the question states, he began, the city council is a group that needs to work together. Right now, he said, there tend to be factions, and the city council doesn’t always move together.

In his experience with the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, he said, they often have differences of opinion around the table – about which issues they should address and how they should address those issues. What he’s found in his service is two parts to making it work. First, it’s important to engage in “deep listening.” When a concern comes up, he explained, if you’re able to take the time to listen – not just to the palpable concern, but also to what lies beneath it – you can find a workable solution that can move the group forward together. That takes work, and it takes time, and it takes attending to a culture of trust and openness, he suggested.

Second, when he does work around tense issues – like racial justice work or things like that – one of the ground rules you have to set is you have to assume good intent. All the candidates at the table, himself included, are there because they want to serve Ann Arbor. A seat on the Ann Arbor city council is not a position of power and glory, he ventured, but rather a position of service. It means recognizing that even though they might disagree, he said, they are all working for the benefit of the community. And assuming good intent helps to establish a culture of trust. He’s seen that work at the ICPJ, and he feels like that’s something that he can bring to the council.

Armentrout: She explained that she has served on many committees, some as chair, and she believes in expressing mutual respect to all members. She believes in making decisions based on data and on the merits of the case. She believes in arguing politely, whatever the case is. She described herself as very process-oriented. She has also participated in putting bylaws together for committees, she said, and she practices good parliamentary procedure. She does not believe in block voting, she said. When she served on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, she was sometimes in a coalition with others whose viewpoints she opposed on other issues. She hoped that we would not see factional voting on the city council. She would work to see that that does not happen, she said.

Transparency

Moderator Mike Henry then picked up on the mention of transparency by Ward 2 candidate Sally Petersen and Ward 1 candidate Sumi Kailasapathy. Henry asked those who are currently on the city council – Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – how they felt about the current level of transparency. Eric Sturgis made clear that he, and perhaps Armentrout, also wanted to respond to that question. So several of the other candidates had a go at the question.

Armentrout: She noted that she had once edited a book on planning techniques – it was called “The Planner’s Use of Information.” It had an excellent chapter by an author who specializes in the whole issue of public involvement, she explained. One of the things the author had written, which had made an impression on Armentrout, was that if you choose to involve the public in the process, you have to take into account what the public has to say.

She felt that the city council has moved in recent years really quite commendably toward the appearance of transparency – by making information much more freely available, which she really appreciates. In the case of the possible conference center on top of the South Fifth Avenue underground parking structure, it was really nice that a website had been established that included all of the responses to the RFP (request for proposals). And there were open meetings of the RFP committee. However, she said, the opinions of the public were not ever actually solicited. And there was no public comment opportunity made available at any of the RFP review committee meetings.

[By way of background on the conference center to which Armentrout alluded, the council had voted on April 4, 2011 to end the RFP review process for the top of the new underground parking garage. That decision came after a committee had selected a proposal for a hotel/conference center by Valiant Partners as the preferred proposal among six that had been submitted. The lack of an opportunity for public comment at the RFP review committee meetings was documented as part of The Chronicle's coverage of the final meeting of that committee, in the form of a column.]

Warpehoski: He began by taking the advice of someone in the audience – that the candidates should stand up so that their voices would project better throughout the room. He quipped that, “Part of transparency is for everybody to be able to hear …”

He noted that several candidates had addressed the issue of transparency in terms of whether the information is out there and whether it’s available. One of the challenges we have today in the information age, he cautioned, is the “drinking from a fire hose effect.” There’s a tremendous amount of information on the city website and elsewhere, he noted. What he had found from his service on the countywide transportation district advisory committee was that very few people are up for reading all 180 pages in a document. So part of that process has to be making that information more accessible – so people don’t have to spend four hours reading it, but can identify what is involved.

He noted that some conversations are public – like when we have public hearings. But some of the conversations are one-on-one – like the conversations he’s had about the 4-3 lane conversion on Jackson Road as he’s gone door-to-door campaigning. Those are important conversations, too. He also pointed out that making decisions involves using multiple sources of information – public input and public perceptions being one source. Those types of information are actually vital, he said. But it’s also important to have expert opinion and expert analysis and really look at data.

Top Issue (Fuller Road Station)

Question: Is there one overriding issue that you would like to work on? [Vivienne Armentrout was the first respondent to the question, and she identified the proposed Fuller Road Station as one reason she'd been prompted to run for city council. So moderator Mike Henry asked the other candidates to try to share their thoughts on the Fuller Road Station as well.]  

Background: At its June 4, 2012 meeting, the city council accepted the award of a roughly $2.8 million federal grant to help fund a site-alternatives analysis for possible construction of a new train station. The Amtrak station is currently located on Depot Street, near the Broadway bridges. The site-alternatives analysis is meant to result in the confirmation of a locally-preferred alternative to be reviewed by the Federal Rail Administration. The preliminary locally-preferred alternative is a site on Fuller Road near the University of Michigan medical complex. That site preference is based on previous planning work, as well as work for which the city has already expended roughly $700,000 (which satisfies the 20% local match requirement of the FRA grant).

Previously, the University of Michigan and the city had a memorandum of understanding that would have led to the construction of a 1,000-space parking structure at the Fuller Road site, in conjunction with the train station. However, on Feb. 10, 2012, UM withdrew, for now, from a partnership on the project. The Fuller Road Station project has been controversial in part because the site is on land that’s part of the city’s Fuller Park. The area proposed for the train station has been a surface parking lot for many years.

By way of additional background on a specific issue Armentrout raised in her response, Amtrak has three routes in Michigan – the Pere Marquette, the Blue Water and the Wolverine. Ann Arbor residents will most likely be familiar with the Wolverine, which runs between Pontiac and Chicago via Detroit and makes a stop in Ann Arbor. Currently, the state of Michigan absorbs the operating subsidy (the difference between passenger fare revenues and costs) for the Pere Marquette and the Blue Water, while the Wolverine is subsidized on the federal level. The effect of the federal legislation to which Armentrout referred will be to transition the Wolverine to a state subsidy.

Michigan Dept. of Transportation communications officer Janet Foran responded to a Chronicle query by email as follows:

Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008 requires the states to agree on a costing methodology for all Amtrak trains running less than 750 miles in trip length.  Under PRIIA, states will be required to pay these costs and for Michigan that would include the cost of the Wolverine service beginning in FY 2014 (we already provide state support for the Blue Water and Pere Marquette).

If we do nothing, based on current estimates from Amtrak, our subsidy for the Wolverine service would be $14.2M (includes operating and capital charge) and $6.1M for the Blue Water and $3.5M for Pere Marquette services (both those numbers include operating and capital charge). Total cost to Michigan is $23.8M.  If we are able to make the improvements that enhance the service, our market analysis indicates there will be increases in both ridership and revenue, which will lower our subsidy.

Armentrout: There are broad issues, but as far as specific issues one of the things that motivated her to run for a seat on the city council is the proposal to build a new train station at the Fuller Road site. There are multiple reasons why she thinks that is very bad public policy: economic reasons; concerns about precedents that it sets for use of park property; a questionable need for such a station; the possibility it would actually diminish ridership (because it wouldn’t be convenient for people who are currently using the train to travel to Chicago); the lack of money to build it.

Further, she said, she does not believe that there will be trains running. She pointed to Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008, which will change the way that Amtrak will be funded. In the year 2014, the state of Michigan will need to absorb the cost of subsidizing the Wolverine Line – from Detroit to Chicago. There will not be federal funds anymore. We’re not currently working on a reality-based solution, she contended.

Warpehoski: In terms of his number one issue, he said, customer service is one thing he would like to see the city do a better job on.

He said he’s talked to a lot of people who’ve been trying to figure out how to solve some problem – get a pothole fixed or dealing with traffic on a residential street. And they don’t know how to get that information from the city. His own experience is that if you can find the right person, they will get things done – because we have a high-quality city staff. Out volunteering in his neighborhood park, people will ask him, for example, about a broken bench in a park on the north side of town.

If you know to talk to Amy Kuras, he said, she will make sure that it gets addressed by the right person. [Kuras is the city's park planner.] But if you don’t know to talk to Amy, he allowed, it can be a maddening experience. He noted that some of the people who are best in the world at customer service are in Ann Arbor – Zingerman’s [a collection of businesses, most famously a deli, which focuses heavily on the quality of its customer service]. And he thinks the city could do better. Though it’s not a flashy process, he feels that it’s an important one.

As far as the train station goes, he thinks the train station is important. He disagreed with Armentrout’s implication that the current station is very accessible. It’s actually difficult to get bus service to the station – to complete the last mile of the journey, he contended. Right now, there is a site selection process in place, and if the site that’s selected is the Fuller Road site, he feels it deserves a public vote – because it’s parkland, it’s a public good, and it deserves a public decision.

Closing Statements

Armentrout: She reiterated that she is running on her experience – but she is also looking to the future, she said. She felt the decisions will be made in the next few years that will affect the future of Ann Arbor. The name of her campaign blog, she said, is “Ann Arbor – It’s Where We Live.” She’d named it that, she explained, because she is trying to focus on a city government’s first job: To serve the residents and local businesses of Ann Arbor.

Armentrout wants to preserve the city as a place where we can live and have a good quality of life. That does not mean that she’s against change, she said. As Ward 2 incumbent Tony Derezinski had said (earlier in the forum), she pointed out that we have to “manage change.”

She wants to see city resources used for the benefit of those who live here. One example that illustrates her view would be the proposed conference center on the Library Lot – which was proposed as a broader economic development objective, not just for the benefit of local Ann Arbor residents and local businesses. That idea of a conference center was killed last year – but it has come up again, she said. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had commissioned a consultant study for its Connecting William Street project – and “just suddenly” a little report had been “spun off” about why we should have a conference center: “I’ve seen this movie before,” she quipped.

She said she’d been described as independent, and she felt that’s a pretty accurate description. Anybody who knows her knows that she’s pretty confident of her understanding of things, she said. Armentrout promised to be respectful and to judge issues on their merits.

Warpehoski: He thanked everyone for attending and for making an informed choice in the election. The way elections work out, he said, is that they end up being a discussion about candidates. He’s tried to share a little bit about himself with people – his strong Democratic values, environmental protection, commitment to a strong social safety net, his commitment to community service and to listening, as well as his experience in the neighborhood and community.

But fundamentally, he said, he does not believe that public service and elected office is about the candidate – rather, it’s about the community. That’s why the center of his campaign has been knocking on doors all across Ward 5, he said. And when he approaches the door he’s not starting with a commercial for himself. Instead he begins with a question: What’s on your mind about what’s going on in the city?

It’s been an education, he said, that he could not get any other way – listening to people at the doorstep about what is on their minds. For this election, people need to know that he has the values and skills to serve on the council, but fundamentally it’s about respecting the community and serving the community, he concluded.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council and other elections. 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!

Ward 4 Ann Arbor city council candidates Jack Eaton and Margie Teall. (Photos by the writer.)

This year’s Ward 4 race reprises the 2010 contest that Teall won over Eaton with 69% of the vote. Teall has served on the council since 2002 and is seeking her sixth two-year term on the 11-member council – which includes the mayor and two representatives from each of the city’s five wards. Democratic primaries are contested this year in just four of the five wards, as Christopher Taylor is unchallenged in Ward 3. The winner of the Ward 4 Democratic primary will likely not face an on-the-ballot opponent in November – because no Republican has filed and the deadline for independent candidates to file is July 19.

In his remarks on local policy issues, Eaton stressed what he called sensible spending priorities – support for fire and police protection. He framed his thoughts on local issues by pointedly listing out those things he supports, not things he opposes.

Among those things he supports: city parkland – and specifically a possible charter amendment that would require a public referendum on the long-term leasing of parkland (not just sale, as the charter currently reads). He also supports the idea of a park on top of the new underground parking garage. He supports rebuilding the police and fire departments, and spending the city’s street reconstruction tax to repair roads in a timely fashion. If elected, he said he’d support neighborhoods by being a voice for their concerns.

Eaton also stressed some beliefs that could be characterized as classic Democratic Party values – support for labor. He cited his profession as a union-side labor lawyer and indicated that he’d fight against the tools that Republican “bullies” in the state legislature are giving local municipalities to reduce benefits to their union workers.

For her part, Teall cited her own labor credentials by saying she had support from several local unions. She gave an implicit response to Eaton’s focus on fire and police protection by saying that public safety had been a priority since 2002 when she first was elected to council. She indicated that residents could expect to see a greater police presence downtown, as the city has implemented a police recruit program. She identified flooding as currently a top issue for Ward 4, but pointed to the reconstruction of the East Stadium bridges and securing funding for future demolition of the Georgetown Mall as points of progress.

Teall said the city budget is in the best shape it’s been in the time she has served on the city council. The overall theme Teall stressed was a desire to keep Ann Arbor on the track that it started down 10 years ago.

Tracks were part of the one main policy question candidates were asked to comment on – the idea of a new rail station possibly to be constructed at the Fuller Road site. Briefly, Teall thinks it’s an ideal location for a rail station, proximate to the University of Michigan medical center, while Eaton feels it reflects inappropriate spending priorities.

Aside from opening and closing statements, not a lot of specific local policy ground was covered by questions put to the candidates – due in part to a time constraint of about an hour for eight candidates. But the candidates did talk a great deal about issues of transparency and group dynamics on the city council – in response to the leadoff question from forum moderator Mike Henry, co-chair (with Anne Bannister) of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party.

Broadcast live earlier in the week on the Community Television Network was a local League of Women Voters candidate forum that included Eaton and Teall, which is available online.

The deadline to register to vote in the Aug. 7 primary has passed. Oct. 9 is the last day to register to vote for the Tuesday, Nov. 6 general election. Information on voter registration can be found on the Washtenaw County clerk’s elections division website. To see a sample ballot for your precinct, visit the Secretary of State’s website. The League of Women Voters also has an online voter information site – Vote411.org – which includes biographical information on some candidates, stances on issues, and a “build my ballot” feature.

Opening Statements

Teall: As she had said at the League of Women Voters forum earlier in the week, she is running for reelection in order to keep Ann Arbor on the track that it started down 10 years ago. She does believe that Ann Arbor is doing remarkably well. The city budget is in the best shape it’s been in the time she has served on the council, she said. The city is hiring firefighters and police again, she pointed out. And she contended that residents would see a greater presence of police downtown – because the bicycle patrols are starting up again.

A police recruit program has also been implemented, so we will see more police downtown, she said. At the same time, crime is at its lowest rate in 30 years. Some people have asked if we need more police, she said. It is a matter of perception, and it is important that Ann Arbor is perceived as a safe city. Over the years she has worked hard on many committees, she noted, including the environmental commission and the housing and human services advisory board, and the urban county board.

She’s also worked to address the many issues that Ward 4 faces, Teall said. One of those was the crumbling East Stadium bridges. That project is ahead of schedule, she said, and she was glad to see that State Street has been reopened. It’s great to see it, and she described it as a beautiful bridge. She also worked with state and county officials to secure a $1 million dollar grant for the Georgetown Mall demolition.

Eaton: He began by thanking the Democratic Party for holding the forum. He also thanked everyone in attendance for coming. He introduced himself as a union-side labor lawyer, a lifelong Democrat and a neighborhood activist. He’s running for city council to restore sensible priorities for the city budget. He brings a neighborhood point of view, he said.

He received the endorsement of the Sierra Club Huron Valley Group and the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter – the only environment organizations to make endorsements in city council races, he pointed out. He felt that the endorsement was based on his support for public parks. He supports the proposed amendment to the city charter that will require approval from voters before parkland is repurposed. He supports placing a park on top of the new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue.

Ward 4 residents tell him, he said, that city hall needs to focus on sensible priorities – like safety services, infrastructure, and public services. He supports rebuilding the police and fire staff, and using the accumulated street millage funds for the prompt repair of the city’s roads. He said he is a voice for sensible priorities. He’ll represent the neighborhoods and he will provide responsive leadership, he concluded.

Working as a Group

Question: As a member of a legislative body, one of the things you’ll be judged by is what you can accomplish as a group. There’ll be group dynamics and differences of opinion. Mike Henry’s question invited candidates to talk about how they would approach finding solutions amid that difference of opinion.

Background: Henry’s question implicitly recalled the sentiments of Democratic county clerk Larry Kestenbaum, who wrote as a citizen to the entire city council in the fall of 2011, roundly castigating councilmembers for decisions that resulted in the demolition of seven houses on South Fifth Avenue, to be replaced by two large apartment buildings (City Place). Kestenbaum had stressed the importance of working as a group: “A city council is not judged by the good intentions of its members. It is judged by what it accomplishes, or fails to accomplish, as a body.”

Teall: She said she appreciated what Ward 5 candidate Chuck Warpehoski had just said about the importance of assuming good intent. [Coverage of other candidate responses is included in separate reports.] It’s something that they should work toward as an organization, she said. She thinks the current city council actually does move things forward – though it takes time and a lot of patience. It also takes listening, she said.

Councilmembers do not stop people from speaking to them, and anyone is welcome to get in touch with them, Teall pointed out. Councilmembers themselves often do have phone conversations about issues and express their intent on issues. On the whole, she felt the council works things through pretty well. She gave credit to mayor John Hieftje for facilitating issues on the council.

There is a perception of a lot of bickering, she allowed, but she felt that councilmembers don’t bicker as much as what might be portrayed in the media – which trades on bickering, she said.

Moderator Mike Henry followed up by asking Teall if she felt that the city council always comes up with the best solution as a group. Teall said that it’s not always been the perfect solution, but yes. The city council represents a very diverse community, she said, and by going through a lot of public process – public hearings and community meetings – the council tries to move forward in the best direction for the whole city.

Eaton: Earlier, candidate for Ward 5 Chuck Warpehoski had suggested that an essential premise for working effectively as a group is to assume good intent. So Eaton suggested that we should also start with the premise that mostly the city council does work together – as most votes are unanimous or nearly unanimous.

However, it’s important that the council have a robust discussion in front of the public about those things that are of great importance, Eaton said. Examples of things of great importance are spending priorities: Should we spend our money on police and fire protection or on something else? Those kinds of issues require good and robust public discussion, he said. He pointed out that in the past, there was some snarkiness behind-the-scenes in e-mails, and that had been destructive to the overall relationship on the council. But public disagreement among councilmembers shouldn’t be characterized as bickering, he suggested.

Eaton noted that he is a labor lawyer by trade, and works in adversarial contexts. His talent, he said, is to work with people who don’t agree, to try to find common ground and to mediate things, and to build a lasting relationship. It’s not whether you win this argument or lose that argument, he explained, but rather about building a relationship that will last over time. It’s not bickering, but rather a negotiation in a search for common ground.

Moderator Mike Henry ventured that Eaton agreed with Teall, that the council is moving forward in an orderly fashion. Eaton cheerfully objected to having words put in his mouth. Eaton clarified that he believes there is a majority on the council that comes to meetings with a predetermined outcome. And that meant that the discussion that happens is too late, and the public hearing that happens is too late – because the decision has already been made.

Eaton said that on those matters where there is not unanimous agreement on the council, councilmembers need to drag that discussion out into the public, and that discussion needs to take place after the public expresses its feelings at the podium. So he did not agree with Teall on that issue, he concluded.

Transparency

In their responses to the question about working as a group, moderator Mike Henry picked up on the mention of transparency by Ward 2 candidate Sally Petersen and Ward 1 candidate Sumi Kailasapathy. Henry asked those who are currently on the city council – Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – how they felt about the current level of transparency. Ward 1 candidate Eric Sturgis made clear that he, and perhaps Vivienne Armentrout (Ward 5 candidate), also wanted to respond to that question. So some other candidates had a go at the question, too – but it didn’t come back around to Eaton.

Teall: She feels there is a great deal of transparency on the city council. We live in a society that includes not just men and women but also rules and regulations – and part of that in a representative democracy is that representatives are elected to the city council. [Teall used the phrase "men and women" because Ward 1 candidate Sumi Kailasapathy had suggested – in support of the idea of creating an ethics policy for the city council – that democracy is "not about men and women," but rather about rules and regulations.]

The RFP (request for proposals) review process for the Library Lot, Teall said, was very open and transparent: “I don’t know how many times I can say that, and people will still say that it wasn’t.” There were public meetings throughout, and there were no closed meetings – it was all open. She feels that the council does a pretty good job. It is much more transparent now, she allowed, than when she began her service on the city council. The neighborhood meetings that developers are now required to conduct is an example of that, and those meetings have been very successful. The public participation meeting is a required part of the development process now, she pointed out.

Teall felt that people often have issues with the fact that properties are owned by people, and we can’t tell the owners of the property what to do with their property. Moderator Mike Henry followed up by asking Teall why she thinks people say they still perceive that there’s a lack of transparency. Her answer: “I think it serves their interests.”

Top Issue (Fuller Road Station)

Question: Is there one overriding issue that you would like to work on? [Ward 5 candidate Vivienne Armentrout was the first respondent to the question, and she identified the proposed Fuller Road Station as one reason she'd been prompted to run for city council. So moderator Mike Henry asked the other candidates to try to share their thoughts on the Fuller Road Station as well.]

Background: At its June 4, 2012 meeting, the city council accepted the award of a roughly $2.8 million federal grant to help fund a site-alternatives analysis for possible construction of a new train station. The Amtrak station is currently located on Depot Street, near the Broadway bridges. The site-alternatives analysis is meant to result in the confirmation of a locally-preferred alternative to be reviewed by the Federal Rail Administration. The preliminary locally-preferred alternative is a site on Fuller Road near the University of Michigan medical complex. That site preference is based on previous planning work, as well as work for which the city has already expended roughly $700,000 (which satisfies the 20% local match requirement of the FRA grant).

Previously, the University of Michigan and the city had a memorandum of understanding that would have led to the construction of a 1,000-space parking structure at the Fuller Road site, in conjunction with the train station. However, on Feb. 10, 2012, UM withdrew, for now, from a partnership on the project. The Fuller Road Station project has been controversial in part because the site is on land that’s part of the city’s Fuller Park. The area proposed for the train station has been a surface parking lot for many years.

Teall: She said she could not identify only one issue citywide, but for Ward 4 it would be to try to solve the flooding problems. She said she did not realize until recently that the footing drain disconnect program actually goes back to the 1990s, when there were hundreds of houses and people who were affected. That’s been significantly reduced due to the footing drain disconnect program, she said. But there is still a lot of work to do. She has learned about the extraordinary expense to actually replace all the infrastructure.

[The footing drain disconnect program aims to ensure that stormwater flow does not enter the city's sanitary system unnecessarily. In the course of developing some areas of the city, the footing drains of buildings were connected to the city's sanitary sewer system. That led to backups of raw sewage into some people's basements. The disconnection program aims to sever the connection between footing drains and the sanitary sewer system, and to connect the drains instead to the city's stormwater system. Chronicle coverage of the footing drain disconnect program is included in a May 2011 report on downtown planning.

This spring, the Ann Arbor city council has heard public commentary during its meetings on overland stormwater flow problems in the Churchill Downs neighborhood, which is part of Ward 4 – the ward that Teall and Eaton are competing to represent.]

As far as the train station goes, Teall supports an effort to relocate and build a new transit station in Ann Arbor. She feels that the current Amtrak station is not adequate – because she doesn’t feel that parking is adequate there. She does not support putting a new train station on the MichCon site [near the current location of the Amtrak site on Depot Street near the Broadway bridges], because she wants to see a beautiful park there on the riverfront. She thinks that the Fuller Road site is a perfect spot for a rail station.

Teall stated that 24,000 people a day come into work at the University of Michigan hospitals, so to help accommodate that and to take cars off the highway would be a very good thing, she said. She thinks that the funding will eventually be there for the station construction. She felt that it would not cost the city much to have what she thinks will be a world-class train station.

Eaton: He began by saying that he did not feel that any of the candidates had run on a single issue. But if he had to pick his top issue, then it would be the city’s spending priorities. That’s a very broad-based issue, he noted. When you have a $79 million general fund budget, you have to allocate that money based on priorities.

Eaton’s priority is public safety. This year, the city has started to rebuild its police and fire departments – partly through a SAFER grant, which came, he believed, from the state. The SAFER grant will allow more firefighters to be hired, Eaton said, but the city had not received the COPS grant it had applied for.

[The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program is a federally funded program. The announcement of Ann Arbor's grant came on May 30, 2012. The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program is also a federal program. Both grant applications factored into deliberations by the city council on the FY 2013 budget.]

So we’re back to having to make hard decisions in the budget, Eaton concluded. He does not believe that closing fire stations will remedy the fire department’s response time issue.

[The city has six stations, one of which was closed several years ago – Station #2. The proposal to which Eaton was referring is a plan to re-open Station #2, but to close Stations #4 and #6, using just Stations #1, #2, and #5. For Chronicle coverage of the proposal, including maps of how the coverage is proposed to work, see "A Closer Look at Ann Arbor's Fire Station Plan." The city is currently accepting feedback on the proposal. Emailed comments can be sent to feedback@a2gov.org with the subject line "Fire Proposal."]

Budget priorities have to accommodate the fact that we have a very tight budget, Eaton said. We shouldn’t be spending millions of dollars on an Amtrak station when we believe we can’t afford to re-fund our police and fire departments, he concluded.

Closing Statements

Eaton: He began his closing statement by saying, “I’m a Democrat.” He feels that if someone runs or serves in local office as a Democrat, they should be active in the local Democratic Party [an implicit contrast between himself and Teall, who by many accounts is not active in the local organization.]. He said he had been active and would continue to be active in the Ann Arbor Democratic Party.

He’s a labor lawyer, and he believes that the labor movement is at the front line of the “war that the Republicans are waging on the middle class.” As a councilmember, Eaton would not accept the help that the bullies in the Republican legislature are giving local municipalities. We have to recognize the value of our employees, he said. [Among that "help" is legislation limiting the amount that public employers can contribute to their employees' health care. The sentiment expressed by Eaton was echoed at a recent board meeting of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, as some board members were reluctant to pass a resolution that reduced the AATA contributions to employee health care costs – arguing that just because the state had given them a hammer, that did not mean they had to use it against their employees.]

He’s a neighborhood activist, Eaton continued. Residents in Ward 4 neighborhoods want sensible priorities, he said – public safety, infrastructure and public services. Ann Arbor is a special town, he said. It’s the city council’s obligation to protect and preserve what’s great about the town while we address the fiscal problems that are upon us. It’s time to rebuild our city services – police and fire protection. He would fight to keep all the fire stations open, he said. We need to pay more prompt attention to repairing our roads. We need to develop a plan to address neighborhood flooding, he said. We’ve known since 1997 that the Lawton neighborhood needs relief from the flooding problem.

Teall: She thanked the Ann Arbor Democratic Party for hosting the event, and her supporters. She also appreciated the support of several local unions. She felt that the city needs to address both change and how to move forward. In supporting both businesses and neighborhoods, part of that is certainly economic development, she said. It’s important to have density downtown, to support businesses downtown. She said that all of the merchants are very appreciative of what the city is trying to do for business.

[Teall's remarks about the importance of economic development came after Ward 5 candidate Vivienne Armentrout had just previously criticized a proposal for a conference center on top of the Library Lot as responding to broader economic development objectives, instead of the needs of local Ann Arbor residents and local businesses. The council had voted on April 4, 2011 to end the RFP review process for the top of the new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. That decision came after a committee had selected a proposal for a hotel/conference center by Valiant Partners as the preferred proposal among six that had been submitted. Teall voted against the termination of the review process.]

As far as the city’s budget priorities, safety services were prioritized starting in 2002 when Teall first was elected to the city council, she said. It’s always been a priority, but it hasn’t been easy – it hasn’t been easy in a time of recession to build safety services, she said. But the city has managed to do that, she contended. The fact that the city is hiring in both the police and fire departments is reflective of how strong the city’s budget actually is. She wants to keep the city moving forward in a collaborative manner with all city councilmembers.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council and other elections. 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!

Ward 2 Ann Arbor city council candidates Sally Petersen and Tony Derezinski. (Photos by the writer.)

Derezinski has served on the council since winning election in 2008 and is seeking a third two-year term on the 11-member council – which includes the mayor and two representatives from each of the city’s five wards. Democratic primaries are contested this year in just four of the five wards, as Christopher Taylor is unchallenged in Ward 3. The winner of the Democratic primary in Ward 2 will likely not face an on-the-ballot opponent in November, because no Republican has filed and the deadline for independent candidates to file is July 19.

Contested Ward 2 Democratic primaries are somewhat of a rarity in Ann Arbor. When Derezinski won the primary against Stew Nelson in 2008 with 60% of the vote, the seat was coming open – because Ward 2 incumbent Democrat Joan Lowenstein opted to run for judge of the 15th District Court (a race won by Chris Easthope, a former city councilmember). Derezinski was not challenged in the 2010 Democratic primary, but faced Libertarian Emily Salvette in the November general election that year, winning with 79% of the vote.

In her remarks about herself, Petersen stressed her significant business experience, and mentioned her MBA degree. Locally, she’s worked in senior marketing positions in the private sector for companies like CFI Group and ABN AMRO Mortgage Group. That experience led her to take customer-satisfaction as a principle that could be applied to local government – but she assured attendees at the forum that she did not want to try to run government like a business.

Petersen described her family upbringing as civic-minded, and cited her volunteer experience in Ann Arbor – as board member at the Neutral Zone, president of the Tappan Middle School PTSO, and secretary of the Huron High School Athletic Booster Club. She said she would bring a fresh voice and a fresh agenda to the council.

Derezinski appeared to chafe at Petersen’s description of herself as a fresh voice – raising the possibility that she’s alluding to his age. He ventured that the contrast he offered to a fresh voice was one of “seasoning.” He cited 40 years of experience in municipal law, an area he feels is relevant to city council service. He pointed to his service on the city council as the council’s representative to the city planning commission. He also serves on the public art commission.  When he first ran for office, his slogan was: “Let’s make our great community even better,” and he said he wanted to continue his service, to make the community even better.

Aside from opening and closing statements, not a lot of specific local policy ground was covered by questions put to the candidates – due in part to a time constraint of about an hour for eight candidates. But the candidates did talk a great deal about issues of transparency and group dynamics on the city council – in response to the leadoff question from forum moderator Mike Henry, co-chair (with Anne Bannister) of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party.

For Petersen and Derezinski, the evolution of candidate remarks moderated by Henry revealed a difference of opinion between the two about inclusiveness and the adequacy of outward- and inward-bound communication. Derezinski was keen to stress the importance of being active in the local Democratic Party (to contrast himself with Petersen who has not been active in the local party) and the importance of electing Democratic candidates to the city council. That view appeared inconsistent with the one Derezinski had expressed at a local League of Women Voters forum held earlier in the week. At the LWV forum, he’d said that he’d be in favor of getting rid of the partisan aspect of Ann Arbor city elections – and conduct local elections in a non-partisan way like the vast majority of other Michigan cities do.

The deadline to register to vote in the Aug. 7 primary has passed. Oct. 9 is the last day to register to vote for the Tuesday, Nov. 6 general election. Information on voter registration can be found on the Washtenaw County clerk’s elections division website. To see a sample ballot for your precinct, visit the Secretary of State’s website. The League of Women Voters also has an online voter information site – Vote411.org – which includes biographical information on some candidates, stances on issues, and a “build my ballot” feature.

Opening Statements

Derezinski: He pointed attendees to the campaign literature table at the back of the room where his pamphlet was available. What he is stressing in his campaign, he said, is his experience. What is the experience that is relevant to serving on the city council? Frankly, he said from his point of view, he practiced law for 40 years and his specialty was municipal law. He completed courses in municipal law at the University of Michigan law school, and then when he returned from service in Vietnam, he went back to school and got a master of laws degree in municipal government.

After that Derezinski practiced law in Muskegon and Grand Rapids, and then in Ann Arbor. He represented local municipalities in his practice, he said. When he first ran for office, his slogan was: “Let’s make our great community even better.” The last four years he has served on the city planning commission and the public art commission. He’s been very active in trying to plan for the future. He feels the city is at a “threshold point,” and said he would like to continue his service to make our great community even better.

Petersen: She offered her thanks to the Democratic Party for hosting the event and to her supporters in the audience. She thinks it’s time for a fresh voice in a fresh agenda that resonates with Ward 2 residents. She said she’s a lifelong Democrat, with significant business experience and an MBA. She has skills that are not currently represented on the city council, she said.

She comes from a very civic-minded family, she said, growing up in Massachusetts – so she’s a “Massachusetts Democrat.” Her father was an Episcopal priest and a civil rights activist, and he demonstrated the value of living a life dedicated to community service. She’s carried on that commitment throughout her life, she said, including the last 16 years she’s been in Ann Arbor. During that time she spent about eight years in the private sector working in senior marketing positions for companies like CFI Group and ABN AMRO Mortgage Group. She also has volunteered significantly in the community throughout her time in Ann Arbor, Petersen said. She is currently a board member at the Neutral Zone, president of the Tappan Middle School PTSO, and secretary of the Huron High School Athletic Booster Club.

A major focus of her career has been customer satisfaction, and that translates to her desire to be a great representative and responsive voice for Ward 2 residents, Petersen said. The more satisfied our residents are, the more likely they are to invest their time and resources in our city. She wants to bring her community experience to the city council table.

Working as a Group

Question: As a member of a legislative body, one of the things you’ll be judged by is what you can accomplish as a group. There’ll be group dynamics and differences of opinion. Mike Henry’s question invited candidates to talk about how they would approach finding solutions amid that difference of opinion.

Background: Henry’s question implicitly recalled  the sentiments of Democratic county clerk Larry Kestenbaum, who wrote as a citizen to the entire city council in the fall of 2011, roundly castigating councilmembers for decisions that resulted in the demolition of seven houses on South Fifth Avenue, to be replaced by two large apartment buildings (City Place). Kestenbaum had stressed the importance of working as a group: “A city council is not judged by the good intentions of its members. It is judged by what it accomplishes, or fails to accomplish, as a body.”

Derezinski: He noted that he’d recently discussed with Mike Anglin – a Ward 5 councilmember who was also in attendance at the forum – the idea of bringing civility to the council. Civility is what makes the council function, he said – respecting each other and never taking away someone’s dignity. Every point of view has to be considered, he said. He believes in compromise, because too often things become competitive. Too often it is “I win and you lose.” We have to get away from that in politics and get back to the idea of working together, he said.

When he served in the state legislature, Derezinski recalled, both houses were controlled by the Democrats, but the governor was Republican William Milliken. Still, they had done a lot of good work at that time, he said, passing the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act. They had also passed a consumer protection act. They had done that through compromise, he said, and it had worked.

As a local example, Derezinski gave the example of Argo Cascades, which he characterized as a great success. Do you keep the river open, or do you close it and use it for recreation? The compromise was that the city found a way to do both. Other examples he gave of local collaboration included the cooperation among four communities along Washtenaw Avenue for the Reimagining Washtenaw Project. He reiterated that what he brings is collaboration – to make our great community even better.

Petersen: She wanted to expand on the theme of collaboration, having listened to the remarks from the other seven candidates. She cautioned that there are risks to collaboration – and one of those risks is communication that is not transparent. The other risk to successful collaboration is a lack of trust.

Petersen then introduced the idea of an ethics policy. She had been asked recently whether she thought the city needed an ethics policy. At first, she wondered why we would need a policy on the local level. If you simply know who has high standards for personal conduct, you elect them to office, she ventured. You shouldn’t have to worry about ethics at the local level, she said. However, good people who are elected to office have to deal with complex issues, she noted. Sometimes, conflicts of interests come up requiring recusal and disclosure, and that’s the reality of the city council.

Having an ethics policy would give clarity and guidance about how to make those tough decisions – and those tough decisions will need to be made, she said. It’s easy to say that we will all just collaborate and get along together. But the reality is a lot more difficult than that. Having guidelines, she felt, would instill trust in government among all stakeholders.

Transparency

Moderator Mike Henry then picked up on the mention of transparency by Petersen and Ward 1 candidate Sumi Kailasapathy. Henry asked those who are currently on the city council – Derezinski and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – how they felt about the current level of transparency. Eric Sturgis, a Ward 1 candidate, made clear that he and perhaps Vivienne Armentrout, a candidate for Ward 5, also wanted to respond to that question. Several of the candidates had a go at the question.

Derezinski: Transparency is important, he said. He noted that he was involved with the passing of the state’s Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act back in the 1970s. Beyond those legal requirements, he said, there is an additional good-faith requirement to the community. He described the city’s website as tremendous. He noted that it is possible to track every project that comes before the city planning commission. Using websites is the new way to get information, he said.

In addition to that, he said, just about every councilmember has a website that tries to convey information. [Elected in 2008, Derezinski's website was launched just this year, on Feb. 19, 2012. Petersen had taken out nominating petitions on Feb. 2. When asked by The Chronicle in a telephone interview, Petersen recalled that she had discussed her intention to seek a seat on the council with Ward 3 councilmember Christopher Taylor in late December or January. Derezinski's inaugural post reads in part: "Look for lots of new content in the coming weeks! ... The City Council section will include matters that are being discussed and decided in the various Commissions and Committees and other entities I serve on ..." As of July 18, that section as well as a section on Ward 2 includes only placeholders: "More information coming soon."]

Derezinski also said councilmembers need to have ward meetings. He said he’d had four or five of these meetings already – one at Paesano’s restaurant and one at his house. When there are issues coming up, it’s very important to go out into the neighborhoods and to talk to people about those issues, he said. It’s also important to work with the neighborhood associations, he said. That’s important for government, and that’s what gives you faith in government.

Petersen: She asked moderator Mike Henry for an opportunity to address the issue of transparency as well: “With all due respect, Tony … I’ve never been invited to a ward event …” The message is not getting out, she said. Transparency really is a two-way street, she cautioned. We need to think about how information gets from constituents back to the city, not just from the city out to residents. She wants to make sure that the city council is cognizant of being good representatives of the voices of the people they are representing.

Derezinski: Invited to respond to Petersen by moderator Mike Henry, Derezinski seemed irritated. He contended that “My ward meetings are advertised, including on Democratic Party things – so if you’ve been an active Democrat, you would know about it.” [Anne Bannister, co-chair of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party, indicated to The Chronicle in a telephone interview that she had included notices of some of Derezinski's meetings in an email blast that she sends out.]

In addition, Derezinski continued, he saw some people in the audience who have been to his home more than once, giving Harvey and Nancy Kaplan as examples. Transparency is incredibly important, he said. He’d had a lot of meetings with groups, he said – at Thurston Elementary school for example. Besides him, who’d been there? he asked rhetorically. “A lot of Democrats” was his answer. If someone went to those meetings, he said, they would have seen him there talking about issues.

When the non-motorized path was put in alongside Washtenaw Avenue, he said, he held a meeting at someone’s home, because that was a controversial issue. You have to be available and work on those issues, he said, and he loves doing that. They had a lot of meetings for the Re-Imagining Washtenaw Avenue project, and those are all noticed to the public. If you’re watching public issues and if you’re really attuned to what’s going on in Ann Arbor, you would have known about his meetings, he concluded.

Top Issue

Question: Is there one overriding issue that you would like to work on? [Ward 5 candidate Vivienne Armentrout was the first respondent to the question, and she identified the proposed Fuller Road Station as one reason she'd been prompted to run for city council. So moderator Mike Henry asked the other candidates to try to share their thoughts on the Fuller Road station as well.]

Background: At its June 4, 2012 meeting, the city council accepted the award of a roughly $2.8 million federal grant to help fund a site-alternatives analysis for possible construction of a new train station. The Amtrak station is currently located on Depot Street, near the Broadway bridges. The site-alternatives analysis is meant to result in the confirmation of a locally-preferred alternative to be reviewed by the Federal Rail Administration. The preliminary locally-preferred alternative is a site on Fuller Road near the University of Michigan medical complex. That site preference is based on previous planning work, as well as work for which the city has already expended roughly $700,000 (which satisfies the 20% local match requirement of the FRA grant).

Previously, the University of Michigan and the city had a memorandum of understanding that would have led to the construction of a 1,000-space parking structure at the Fuller Road site, in conjunction with the train station. However, on Feb. 10, 2012, UM withdrew, for now, from a partnership on the project. The Fuller Road Station project has been controversial in part because the site is on land that’s part of the city’s Fuller Park. The area proposed for the train station has been a surface parking lot for many years.

Derezinski: The main issue, he contended, is how to manage change. Change is inevitable. We are at a real threshold in Ann Arbor right now, he said, about what kind of community we want to be. What is the shared vision of the community? We’re making decisions right now that will affect us for generations to come – and our children are going to benefit, as will our grandchildren. That’s a tough thing that the city council faces, he said. There are differences of opinion on where we are going, but you can’t deny the forces of change. The community’s demographics are changing, he said. By the year 2014, one third of residents will be over 65 years old, he noted. At the same time, we are trying to attract young people to keep the downtown vibrant. The question is how we do that in a reasonable way.

As far as the rail station, he agreed with Margie Teall, the Ward 4 incumbent who had suggested locating it near the University of Michigan hospital, which is a major employer for the city of Ann Arbor. It makes sense to have a train station near there, he said, so that people can walk from the station right across a pedestrian bridge to work. He had asked the mayor of Dearborn, when he attended a groundbreaking ceremony for that city’s new train station, how long it took to get to that point. And the mayor had told him: 12 years. Those are the kinds of decisions that Ann Arbor needs to start making now, Derezinski concluded.

Petersen: Her top issue, she said, is going to be defined by the residents of Ward 2. As she has been knocking on doors, she’s been asking everyone what their top three issues are. The top issue – though it changes on a day-to-day basis – has been fiscal sustainability. That means looking at the budget, she said, and really trying to make sure that it is rigorous and that it serves us well in the short term and the long term.

The second thing is schools – improving collaboration with the University Michigan and the Ann Arbor public schools. Ward 2 has a lot of families with young children, mostly in middle school and high school, she explained. Third is improving the delivery of constituent services – roads and all the other things that she and other candidates have been talking about. So, as far as her top issue is concerned, her goal is to be the voice of her constituents. One brief example of an idea she gave was to look at city of Ann Arbor parks and recreation and the public school system’s Rec & Ed. She felt that the recreation portion of those programs could be combined, and economies of scale could be found.

[Petersen did not address the issue of a rail station at Fuller Road within the time limit allotted. However, at the League of Women Voters forum earlier in the week, she'd indicated that if federal money were to become available, she felt that an expansion of the existing station at its current location would be preferable.]

Closing Statements

Petersen: A key component of her campaign, she said, is to differentiate herself based on her business expertise. But she wanted to be clear that it’s not her intention to try to run the city government like you run a business. If you disconnect constituents from the government, they would be disenfranchised, she cautioned.

Instead, Petersen said she would use her business skills to ensure that our local government delivers services equitably and fairly – in two ways. The first way is with respect to budgets. She has served on several boards and committees, she said. She has had responsibility for building budgets and she feels very comfortable in dealing with budgets. She’s currently serving on the Neutral Zone’s board, she said. And she’d identified an accounting irregularity – “board giving” had been double-counted. So the Neutral Zone had to restate its financial statements for the prior year, and they’d reshaped how they report that in the future. With the Tappan PTSO, she had freed up about $20,000 in unallocated capital reserves, she said.

Besides her business experience, the other common thread, Petersen said, is customer service. She wants to be the voice of constituents. What people could expect from her, if elected, is that she would be a trustworthy and responsible steward of tax dollars. She’d bring a strong work ethic, and she’d be someone who would respond to their phone calls and e-mails. She would be a positive and energetic collaborator.

Derezinski: He noted that Petersen had emphasized that she is a “fresh voice.” What does the word “fresh” connote on the other side? he asked. It could be age, he ventured, but it could also be “seasoning.” Or it could be “experience.” That’s what he thinks he is bringing to the table. He is seasoned and he has a lot of experience in government, he said – both at the state and the local levels. Some of the legislation he helped pass as a state legislator is very relevant to the work of a local government.

He said he has represented a number of municipal governments across the state. That’s what he brings to the table – a specific education in municipal government in 40 years of experience practicing in that area of law. In addition, he said he comes to voters as a Democrat – and “Democrats are family.” He was one of eight children, he said, and at the age of seven he became the man of the family when his father died. They were a family that had “joyful fights,” he said, just like the Democrats do. They disagree with each other, but they never lose that abiding faith with each other.

There’s a need to see dignity in everyone, and that’s why he’s been a Democrat all his life, he said. When he arrived in Ann Arbor he got involved in the party right away. He said he’s gone door-to-door with people on campaigns, and he needs people’s help now. He’d like to run as a Democrat, to keep the Democratic Party in office, he said.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council and other elections. 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!

Ward 1 Ann Arbor city council candidates Sumi Kailasapathy and Eric Sturgis. (Photos by the writer.)

This is the second time that Kailasapathy has run for city council. In 2010 she challenged incumbent Sandi Smith, and received 45% of the vote – the best  showing of any challenger to an incumbent that year. This year, Smith chose not to seek a third two-year term on the 11-member council – which includes the mayor and two representatives from each of the city’s five wards. Democratic primaries are contested this year in just four of the five wards, as Christopher Taylor is unchallenged in  Ward 3.

The winner of the Democratic primary in Ward 1 will likely not face an on-the-ballot opponent in November. No Republican is running, and the deadline for independent candidates to file is July 19.

In remarks about himself, Sturgis stressed his continued connection to the Ann Arbor public school system, having grown up in Ann Arbor attending public schools. He emphasized that he has a positive attitude about Ann Arbor, which is appropriate, he says, because Ann Arbor has been rated as one of the best places to live in the country. He stressed the importance of having a positive vision.

Sturgis also highlighted his endorsements, which include three former Ward 1 councilmembers, as well as outgoing Ward 1 councilmember Sandi Smith. But he highlighted the fact that mayor John Hieftje has not endorsed him, analyzing that as a positive – because that means he wouldn’t be indebted to Hieftje. Sturgis is relatively sanguine about the condition of the city’s budget – to the point that he dismissed Kailasapathy’s concerns about debt and unfunded liabilities by pointing to the slight surplus the city enjoyed in the most recent fiscal year.

Kailasapathy took Sturgis’ remark on debt as an opportunity to draw on her professional experience – as a college educator – to give a short lesson on the difference between income/revenue statements (which Sturgis was talking about) and balance sheets (which show the city’s debt). In her opening remarks, she also stressed her education and her professional training as a certified public account.

Kailasapathy told the audience that she wants to focus on core services and the preservation of neighborhoods and parks. She allowed that she brings a skepticism to government and she would be asking lots of questions.

Candidates were asked to comment on one main policy issue – the idea of a new rail station possibly to be constructed at a site on Fuller Road. Sturgis held in abeyance his view about the proper location of a new rail station, pending the outcome of a site alternatives analysis that is currently being conducted. Kailasapathy’s view, expressed at an earlier forum, is that a voter referendum should be held if the Fuller Road site is used for a train station – because the site is designated as city parkland.

Aside from opening and closing statements, not a lot of specific local policy ground was covered by questions put to the candidates – due in part to a time constraint of about an hour for all eight candidates. But the candidates did talk a great deal about issues of transparency and group dynamics on the city council, in response to the leadoff question from forum moderator Mike Henry, co-chair (with Anne Bannister) of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party.

Broadcast live earlier in the week on the Community Television Network was a local League of Women Voters candidate forum that included Kailasapathy and Sturgis, which is available online.

The deadline to register to vote in the Aug. 7 primary has passed. Oct. 9 is the last day to register to vote for the Tuesday, Nov. 6 general election. Information on voter registration can be found on the Washtenaw County clerk’s elections division website. To see a sample ballot for your precinct, visit the Secretary of State’s website. The League of Women Voters also has an online voter information site – Vote411.org – which includes biographical information on some candidates, stances on issues, and a “build my ballot” feature.

Opening Statements

Kailasapathy: She introduced herself as a CPA who works downtown. She taught at Eastern Michigan University before embarking on her current career, she said. Her main priority is to focus on core services – to ensure that they are funded. She also stressed the preservation of neighborhoods and parks. That is a recurrent theme that she hears as she goes door-to-door, she reported – that people keep saying Ann Arbor’s quality of life is not measured just by how high we can build, but also by how well our parks and neighborhoods are preserved.

Another issue she’s focusing on – as a CPA, and as an economist – is the ballooning unfunded liability of retirement benefits and the city’s debt. Debt service has increased about 50% in the last five years, she said. She said she wanted to respond to the idea that she would be asking questions as a councilmember. Yes, she said, she would be asking questions. That is her professional and academic training. She brings a healthy sense of skepticism to government, she said. And that is the reason we have three branches of government, she said. If we don’t want to ask questions, we can just have the city administration as our government.

Sturgis: He offered his thanks to the organizers and to everyone for coming out. He told attendees that he attended Northside Elementary School, Clague Middle School, and Ann Arbor Huron High School, concluding with “Go Rats!” [Huron High athletic teams are known as the River Rats.] He noted that he continues to be active in the school system and gives money to Huron High school athletics to help kids who cannot afford the pay-to-play fees or the equipment – that’s something that’s near and dear to his heart.

Sturgis grew up with a single mother with his grandparents in the house that his grandfather built. That’s where he is living now, he said. He wants to bring a positive vision to the city. Something he recently read is that Ann Arbor is rated one of the best places to retire in the nation and one of the best places to live in the nation. To him, he said, Ann Arbor is doing something right, if it is receiving all of these accolades. So the city needs a positive vision. We need to support maintenance of our parks, our neighborhoods and we also need to support our police and fire departments.

What is important in the Ward 1 race, Sturgis said, is that he’s the only candidate who has the endorsement of three former Ward 1 city councilmembers and the current city councilmember representing Ward 1 [Sandi Smith]. He said he has also been endorsed by the Washtenaw County Building Trades Labor Organization. His roots are here in Ann Arbor, he said, and he wants to bring a positive vision to the city and to Ward 1.

Working as a Group

Question: As a member of a legislative body, one of the things you’ll be judged by is what you can accomplish as a group. There’ll be group dynamics and differences of opinion. Mike Henry’s question invited candidates to talk about how they would approach finding solutions amid that difference of opinion.

Background: Henry’s question implicitly recalled  the sentiments of Democratic county clerk Larry Kestenbaum, who wrote as a citizen to the entire city council in the fall of last year, roundly castigating councilmembers for decisions that resulted in the demolition of seven houses on South Fifth Avenue, to be replaced by two large apartment buildings (City Place). Kestenbaum had stressed the importance of working as a group: “A city council is not judged by the good intentions of its members. It is judged by what it accomplishes, or fails to accomplish, as a body.”

Sturgis: He feels that listening is very important. It’s also important to be open-minded and not have your mind made up or to be “indebted to people” for their views. If you come into a decision indebted to people or with your mind made up, then you’re not going to listen to what others say, he explained. He said he is open-minded and does not have his mind made up. He wants to listen to what people say on every issue. He said he would hold community meetings once a month. He would reach out and bring in those people who are involved.

He’s done a lot of work in adversarial contexts, Sturgis said. When he was at Oakland University, he worked on the Rochester Historical Commission – six Republicans and himself, the one lone Democrat. He was elected treasurer of the commission over a Republican, and on that commission he brought two sides together, he said. When he coached high school tennis and had to cut kids from the team, he tried to work with parents on those issues.

He characterized himself as independent-minded and open-minded, as someone who will listen to people. He would not come in with an attitude of “This is what has to be done.” He’s not indebted to anybody, he said, noting that mayor John Hieftje has not endorsed him. It’s important to have somebody who is open-minded and willing to listen to the people, he said.

Kailasapathy: She indicated agreement with the response from Sally Petersen, a Ward 2 candidate, which included support for an ethics policy. Democracy is not about men and women, Kailasapathy said, but rather about rules and regulations. The more we have rules and regulations to guide us, the less chance there is to make mistakes or take the wrong turn, she said.

Transparency is a big issue for her, too, she said. How much information are we willing to put out before a decision is made? She really felt that a couple of years ago, decisions were made behind the scenes about whether there was going to be a conference center on top of the South Fifth Avenue underground parking garage. And then a proposal for a conference center was brought forward, and people were asked: Would you like a conference center there? That’s not transparency, she contended.

People should not be given choices, she said, but rather the choices themselves should be generated by the public. It’s important to listen carefully and not make a mockery out of public debate, she said: Public debate should be public. From her professional background, she said, she brings a concept of “drilling down.” If you don’t have enough information and it doesn’t make any sense, then drill down. That itself will bring people together, she said.

[By way of brief background on the conference center to which Kailasapathy alluded, the council had voted on April 4, 2011 to end the RFP (request for proposals) review process for the top of the new underground parking garage. That decision came after a committee had selected a proposal for a hotel/conference center by Valiant Partners as the preferred proposal among six that had been submitted to the city.]

Transparency

Moderator Mike Henry then picked up on the mention of transparency by Kailasapathy and Ward 2 candidate Sally Petersen. Henry asked those who are currently on the city council – Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – how they felt about the current level of transparency. Sturgis made clear that he, and perhaps Ward 5 candidate Vivienne Armentrout, also wanted to respond to that question. Several of the candidates had a go at the question.

Sturgis: He gave the example of the 618 S. Main project, which he described as including a total of eight public and community meetings. There were many opportunities for the public to give their opinion, and to meet councilmembers. And there was overwhelming support for the project, he said. He also noted that every council meeting is televised and replayed. There’s easy access to the city budget, he said – electronically and in physical form. It is also important to have ward meetings.

But when you’re financially supported by people who try to “pay the city off” to just have a park on the Library Lot, that isn’t transparent, he contended. That stifles competition, he said.

[By way of background, one of the six proposals that came in response to the city's RFP for the top of the underground parking garage was from Dahlmann Apartments Ltd. for a project called Ann Arbor Town Square, which would have consisted of a park-like amenity. Part of the proposal was a $2.5 million payment to the city.]

Sturgis returned to the point that typically numerous meetings are held about projects and input is solicited from the public. He agreed with remarks from Chuck Warpehoski (a Ward 5 candidate) and Margie Teall (the incumbent Ward 4 candidate) when they said that a basic premise is that everybody here is doing this for the right reason. He feels that Ann Arbor’s city government is one of the most transparent governments in Michigan.

Top Issue (Fuller Road Station)

Question: Is there one overriding issue that you would like to work on? [Ward 5 candidate Vivienne Armentrout was the first respondent to the question, and she identified the proposed Fuller Road Station as one reason she'd been prompted to run for city council. So moderator Mike Henry asked the other candidates to try to share their thoughts on the Fuller Road station as well.]

Background: At its June 4, 2012 meeting, the city council accepted the award of a roughly $2.8 million federal grant to help fund a site-alternatives analysis for possible construction of a new train station. The Amtrak station is currently located on Depot Street, near the Broadway bridges. The site-alternatives analysis is meant to result in the confirmation of a locally-preferred alternative to be reviewed by the Federal Rail Administration. The preliminary locally-preferred alternative is a site on Fuller Road near the University of Michigan medical complex. That site preference is based on previous planning work, as well as work for which the city has already expended roughly $700,000 (which satisfies the 20% local match requirement of the FRA grant).

Previously, the University of Michigan and the city had a memorandum of understanding that would have led to the construction of a 1,000-space parking structure at the Fuller Road site, in conjunction with the train station. However, on Feb. 10, 2012, UM withdrew, for now, from a partnership on the project. The Fuller Road Station project has been controversial in part because the site is on land that’s part of the city’s Fuller Park. The area proposed for the train station has been a surface parking lot for many years.

Sturgis: He feels there are three kind of issues all kind of lumped together. He liked what Ward 5 candidate Chuck Warpehoski had said previously about the importance of customer service. He reported that he’d e-mailed Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere on different issues, and she had been very responsive about telling him who to talk to at the city. Having councilmembers who can do that is important, he said.

On the train station, Sturgis said he is not sold on the idea that the Fuller Road site is the best spot. He wants to hear what the Federal Rail Administration says. He wants to hear what the FRA’s recommendation is, because they are doing a comprehensive study, and they are using trained people with degrees, and they’ve done it on numerous occasions. He wants to hear why the FRA wants to put a station on Fuller Road or on the MichCon site. He would respect what the FRA said. He would also not be opposed to putting it on the ballot to talk about. But we should respect the people who work for the FRA, he said, because they have done this before, and they know what they’re doing.

Another issue he cited: Neighborhood concerns in the ward. For example, there are kids in the neighborhoods – kids who live at Arrowwood – who walk a mile to school in the dark without lights. It’s important to be able to work with the school board. Coming back to the rail station, he said we need to hold off on our opposition to the railway and hear what the FRA says.

Kailasapathy: She identified as a top issue the need to look at the issue of debt and the unfunded liability of retirement benefits. Being in a predominately Democratic city, we “kick the proverbial can down the road,” she said, and don’t want to address this issue. Most of those in attendance are for unions and are strongly committed to unions, she ventured. And she understands that we need to have a strong and vibrant middle class, which is what the unions had fought for and had given us. So what are we going to do with this issue of unfunded liabilities?

Pensions are about 88% funded, but retiree health benefits are only 33% funded, she stated. [For some background on recent changes in the way the city is allocating retiree health care costs to different units in the city, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Budget Outlook Okay, CFO Cautious"] These are huge issues, she stressed, and local governments don’t have the fiscal tools of the federal government – that is, we cannot print money. So we need to negotiate with the unions and be honest with them, she said. One idea she floated is to increase the retirement age to 60. This is a Democratic issue, she said, because when these pension plans were set up decades ago, people’s life spans were much shorter – but people live longer now, she concluded.

[Kailasapathy did not address the Fuller Road Station question at the Ann Arbor Democratic Party forum. But at the League of Women Voters forum earlier in the week, she indicated that she felt a public referendum should be held on the question of building a train station on city parkland like the Fuller Road site.]

Closing Statements

Sturgis: Going door-to-door, he hears a lot of different things, Sturgis reported. One of the underlying themes he hears is that people want someone who is positive and not opposing everything. People want to hear solutions – how are you going to help the transit? How are you going to better maintain our parks? What do you want to do on top of the Library Lot? They don’t want to hear that everything is wrong. They want to hear something positive.

Secondly, he said, there’s a notion that we are in debt, when he said in fact the city had enjoyed a surplus for its most recent year. Apparently attempting a sardonic quip, Sturgis said “usually” you’re not in debt if you have a surplus. The other thing is we can’t micromanage city staff, he said. We have to trust city staff, the people who have degrees, who’ve been hired to make those decisions. We need an open-minded, independent candidate who is not affiliated with any particular group, who’s going to vote based on the issues for the voters of Ward 1 and the residents of Ann Arbor. He concluded by ticking through a list of his endorsements.

Kailasapathy: She noted that she had been an active member of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party. She served as treasurer of that organization until the beginning of this year, when she stepped down from that post in order to run for city council. She told Mike Henry and the rest of the Ann Arbor city Democrats that they were doing a good job.

She then said she wanted to make a correction to a statement that Sturgis had just made in his closing statement. He had contended that the city did not have debt – because the city had just shown a surplus in it most recent year. That’s where having a CPA and a political economist on the city council is helpful, she said. There was a slight surplus in the general fund, she allowed. But he was wrong about the debt – because they were talking about two different things. He was talking about the financial statements for income and revenue.

But debt is about the balance sheet, she said. And on the balance sheet for fiscal year 2011, if you include the bonded debt, and the potential unfunded liability for the VEBA [the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association plan], it came to $457 million. For the next fiscal year, she expected it would be half a billion dollars. And that’s where it’s important to know the difference between income statements and balance sheets, she said. These are huge issues, she said, and we don’t want the city to tumble into debt, not knowing the difference between an income statement and a balance sheet. That ultimately determines how much money the city can borrow. She concluded by saying that she was happy to have the endorsement of the Sierra Club.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council and other elections. 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!

Eric Sturgis and Sumi Kailasapathy at their June 20, 2012 Democratic primary forum. They are running for a Ward 1 Ann Arbor city council seat.

In the Aug. 7 primary, the two candidates will contest Sandi Smith’s seat on the council. Smith announced in April that she will not seek re-election to a third two-year term.

The June 20 forum included fairly standard opening and closing statements, and other questions that invited candidates to talk about themselves.

Sturgis emphasized the fact that he grew up in Ann Arbor and noted his connection to the Ann Arbor public schools; he liberally sprinkled through his remarks the names of several people who’ve endorsed him, including Sandi Smith.

Kailasapathy emphasized her educational background in political science and economics and her professional training as a certified public accountant.

Broader policy issues covered at the forum included: communication (transparency and dissemination of information); planning and development (African American Cultural & Historical Museum, Near North, 618 S. Main); and transportation (rail station, countywide transit). The candidates were also asked questions about employee health care, public art, medical marijuana, and the public schools.

The forum featured a combination of questions that had been prepared in advance, as well as some questions submitted by audience members on cards during the forum. Mike Henry, co-chair of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party, moderated the forum and declined to read some of the questions submitted from the audience on cards, calling them “unfair.” But toward the end of the event Henry allowed questions to be asked directly from the audience. Anne Bannister, the other party co-chair, was also on hand to help manage the forum.

A kerfuffle over campaign yard signs preceded the forum – as the two campaigns had difficulty reaching agreement on the appropriate placement of yard signs outside the venue, the Arrowwood Community Center. The center is located off Pontiac Trail about a half mile north of Barton Road.

And during the forum itself, the focus of the conversation at times veered away from substantive issues into associations that Sturgis and Kailasapathy may or may not have had with past candidates for office – locally and statewide. One of those past candidates was current Ward 2 city councilmember Jane Lumm.

In a comment emailed to The Chronicle, Lumm offered this perspective: “I was not at the debate the other night, but it sounds like some of the discussion was about who supported whom in past elections rather than exclusively focused on the issues and challenges facing the city. That’s unfortunate. Whether it’s beefing up public safety, or the strategies and decisions on county-wide transit and the passenger rail station, or service delivery efficiency, there are important city issues and that’s where the discussion ought to be.”

The detailed report of the forum below is organized thematically, not in chronological sequence. The report begins with a brief bit of internal Ann Arbor Democratic Party business, and is followed by the broader policy topics and other one-off policy questions. The various who-supported-whom issues are extracted into a separate, final section.

Ann Arbor Dems Business

Candidate forums hosted by the Ann Arbor Democratic Party typically include introductions of other candidates for public office, even if they’re not participating in the forum. Forums often include some other internal party business as well.

Ann Arbor Dems Business: Other Races

Also in attendance at the Ward 1 Ann Arbor city council forum was Erane Washington, candidate for the judgeship on the 22nd Circuit Court that is open due to the retirement of Melinda Morris. [Other candidates for that position include Carol Kuhnke, Jim Fink and Doug McClure.]

Yousef Rabhi attended the forum. He’s running for re-election to the Washtenaw County board of commissioners in the new District 8, against Republican Joe Baublis. Rabhi described Baublis at the Ward 1 forum as a “Tea Party Republican.”

Introduced at the end of the forum was Christina Montague, who’s running for election to the Washtenaw County board in the new District 7. A former county commissioner, Montague will face Andy LaBarre in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary.

Also in attendance were three sitting councilmembers. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) attended, as well as both current council representatives from Ward 1 – Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith. It’s Smith’s seat that Sturgis and Kailasapathy would like to fill. Smith announced on April 23 that she would not seek re-election.

Jack Eaton, who’s contesting the Ward 4 Ann Arbor city council primary against incumbent Margie Teall, also attended the Ward 1 forum.

Ann Arbor Dems Business: Voter Registration

Mike Henry took the opportunity to encourage forum attendees to take voter registration applications with them and to register at least one other person to vote – because one of the best things Democrats can do is grow the electorate, he said. From the audience, Lois Mayfield asked about the Dems’ ability to help register voters, given legislation passed by the Michigan legislature.

Co-chair of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party Mike Henry reports the results of the coin toss: Heads.

By way of background, SB 754 was recently passed by the Michigan legislature, and had been presented to Gov. Rick Snyder for signing on June 19, the day before the Ward 1 city council candidate forum. It requires third-party entities that engage in voter registration activities to have a representative undergo training that is to be organized by the Michigan Secretary of State’s office. Jeff Irwin, an Ann Arbor Democrat who represents the 53rd District of the Michigan house of representatives, opposed the legislation.

In an email written to The Chronicle, Irwin indicated that he felt the passage of the legislation would probably be subjected to a legal challenge, because the Republican majority had claimed it had a two-thirds majority required for legislation to take immediate effect – which it did not have. The record in the “Journal of the House of Representatives” shows the vote on the house floor was 66 yeas to 43 nays in the 110-member house. A two-thirds majority of 110 would require 74 yeas. The “Journal” records Irwin’s remarks following the vote in part as follows:

Furthermore, I did not support the gaveling on of Immediate Effect to SB751, SB754, or SB803 without a roll call vote. It is an insult to the voters that the House Journal inaccurately reflects the level of support for immediate effect. Votes were not counted and a 2/3rds majority for immediate effect was not established through any accepted means of counting votes. Votes were not counted by a voice vote, a rising vote or a roll call. Rather, the supermajority is asserted erroneously and all efforts to count votes are rebuffed.

So Mayfield wanted to know if people who took voter registration forms have to undergo the mandated training. Henry told Mayfield that the Ann Arbor Democratic Party would need to reach out to Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum for guidance. However, Henry assured Mayfield that “we’re not going to stop the show.”

About Themselves: Candidate Introductions

By way of introduction, Mike Henry described Kailasapathy and Sturgis as “two great candidates.” He told the forum attendees that a number of questions had been prepared. They’d each have an opportunity for an opening and closing statement. He told the two candidates not to engage each other, but rather to talk to the audience or to him, the moderator.

A coin toss determined the order of candidate responses. Kailasapathy called heads, and heads it was. So she went first.

Kailasapathy noted that she’d run two years ago for the Ward 1 seat occupied by Sandi Smith. [Percentage-wise, the outcome of that 2010 Democratic primary election was Smith's 55% to Kailasapathy's 45%, which was the best showing of any challenger to an incumbent in 2010.]

Sumi Kailasapathy at the Memorial Day parade on May 28, 2012 in the Glacier neighborhood.

She described her campaign platform as resting primarily on a focus on the city’s core services. She believes we need to make sure police, fire and roads are funded fully, before funding other activities. A second main issue for her is that she’s for maintaining parks, not developing or repurposing parks.

She feels she brings an educational and professional background to the table. She attended Wellesley College and completed her undergraduate degree in economics and political science. She then attended the New School for Social Research and completed a masters degree in political economy.

She taught at Eastern Michigan University for 10 years, she said, as well as at the Chinese University in Hong Kong for two years. She switched careers about five years ago and became a certified public accountant, which she felt could help her understand the budget and priorities as well as looking at things from a political point of view.

Sturgis said he’d attended Ann Arbor’s Northside Elementary School, Clague Middle School and Huron High School, and he’s lived in the area his whole life. This area is a passion for him, he said. As he’s gone door-to-door campaigning, something he’s heard from people is that there are kids who walk to school at 6:15 a.m. to catch a bus and there are no lights. Those issues are important to certain communities, he said. Living in Ann Arbor his whole life, and in Ward 1, he knows what Ward 1 residents are looking for, he said. He supports well-funded police and supports the city parks.

Sturgis said he’d like to see Ann Arbor continue to maintain its city parks. A lot of times, he said, Northside Elementary School’s grass isn’t mowed as much as it should be. Cut-through traffic on Chandler near Pontiac Trail is another issue he felt needs attention: “We need a representative from this area who’s going to fight for little stuff like that,” he said.

He said he’d read through the budget carefully, and there are some things in the city budget he’d change. Others he wouldn’t change. He said one thing he’d like to see is to continue to push for recycling, and to try to partner more with the university in getting students to recycle.

He said his commitment to Ward 1 and the area is shown in his endorsement by Pat Byrd [a former city councilmember who served Ward 1 from 1994 to 1999, then named Pat Vereen-Dixon], Simone Lightfoot [current Ann Arbor Public Schools board member] and Letitia Byrd [a retired teacher and long-time community activist who serves on the boards of several local nonprofits.]

About Themselves: Concluding Statements

Sturgis thanked everybody who put the candidate forum together. He also thanked Kailasapathy. Growing up in Ann Arbor, he’s seen a lot of things that friends of his who live in other communities can’t believe. One of those things is the Hash Bash. He also has friends from other parts of the state who’ve never seen two gay people holding hands before. The diversity of Ann Arbor is great, he said. He said he’s been active in politics since he was 14 years old – for 12 years.

He then read off a list of endorsers. These are people who support his campaign, he said, and understand that he will fight for Ward 1 and fight for the city. Not every issue is black and white. We have to look at what’s best for the city, he said. On Dhu Varren Road, there are no sidewalks – and that’s something we have to look at in the context of kids walking to school. He asked people for their vote on Aug. 7.

Kailasapathy offered thanks all around to the organizers. She said she’s lived in Ann Arbor for 15 years. She has two kids who attend Ann Arbor public schools. Her husband teaches at Eastern Michigan University. They could not have expected anything more out of society than Ann Arbor, she said – as a refugee from the Sri Lankan civil war. In Ann Arbor she’s never felt out of place or left out. Her skin color and her accent just don’t matter, she said. She called it “unbelievable” what her family has here in Ann Arbor. So now, she feels she wants to give something back.

At the local level, democracy can be realized in its ideal form – at least in theory, she said. At the national level there’s too much money and special interests, she said. So the local level is “where the tire hits the road” and it’s where you can have a true democracy. She’s really excited, she said, because she’s always worked at the grass roots level, beginning with her work on human rights back in Sri Lanka.

About Themselves: What Principles Motivate You?

Lou Glorie, who ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for a Ward 5 seat on the city council in 2010, asked the candidates: What principles motivate you?

Kailasapathy read aloud a poem that she keeps with her, which she reads when she feels sad or challenged, and it motivates her. She was a kid when father died, she said, and when she showed the poem to her mom, she cried, because it was the very same poem that her father liked.

Kailasapathy introduced the poem as originally written in Tamil, a language she speaks. It’s a 2,500-year old poem, she said.

The text of the poem:

This world lives
Because
Some men
Do not eat alone,
Not even when they get
The sweet ambrosia of the gods;
They’ve no anger in them,
They fear evils other men fear
But never sleep over them;
Give their lives for honor,
Will not touch a gift of whole worlds
If tainted;
There’s no faintness in their hearts
And they do not strive
For themselves.
Because such men are,
this world is.

Sturgis said that growing up with a single mom, he didn’t get to know his dad until he was 18. He had two loving grandparents and a loving mom, he said, who raised him. What motivates him is helping others and seeing others succeed. That’s why he would volunteer and tutor over at Clague Middle School. He’d be assigned kids who weren’t doing homework and he’d work with them one-on-one and try to motivate them. He said Jean Robinson, a former Ward 1 city councilperson [2000-2002], summed it up best when she said about Sturgis that she’s not met somebody who cares more about others. So what motivates him is seeing others succeed, he concluded.

About Themselves: Constraints on Time

Moderator Mike Henry asked about constraints that candidates might have on their time, if they were elected.

Kailasapathy allowed that she’d probably have to work fewer hours. In January and April, during tax season, she might work 100 hours in a week. She might have to cut that down to 40 hours a week instead of 100. She said she’d need time for her family, too. But juggling and struggling has always been a part of her life, she said. She ventured she might also get less sleep.

Sturgis said when he got this year’s budget book, in a day he had read through all 270 pages in it. Some of the material he’d read more than once. He’s finishing his bachelor’s degree in the fall, he said, so his school schedule gives him time during the evenings. As a city councilmember, it would be his duty to make time to read. That won’t be an issue, he said. Besides school, Henry wanted to know if Sturgis had any employment constraints. Sturgis said he did have employment, but did not have constraints.

About Themselves: Accounting an Essential Skill?

Patricia Lesko asked from the audience: Why do we need a CPA on the Ann Arbor city council? Why do we need someone with extensive financial knowledge on the council? What’s the argument for that?

Sturgis responded to Lesko’s question by quipping, that if people had read a2politico.com, then “We don’t need a tennis coach, obviously!” [Lesko authors that website and has offered a view on the topic. Sturgis is a tennis coach.] A councilmember who is a CPA could crunch the numbers, he said, but added that the city’s financial staff do a very good job. A CPA on council is just “another person,” he said. A lot of the budget amounts to a set of policy statements, he said. Do you think police and fire protection are more important? You don’t need a CPA to decide that police and fire should receive more funding, he said. He felt that that most councilmembers can do the rudimentary arithmetic to know that if you have $20,000 and subtract $15,000, then you have $5,000 left. In the same way, he allowed, he didn’t think that having a tennis coach on the city council is beneficial, either.

Kailasapathy said that you definitely don’t have to be a CPA to serve on the city council. But she felt that she could help in the area of financial literacy. For example, two years ago there was a group working to support Huron Hills golf course as the city discussed the possibility of privatizing it. The city’s contention was that the golf course was not making money. As an aside, Kailasapathy noted that she did not feel that the golf courses are meant to make money. She chose to come and live in Ann Arbor, even though she had no family here, and even though it would have been cheaper to live in Pittsfield Township [located directly south of Ann Arbor]. She and her husband had moved to Ann Arbor, knowing the taxes would be higher, because of the quality of life and the charm of Ann Arbor.

Returning to the issue of the financial condition of the Huron Hills golf course, Kailasapathy reported that she was looking at the financial statements with the line items: revenues, expenses, and then overhead. Adding those categories together yielded a negative number, she said. But as a CPA, she said, she knew that “overhead” is never used to calculate “profitability.” She suggested that the notion of profitability shouldn’t be applied to the golf course, she said, because the golf course is a public good.

Communication: Engagement, Transparency

Mike Henry asked how the candidates would help to engage the public more in decisions and create a more transparent process.

Kailasapathy responded by saying that every contract should be bid out – because that way, the city gets the best deal. She felt that a lot of people find it difficult to understand the budget and the whole budgeting process. By asking the right questions and setting priorities, we can bring more transparency to the process.

She noted that the different millages have to be in their separate funds, but aside from that, she said, perhaps not so many different funds are needed. If the money is in a single fund, it’s possible to prioritize. There are so many different funds, each with its own fund balance, that it’s difficult to answer questions. Taking the fleet funds as an example, she asked if it’s possible to purchase firetrucks from that fund. She feels that transparency means having financial efficiency and talking about these issues – something she feels she can do if she’s elected to the city council.

Sturgis began his response by looping back to a mention by Kailasapathy of reductions to school busing. He contended that in talking to AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis, there are no cuts to school busing in this year’s recently approved budget. And the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority is constrained by federal regulations, he said. From the audience, Patricia Lesko then challenged Sturgis’ contention there were no cuts in AAPS busing this year. [Lesko has previously run for the Ward 1 council position (in 2008, as a write-in candidate) and for mayor (in 2010), but did not win either election.] There was a midday shuttle from Community High School to Huron High, Lesko pointed out, which has been eliminated from the recently approved AAPS fiscal year 2013 budget. Sturgis wanted to know from Lesko: “Are you asking a question?” Mike Henry invited Sturgis to focus on the question that had been asked – about transparency.

Coming back to the topic of transparency, Sturgis called Ann Arbor one of the most transparent governments in Michigan. You can find anything on the city’s website, including the budget, which is very accessible. You can get the meeting agendas, or any document you want. You can email your councilmembers and talk to them. He thinks Ann Arbor’s government is very transparent.

Kailasapathy felt that actual transparency goes beyond what’s available online. She brought up the issue of the future of the Library Lot – the top of the new underground parking garage, now referred to as the Library Lane parking structure – and whether there’s going to be a conference center built there. At that Sabra Briere, one of the current Ward 1 councilmembers, stated emphatically: “There’s not going to be a conference center and a hotel.” Kailasapathy contended that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had renewed that proposal. Briere noted that a consultant hired by the DDA had done a review, but the DDA has not done anything yet.

Over the following weekend, mayor John Hieftje engaged in some back-and-forth with residents on an email thread that echoed Briere’s sentiments. Hieftje wrote:

I know that I have no interest in seeing a convention center built on top of the new parking structure. I would guess other council members feel the same way.
…
There is a big difference between them but you can substitute “conference” for “convention” in my earlier emails if you like.

At the candidate forum, Kailasapathy said the whole idea is that this should be coming out of a public discussion. Transparency means that we shouldn’t have agendas and then suddenly something pops up on the agenda. While the underground parking garage was under construction, the proposal to build a hotel/conference center emerged, people put out yard signs advocating against it, and it was defeated, she said.

She said she didn’t know what the future of the top of the underground parking garage would be, but she felt that it should come out of a public process. Her concluding remark generated applause. [The proposal to build a hotel/conference center on the top of the Library Lot had been selected as the best proposal as part of an RFP (request for proposals) review process; the city council voted to reject that proposal at the point when the council was asked to ratify a memorandum of understanding – at its April 4, 2011 meeting.]

Sturgis said he totally agreed with the idea of public process. But he noted that “we have things called public hearings.” That’s where people attend a council meeting, “and it’s called a public hearing – so we’re going to do a little education here.” As an example, he gave the 618 S. Main planned project, where people got up and gave their opinion on the project. From the audience, Sabra Briere then interrupted Sturgis by saying, “I want to interrupt you and I do apologize.” She pointed out that there was a lot of public process before that public hearing on 618 S. Main at the city council meeting. For a lot of people, she said, that’s just the last thing. Sturgis said he was getting to that – the fact that there were several neighborhood meetings and people met with councilmembers. People do have the opportunity to go and give their input, he concluded.

Mike Henry said what he heard Kailasapathy saying is that there are ideas that are on the table, being considered by certain parts of city government that are not always in the public eye. The public has time to respond to those things they know about, but if the public doesn’t know about them, they can’t respond, he said. So Henry asked the candidates if they were comfortable with the way the city handles things.

Sturgis stated that he is comfortable with the way the city handles things. As an example he gave the African American Cultural and Historical Museum. The neighbors were consulted and the plans were discussed with them. There’s always public input and public commentary. He said that his grandmother is 85 years old and doesn’t use a computer. But if she has a concern, she can have email or she can pick up the phone. He does think there’s transparency, he concluded.

Communication: Information, Digital Divide

A question from former city councilmember Eunice Burns came from the audience: What are you thinking of doing to keep us informed about what’s going on?

Sturgis said it’s hard to beat the newsletter that Ward 1 representative Sabra Briere sends out. He has pledged to hold coffee hours at different places – sometimes at the Northside Grill, or sometimes at the Arrowwood Community Center, or different places in the ward. He’d also like to create his own newsletter and send it out. That would keep people informed on the issues, he said, and when there are public hearings.

Kailasapathy felt that it starts at the city council itself. Whatever questions she gets from constituents, she will raise those issues – by answering the questions herself or by getting the information from the city staff and then responding to constituents. She will continue to update her website and keep her constituents informed – because that’s how a democracy thrives. It should not be a top-down process – but rather an informed discussion.

From Burns came the follow-up question: What about Eric’s grandmother, who doesn’t have a computer? Sturgis explained that his grandmother does have a computer, but doesn’t know how to use it.

Kailasapathy allowed that’s a good point: What about people who can’t visit a website?

Mary Hall-Thiam, the Ann Arbor Democratic Party vice chair for outreach and inclusion, followed up on the theme of access to information by asking about the “digital divide.” Hall-Thiam noted that some people don’t have computers, because they can’t afford them, but also because they don’t want them. She asked the candidates how they would involve those people in a transparent government.

Kailasapathy began by saying that what she typically heard when this issue comes up is people saying, “Oh, I wish Ann Arbor had a real newspaper.” That’s a lament she hears often, she said. People feel well-informed as far as world news is concerned, as well as national news – because they read the New York Times. But they don’t feel well-informed locally. She did not know if she had the answer to that question, but it’s a “grief” she hears people express. On the online side, she said, there’s the Ann Arbor Chronicle. But she said it’s sad that Ann Arbor doesn’t have in paper form the kind of reporting that takes time and effort .

Sturgis said when you hold coffee hours and meet with people in the community, that gives people who don’t have or want a computer a chance to come out and express their views. When Briere holds her coffee hours every Monday morning at the Northside Grill, people come out to that – and they rely on that, he said. That allows people to have easy access and to talk to their representatives about what they’re doing on particular votes.

Planning/Development: African American Museum

Mike Henry asked candidates if they supported the proposed work to be done on the African American Cultural and Historical Museum of Washtenaw County, in Ward 1 at 1528 Pontiac Trail.

Kailasapathy indicated her understanding was residents worry about parking issues. If it’s going to be a museum, where will the visitors park their vehicles? There’s an issue of planning that needs to be addressed, she said.

Sturgis reported that he’d spoken to a representative of the museum at the local Juneteenth celebration. That person indicated that it would be another two years before the museum would be open to the public. The plan is for six parking spots on the side of the building. Sturgis said he lives just two minutes from there, and thinks the museum would be good for the community.

His concern, Sturgis said, is that residents were initially told it would be five years – and now it’s been five years. Now the word is that it’ll be two more years. Residents are wondering about the process, he said. But he supports the museum. He noted that there’d be overflow parking in the church parking lot next to the future museum. He’d spoken to the immediate neighbors, he said, and they’d told him they’d been consulted about it and were okay with it.

Planning/Development: Near North

Moderator Mike Henry segued from the African American Cultural and Historical Museum to the Near North Avalon Housing project, noting that they were both “stalled projects.” [The closing on the financial piece of Near North is now expected to take place at the end of June 2012. The project was given city council approval back in 2009 ]. He asked the candidates what they thought about the Near North project, to be located on North Main.

Sturgis said we need to be committed to affordable housing. He grew up with a single mom and started working when he was 12 years old. He knows what it’s like to struggle to make ends meet, Sturgis said. We need more affordable housing, he said. People need to have the opportunity to have affordable housing. If older people want to retire to more affordable housing, they should be able to do that. Sturgis said that he felt Avalon Housing’s Michael Appel, associate director of the nonprofit, does an outstanding job.

Kailasapathy felt that it comes back to the whole development issue. On the site of the Near North project, she said, there were 6-7 units, which were allowed to deteriorate and now they’re to be demolished. From the audience, Sabra Briere volunteered that there were seven houses on the site, with each house divided into smaller units – about 22 or so. Also from the audience, Sandi Smith noted that the Near North project would include 44 affordable housing units. Using Smith’s number, Briere concluded that Near North would more than double the number of units on the site. Avalon had worked with a very aggressive neighborhood to accomplish a goal, Briere said.

Kailasapathy stated that every city needs affordable housing. Diversity is needed, otherwise things become gentrified, she said. A diversity of income groups is needed. But affordable housing should be pursued in a thoughtful way. Neighbors close to the Near North project were concerned about having a big building close to them. The idea of not-in-my-backyard is the reality, she said. But how would you feel if the project were behind your house? Then your position changes, right? We need to keep density in the D1 and D2 areas where the zoning provides for that higher density, she concluded.

Planning/Development: Public-Private (618 S. Main)

The topic introduced by moderator Mike Henry was public-private partnerships. He noted the city had experienced a number of challenges, citing the top of the Library Lot as an example. He asked the candidates to share their philosophy on public-private partnerships and development.

Sturgis said he supported the 618 S. Main project as a good example. The neighbors were for it. The city planning commission and the DDA also supported the 618 S. Main project. His understanding is that 618 S. Main is a private development and the city is not picking up the tab. [The project is receiving support through a brownfield plan that captures taxes paid on the increment between the current value of the property and the value after construction. The project is also receiving a grant from the DDA, based on the same kind of tax increment approach. For Chronicle coverage, see: "City Council OKs 618 S. Main"]

Sturgis said he likes it more when private developers come in. He’s not in favor of development in the neighborhoods – because he likes to keep things “to scale.” He supported the D1 and D2 zoning requirements, he said, but there are times – as with 618 S. Main – when the project might not conform exactly. [The building was approved at the city council's June 18, 2012 meeting at a height of 85 feet, which is 25 feet taller than the 60-foot maximum specified in D2 zoning regulations. The variance was made under the "planned project" provision in the city's zoning code.]

But Sturgis pointed out that there are increased setbacks and a rain garden [so that stormwater infiltrates into the ground instead of going into the city's stormwater system]. Each project has to be considered based on whether it’s good for the city and good for the neighborhoods, he said. He’s not for giving favors to developers. Developers were given favors in the case of the Foxfire wetlands, and he’s not in favor of that, he said.

Henry asked Sturgis to clarify his support for the 618 S. Main project. Sturgis cited the support of the Old West Side neighborhood association, the unanimous support of the city planning commission’s recommendation and the unanimous support of the DDA [in awarding its grant]. He again cited the increased setbacks and the rain garden. With that project, he said, we’re not talking about a 180-foot building [which is the height limit for D1].

Kailasapathy stated that when we actually give away tax dollars for a public-private partnership, it’s a problem. We have a capitalist economy, and if a business can’t survive without “a handout,” we need to rethink whether that project is viable or not. Giving tax breaks makes the playing field uneven. She described herself as “not really a big fan” of that kind of public support.

She reported a conversation she’d had with someone recently who’d remarked on the fact that a lot of taller buildings were being built – but the city’s fire department doesn’t currently have a tower truck. If we run the city efficiently and provide infrastructure efficiently, then if a business person thinks there’s an opportunity to develop housing for young professionals [to whom the 618 S. Main project will be marketed], then they’ll come and develop it. She would think twice about giving away tax dollars – tax increment finance dollars.

Planning/Development: North Main Task Force

Ray Detter asked about the North Main task force that has been appointed, an effort led by Ward 1 councilmembers Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith. [The task force is supposed to "develop a vision to create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increase public access to the river-side amenities of existing parks in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use of MichCon property at Broadway."]

Detter’s question: What do you think the vision should be?

Sturgis reported talking with city administrator Steve Powers about the task force, and part of the point, Sturgis said, is to find a way to connect Allen Creek greenway to find a way for it to succeed. Currently there’s no money budgeted for the Allen Creek greenway, he said. Personally, he would like to see some development, but also wants to see what the task force comes up with.

Kailasapathy said she would very clearly push for the Allen Creek greenway. Ann Arbor’s value is not measured in how many new buildings we put up. We should try to move the greenway forward, but we should wait and see what the task force comes up with, she said.

Transportation: Rail Station

The Fuller Road Station project has been through a number of changes, Henry noted. Kailasapathy had made some remarks at a recent city council meeting, he said, about the acceptance of a federal grant. Henry asked candidates for their views on the project.

Kailasapathy said her position right now, is that the project is not an “open-and-closed issue.” She makes decisions based on the information she has at a certain point in time. If new information comes to light – new reports, new projections – she’s willing to look at those numbers. She described how Amtrak service through Ann Arbor, on the route between Chicago and Dearborn, was planned to increase from 6 times a day [three trains in each direction] to 10 times a day – and increase of 4 trips a day.

Without actually seeing how it’s going to be possible to turn that into a commuter train – what the fares would be and what the passenger demand will be – right now, she thinks the best strategy would be to add the dual track, and expand the current station in its current location [on Depot Street near the Broadway bridges]. If parking is an issue, she said, parking can be added on the MichCon property. Right now, she noted that the funding is for the environmental study. A report resulting from that study will draw a conclusion about whether the current station is viable, she said. When the report comes out, we should move on from there, she concluded.

Sturgis summarized the recent city council action at its June 4, 2012 meeting as accepting a $2.8 million grant, at no cost to the city. [The federal grant required a local match of $700,000, which had already been expended. So there was no additional cost to the city.] The grant will allow the city to take a closer look at whether the Fuller Road site or the current Amtrak site is more suitable. Where it’s confusing, Sturgis said, is that no decision has been made about whether the recommended site will be the Fuller Road site or the current Amtrak site – but obviously Fuller Road is the preferred option, he said. He wants to see what the report says.

He noted that Ann Arbor is the busiest stop between Detroit and Chicago on the Amtrak line. Concerns about the current Amtrak station, Sturgis said, include availability of parking and the ability to access the station with buses and taxis. As a Democrat, Sturgis said he supports transit. That’s a key thing for a Democrat to support. It’s important for getting people into the city. Right now there’s no “last mile” capability, he said.

Transit should be supported, to get more people into the city and into the downtown so Ann Arbor can continue to build its downtown base, Sturgis said.  Transportation options like buses, taxis and bicycling help residents who can’t drive, he said. Pursuing the study funded by the federal grant is a good plan, he said, and he’s waiting to see if the preferred alternative in the report is for the Fuller Road site or for an expansion of the current station.

His understanding is that 80% of the money for the project will come from the federal government, with the requirement of a 20% local match. That 20% match would be funded from “a whole different group of people,” he said, concluding that “it’s not going to cost [the city of Ann Arbor] that much more money.” [The $2.8 million grant received by the city depended on a 20% local match, which is somewhat typical for federal transportation projects. The "local" match portion can typically be satisfied in a variety of ways – with funds from the state of Michigan, the University of Michigan, or the city of Ann Arbor, for example.]

Transportation: Countywide

Moderator Mike Henry asked the candidates for their views on local control of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, in the context of the current discussion of possible transition to a countywide transit authority.

Kailasapathy said she’d been trying to read up on the issue and she reported that she is grappling with the whole issue. Part of the push is that a countywide approach is better, because it means resource sharing. But on the other side, she said, she receives a lot of questions. She pointed to the discussion reflected in The Chronicle’s meeting report of a working session conducted by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. She said it reflected the fact that a transition to a countywide transit authority wouldn’t really be “resource sharing.” At that working session, she said, AATA CEO Michael Ford explained that Ann Arbor has an opt-out provision from the four-party agreement, because of the value of the assets that the city of Ann Arbor brings to the arrangement [its millage plus the capital assets]. [Chronicle coverage of that working session: "Differences on Countywide Transit Debated"]

It’s not as if there are two airlines that are flying half full each way, Kailasapathy said, that decide to combine resources. The AATA countywide proposal isn’t really resource sharing, because the majority of the financial support would come from Ann Arbor, she said. She wondered if this approach would be disenfranchising Ann Arbor. She could imagine something along these lines working, if it’s a partnership between equals. Right now, she said, she’s still grappling with it.

Sturgis said that his understanding of the four-party agreement is that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners is the only one of the four parties not to have voted on it. But the board is in the process of that. [The item is likely to be on the county board's July 11 agenda.] As a Democrat, he said, he supports transit. Providing more transportation will bring more people into Ann Arbor, he said, and bring more people into downtown, and help build the tax base. It’s a good thing to continue to work with the AATA. For him, Sturgis said, “the four-party agreement means the four parties agree.” He said he’d like to see the process continue to move forward. He said he’d like to continue to support busing to support Ann Arbor, “this great city I’ve lived in my whole life.”

Moderator Mike Henry asked why not put a countywide ballot initiative up for a vote?

Sturgis ventured that if it were put up for a vote, it would pass – unanimously. “Would I be in favor of putting it on the ballot? Sure.” He felt, however, that if the county board comes to an agreement, then “we’re set, and there’s not need for it to go to the ballot.” [In fact, the ratification of the four-party agreement by all four parties, including the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, will simply set the stage for a possible voter referendum on a funding mechanism.]

Sturgis said he’d vote strongly yes, because as a Democrat, transit is good for the environment and people, and it’s what we need. So as a Democrat he supports transportation.

Kailasapathy reiterated her position that she’s for public transportation and for expanding it. But she felt the proposal needs to be fine-tuned with respect to how much Ann Arbor contributes and how much others contribute. Right now there’s a disparity in the contributions. The devil is in the details, she concluded.

Henry asked Sturgis if he supported mayor John Hieftje’s push for commuter rail.

Sturgis answered briefly: “Yes.”

Kailasapathy wanted to know what Henry meant by “the push.” Henry noted that Hieftje has supported higher-speed rail in the Ann Arbor to Chicago corridor. Kailasapathy indicated that the latest she’d heard is that the Amtrak service would go from six daily trips to 10. She didn’t know if that would evolve into commuter rail service or not, but she was waiting to see the details.

Employee Health Care

The question posed by moderator Mike Henry was: How would you deal with rising health care costs?

Kailasapathy said that the unfunded liability in the city’s retiree health care is a major issue. In fiscal year 2013, she said, the costs are projected to go up by 12%. This is one of the biggest issues the city needs to tackle, she said. The city needs to renegotiate with the unions – because there is no other option. To address retirement health care costs, she said, we need to raise the retirement age. She characterized it as a demographic issue. Twenty years ago, when many cities were planning their retirement model, if someone retired at age 55 maybe they’d live for 15 or 20 more years. But life expectancy is increasing. We need to change with the times and that means raising the retirement age – to 60 or 62 years. If we don’t want the system to break, then we need to have honest discussions with the unions. One thing that could be done is to increase the retirement age, she concluded.

Sturgis reported that the amount of unfunded liability for retiree health care that he’d seen is $200 million. The city doesn’t have that money right now, he said – it’s a long-term problem. What the city has done to address the problem is to continue to allow employees to work overtime, instead of hiring additional employees. The city should also negotiate with the unions, he said. The city and the unions have their different views, and he would like to see the city work with the unions.

But it’s a national issue and affects all municipalities, so it can’t be solved in one year, Sturgis said. There has to be a “multi-faceted plan” and right now the city is taking the right steps by allowing overtime instead of hiring new employees. He feels the city is on the right track. It’s an important issue, he allowed, but we have to be realistic about the fact that we don’t have $200 million unless we cut public safety and other services. [For Chronicle coverage of retiree health care from earlier this year, see: "Ann Arbor Budget Outlook OK, CFO Cautious"]

Public Art

Moderator Mike Henry noted that there’s always tension between different line items in the budget. One area that is the target of frequent criticism is funding for public art. Henry suggested that if the criticism is not addressed, Ann Arbor will “take a hit” in terms of how the city is perceived – and will be less attractive. He asked the candidates for their thoughts on the public art program.

Sturgis said he likes the city’s Percent for Art program. [The program  allocates 1% for public art from all of the city government’s capital projects, up to a cap of $250,000 per project.] He likes that “we use local welders and that stuff.” He would like to see local artists hired, but realizes that there are artists from other places who will give us better opportunities. One great thing about Ann Arbor is the art fairs, he said – people know that about Ann Arbor and they like art. When the city council has considered changes to the public art ordinance on three occasions, Sturgis said, there has been overwhelming support for public art expressed during the public commentary. [The most recent of the three significant council debates on the public art ordinance took place in late 2011 and resulted only in some minor changes: "Art Lobby Averts Temporary Funding Cut"]

Sturgis then noted that during the budget deliberations, Sabra Briere had put forward a great amendment – to eliminate the travel allowance for the mayor and city council. Sturgis said it’s unfortunate that it didn’t pass, noting that he disagreed with mayor John Hieftje and Ward 1 representative Sandi Smith on that issue. [They voted against the amendment.] There’s a lot of little things that we can look at, Sturgis said, but the Percent for Art is a good thing for the city.

Kailasapathy questioned Sturgis’ portrayal of the outcome of the vote on Briere’s proposed travel budget amendment. She thought that the $6,500 had been put back into the general fund. Sturgis noted [correctly] that the vote had been 9-2 against Briere’s amendment, receiving support only from Briere and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Returning to the topic of public art, Kailasapathy said “we need to encourage local artists and all that,” but noted that the city of Ann Arbor is not the Smithsonian Institute or the Detroit Institute of Arts. Yet the city has public dollars to use, so we need to ask how we put public dollars to work for the public, she said. We need to have a “for the people, by the people” kind of attitude.

There are so many talented people in Ann Arbor that Kailasapathy would like to see spaces that give people a chance to exhibit their art. It can help revitalize the economy as well as give local artists an opportunity. She would, however, take a different direction on it, she said. Art and music are the soul of any culture and those are the things that beautify life. She would like the city to be more creative and would like to see public art money go into revitalizing the local art community.

Medical Marijuana

Candidates were asked by moderator Mike Henry for their positions on medical marijuana.

Sturgis said that he supports medical marijuana for people who need it. He’s hesitant when federal law and state laws are contradictory. He then asked for help in recalling when Ann Arbor’s ballot initiative passed. From the audience came some incorrect dates [from Sabra Briere, who'd actually worked to pass the Ann Arbor charter amendment in 2004, which was followed by the statewide initiative in 2008.] Sturgis drew laughs with his comment that “I’m going to go with 2004 and 2008.” The confusion effectively served to derail somewhat the conversation on medical marijuana. The size of the majority in the vote, said Sturgis, reflected that people want access to medical marijuana.

Kailasapathy indicated that if medical marijuana dispensaries are legal and they follow the rules, she would not have an issue with them. Sturgis also indicated support for dispensaries if they are regulated and monitored.

Public Schools

A question from an audience member, who is involved in the Northside Elementary School PTO, was relayed by moderator Mike Henry. The sense of the question was: To what extent can the city council be active with the school district?

Sturgis said he’s passionate about Northside Elementary School and the school district as a whole. He cited an endorsement from Richard Dekeon, a gym teacher at Northside. Something that concerns Northside school, Sturgis said, is that when you come up Barton Drive and you come around that corner, it’s not very well marked. The grass isn’t cut or maintained, he said.

That’s his experience attending Northside and what he’s heard from Ward 1 residents. It’s important to work with the PTO – parents are important, he said. He knows Liz Margolis [AAPS director of communications] very well and JoAnn Emmendorfer [executive assistant to the AAPS superintendent], he said. School board member Simone Lightfoot has endorsed him and school board member Susan Baskett is supporting him, he said. He worked on school board member Deb Mexicotte’s campaign, he said. He feels like the city and the school can work together.

Kailasapathy reported that last year or the year before the treasurer of the PTSO had come and asked for help in preparing the tax return for the PTSO. When she’s approached for help, she said, it’s usually on financial issues. She helps those organizations to the extent she can in her own capacity, she said. She described how sometimes city and school issues overlap – for example, when reductions in school busing result in children needing to walk in areas where there are no sidewalks. She felt there would be a lot of common areas for the city and the schools to work together for the benefit of citizens and school children.

Human Services – Camp Take Notice

The last legal day for Camp Take Notice, a homeless encampment in Scio Township, was the next day – it’s located on land owned by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, which was evicting the group. The question from the audience: How do you feel about Camp Take Notice? The idea was to just let it continue without needing to fund it at all. Mike Henry briefed the audience on the fact that the state is no longer willing to allow the camp to continue at that location. The county has provided some funding, he said. [At its June 6 meeting, the county board authorized a $60,000 grant from the Salvation Army, for emergency housing assistance for Camp Take Notice residents.]

Kailasapathy felt we should be spending more on human services. We should be taking care of our people, and it’s really bad that we don’t have a structured way to address this issue.

Sturgis said he’d like to see a structure in place to deal with the issue, saying he’s worked at soup kitchens and seen what it’s like. We need to help those who are homeless. He then stated, “It starts by not voting for people like Mark Ouimet and Republicans in the state House and Senate who don’t have those same values.” That’s where we have to start, he said, and we need “to re-elect Barack Obama and different stuff like that.” Ann Arbor should take a stronger stand, he said. He didn’t know what we can do monetarily, but he’d like more information on that and thinks it’s something the city should look into.

Working with Others: It’s Nice to Be Nice

The forum actually began with moderator Mike Henry saying he wanted to change the tone from the typical forum format: “Say something good about your opponent.”

Sturgis said Kailasapathy brings a lot of great ideas, one of them being the Allen Creek greenway – which is a longer-term thing, he said. The unfunded liabilities in the city’s pension system is a great point she makes, Sturgis said. He thinks that overall she’d do a very good job on council. They have differences, he allowed, but he personally has a lot of respect for her and thinks highly of her for running for council.

Responding to the direction to say something good about Sturgis, Kailasapathy said Sturgis has grown up in this area, knows a lot of people and knows local issues. She’s heard he’s a good tennis player. He’s friendly, she concluded.

Working with Others: Lumm

Moderator Mike Henry invited the candidates to talk about temperament and how they work with people. Oftentimes the council has to deal with difficult issues. It has become clear to many people in the community that those problems can be solved if people work together. He asked for examples of complex problems that the candidates had solved with others and how they’d found common ground.

Kailasapathy said that in her university teaching career, she’d taught thousands of students. As a CPA, she’s had hundreds of clients, she said. Clients and students cover the whole spectrum of people. She felt that if you’re honest, then people begin to see that you are sincere and honest, and that results in trust. Trust is important, she said. If you think a person will say one thing and then turn around and stab you in the back, that’s not a situation where there’s trust. In her professional life, she felt that being honest is important.

Henry followed up with Kailasapathy by asking if there was a situation where she felt someone did stab her in the back, but she still achieved common ground. When someone does that, she replied, it’s more difficult – when they say something and then turn around and the next second they do something else. Being honest is important, because then other people know where you stand, she said.

Sturgis agreed with Kailasapathy that being honest is an important thing. He said he wanted to come out and say that when he was 18 years old, he supported Jane Lumm when she ran for mayor [as a Republican in 2004]. About that, Sturgis said: “Do I regret that now? Yes.” That was an example, he said, where he was trying to work with Lumm on some issues that he felt were important to Democrats. When he was at Oakland University, he was appointed to the Rochester Historical Commission, he said. There were seven members on the historic district commission – six Republicans and a token Democrat, he said. He was elected treasurer by a 4-3 vote, he said, and was the youngest member of the commission by 50 years. He had to work with the six other Republicans “to get stuff that I thought was good and the Democrats wanted, and I was able to do that.”

Coaching tennis and other sports, Sturgis said, he’s had to deal with parents when he’s made cuts, when he’s had to discipline their kids. When you’re working with people, he said, “you can’t call them ‘corrupt’ … and then expect them to turn around and work with you.”

“If you align yourself in one group,” he continued, that will be remembered. He described himself as an independent who will work with all sides. He wants to see councilmembers work together.

Henry followed up with Sturgis by asking him about working on the Lumm campaign for mayor. There’ve been reports, Henry said, that Sturgis had worked on both the Lumm campaign and the Rapundalo campaign. [That's a reference to a 2011 Ward 2 city council race that Lumm won, running as an independent, after serving on the city council in the mid-1990s as a Republican. Incumbent Stephen Rapundalo ran in that 2011 council race as a Democrat. He also ran for mayor previously, in 2000, as a Republican.]

Sturgis said he was glad that the question came up. He worked for and supported Stephen Rapundalo [in the 2011 Ward 2 city council race]. He said he knew Jane Lumm, and had put a call in to her, but never got hold of her. He’s known Rapundalo for a long time and supported him when he ran for mayor – he’d supported Rapundalo as a close family friend, Sturgis said. Never once had he campaigned for Lumm in the council race, he contended, and he had written a letter to the editor supporting Rapundalo.

Sturgis then turned the topic to people Kailasapathy had supported. He contended that she’d “openly supported” Lumm as well as Ahmar Iqbal [who was a candidate for the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of trustees in November 2011]. Sturgis indicated that Iqbal had ties to the Michigan Republican Party and had given money to George Bush [former Republican president] and Tim Walberg [current Republican Congressman representing the 7th District].

Sturgis said it’s important to be fair and consistent. He’d supported the Democrat in the 2011 Ward 2 city council race – Rapundalo. He supported Lynn Rivers when she ran [a Democratic Congresswoman who represented the 13th District from 1995–2003] and he supported John Dingell [current Democratic Congressman representing the 15th District].

Sturgis was assistant regional director in Port Huron for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, he said. He has supported Democrats consistently, Sturgis said. He likes Jane Lumm and he thinks Jane Lumm is a good person. He thinks some of Lumm’s ideas are good, and he thinks she’s good for the city council. However, he said, he did support Stephen Rapundalo in the city council race.

Asked for her perspective on her 2011 city council campaign and the involvement of Sturgis, Lumm offered The Chronicle the following recollection:

Eric initially reached out to me indicating he might support my campaign (can’t recall exactly when it was). We exchanged a couple of emails, it got a bit confusing and complicated in terms of his relationships with other local elected officials, and ultimately Eric decided to support Stephen. …

I believe Sumi would be a great addition to city council – she is thoughtful, hardworking, balanced and knowledgeable on the issues. She’s also a CPA which, when it comes to budget and finance-related issues, is a big plus.

Responding to Sturgis at the forum, Kailasapathy acknowledged that she did support Lumm in the 2011 Ward 2 campaign. She called Lumm “really amazing” in supporting the core services for city. Lumm asks the right questions and does her homework, Kailasapathy said. It’s important to have diversity of opinion and not have “block thinking” on the city council, she said. Lumm raises valid question. Kailasapathy said she didn’t need to apologize for supporting Lumm.

For Sturgis to call her out for supporting Republicans is “really sad,” Kailasapathy said. A Ward 1 resident had sent her an email that day, that included a list of contributions to Gov. Rick Snyder’s campaign. [Snyder ran as a Republican.] Sturgis is on the list, she said.

Sturgis said he was very happy to address the contribution to Snyder, but noted that Kailasapathy had not addressed the issue of Ahmar Iqbal, who Sturgis again stated had given money to Tim Wahlberg – who Sturgis characterized as “against every women’s rights you can imagine” and has done a “horrible job in Congress.” Snyder’s son and Sturgis had graduated in the same class and were very good friends. Snyder’s son came to Sturgis and asked him if he’d support Snyder. So Sturgis supported Snyder in the Republican primary, he allowed.

Sturgis had supported Snyder in the primary against “crazy Pete Hoekstra, who god help us, we don’t want him.” [Hoekstra is former Republican Congressman representing the 2nd District, from 1993-2011.] In the primary Snyder had also been running against Mike Bishop and Mike Bouchard, whom Sturgis characterized as “absolutely nuts.” [Bishop actually contested the Republican nomination for state attorney general, not governor, and lost that nomination to Bill Schuette.] So he supported Snyder, someone who was more moderate, Sturgis said. For the general election, between Virg Bernero and Snyder, he’d had a Bernero sign out, Sturgis said.

Given a chance by Henry to respond to the question about her support for Iqbal, Kailasapathy noted that Iqbal had run for the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of trustees – a non-partisan position. She had not voted for Iqbal, she said, and she had not donated any money to his campaign.

Working With Others: Favorites

Henry then asked the candidates who their “favorites” or role models are on the city council.

Kailasapathy did not answer immediately, then offered that she did not know that she’d try to model herself on anyone: “Sumi is Sumi!” She eventually said she thinks Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is very good at listening to people and he’s approachable. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), she said, is very good at responding to people and very patient. Kailasapathy felt she could learn from Briere. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is someone who will always say what he thinks. What the city council needs is a variety, she said. If we call ourselves a democratic city, we need diversity and democratic discourse.

Sturgis said he had three favorites. The first is Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). He’s known Higgins since he was 10 years old. He has a great deal of respect for Higgins, he said. He felt that another favorite of his might surprise some people – Sabra Briere. Sturgis described Briere as “very knowledgeable.” Briere doesn’t just respond to constituents, but also gives you the information you need, and genuinely wants to help. He said he had a great deal of respect for Briere. A third favorite, he’d put together Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and mayor John Hieftje. What he really likes about Smith is that she’s honest. Hieftje had taken the city out of one of the worst recessions we’ve seen, he said. He respects everyone on the council, he said. But he’ll be an independent voice. He respects Jane Lumm, Stephen Kunselman and Mike Anglin, he said. Everybody deserves respect on the council.

Working with Others: Albert Howard

Moderator Mike Henry brought up an issue that Jack Eaton had raised with a Facebook post. [Eaton attended the Ward 1 forum; he's contesting the Ward 4 Democratic primary with incumbent Margie Teall, reprising their 2010 race.] The Facebook post in question was this:

While attending the Juneteeth celebration at Wheeler Park, I saw “Democratic” candidate Eric Sturgis sign Republican/Independent candidate Albert Howard’s Nominating petition. Makes you wonder.

Sturgis responded by asking, “Isn’t Albert Howard the same party as Jane Lumm?” [Jack Eaton, a Democrat, joined many other local Democrats in supporting Lumm, an erstwhile Republican who ran in 2011 as an independent. Howard contested New Hampshire's presidential primary in 2008 as a Republican, and more recently sought to gather signatures for nominating petitions in the Ann Arbor mayoral Republican primary this year, but did not achieve enough valid signatures. He's currently circulating petitions to run for Ann Arbor mayor as an independent.]

A brief back-and-forth between Sabra Briere and Sturgis drew out the fact that Howard had tried to collect petitions as a Republican for mayor, failed to get a sufficient number of signatures and is now circulating petitions as an independent.

Sturgis explained his signing of Howard’s mayoral nominating petitions. He described how he was approached by four people who were Ward 1 voters who said, “Hey, I’ll support you, I’ll put a sign out, and I’ll come around and help you in this certain area, but you’ve got to sign a petition.” So he asked who he was signing for. After he signed Howard’s nominating petition, he noted that his signature wouldn’t count, because he’d already signed John Hieftje’s mayoral nominating petitions.

Sturgis said he’d told the petition circulator right after he signed that his signature wouldn’t count. Sturgis said he’s all for people running for office – because it’s one of highest forms of patriotism. He’s heard people use the phrase the “Ann Arbor Tea Party” – people who are against everything, Sturgis said. Democracy is about letting people get on the ballot. He supports Hieftje wholeheartedly, Sturgis said. He also knows Howard, he said, because he’s coached Howard’s kids. “I’m sorry I know people in the community,” Sturgis offered sardonically.

By way of background on the issue of a person signing more than one candidate’s petition, Michigan’s election law stipulates that only the earlier signature counts:

168.547a Nominating petitions; signatures by voters, number, counting.
Sec. 547a. If a qualified and registered voter signs nominating petitions for a greater number of candidates for public office than the number of persons to be elected thereto, his signatures, if they bear the same date, shall not be counted upon any petition, and if they bear different dates shall be counted in the order of their priority of date for only so many candidates as there are persons to be elected.

But the Ann Arbor city charter differs from state election law. According to the city charter, a second signature invalidates both signatures:

Circulation and Signing of Nomination Petitions
SECTION 13.9.
…
(b) If any person signs a greater number of petitions for any office than there will be persons elected to that office, that person’s signature shall be disregarded on all petitions for that office.

City clerk Jackie Beaudry told The Chronicle in a telephone interview that as a practical matter, the clerk’s office would not evaluate Howard’s signatures against those of Hieftje and possibly disqualify signatures for Hieftje. The nominating petitions are essentially for two different elections, she pointed out – a partisan primary compared to a the general election. She also noted that Hieftje likely had sufficient signatures, even without the signature of Sturgis. In addition, Hieftje has already been certified for the ballot and the ballots have been sent to the printer.

Asked by moderator Mike Henry at the forum if she’d signed nominating petitions in the mayoral race, Kailasapathy indicated she had not.

Working with Others: Agreeing with Hieftje

Moderator Mike Henry asked the candidates if there were any issues on which they disagreed with mayor John Hieftje – other than the case of the travel budget that Sturgis had mentioned earlier in the forum.

Sturgis said he and Hieftje might not necessarily agree on development – the mayor’s “lines get bigger” when it comes to downtown development. Sturgis is more for keeping development in the downtown, he said. Sturgis said he supports the recommendations of the R4C study committee. A lot of issues considered by the council are unanimous votes or 10-1, he noted. Sturgis said he did not have “a book of John Hieftje votes” so that he could say that he agreed with one and disagreed with another.

Prompted by Henry, Sturgis said he might be a little bit more committed to police and fire protection than Hieftje. Sturgis said he would not cut police and fire protection. He didn’t see many specific issues on which he and the mayor disagreed, so he felt he could work with Hieftje effectively.

Sturgis noted that Hieftje is running unopposed for mayor and is not endorsing either candidate in Ward 1. [As of June 25, Albert Howard had not filed his petitions to appear on the ballot as an independent candidate for mayor. The deadline is July 19.]

Kailasapathy noted that Hieftje is touted as the “green mayor,” but she wanted to push Hieftje to be greener than he is. Conservation is also a green practice, she said. If you have older, historic homes, she said, then bulldozing them down and building a huge structure isn’t necessary. Kailasapathy said she’d really push Hieftje not to just preserve historic districts, but to preserve the character of Ann Arbor. A lot of residents are concerned that if Ann Arbor continues on this trajectory, the character of the neighborhoods and the city itself is going to change. “Ann Arbor’s charm is what it is,” she said – it’s a small town with parks and greenery. So she’d challenge Hieftje to expand his notion of greenness.

Working with Others: Trusting Hieftje

Mike Henry brought the issue back to the question of trust. He asked the candidates if they trusted the mayor and could work him.

Kailasapathy said that the issue is not whether you like someone or not. You have a job and you do it. She described emailing Hieftje and Briere back and forth about the rail system. It doesn’t mean that she and Hieftje agree on everything and it doesn’t mean that she and Briere agree on everything. If she needs to work with the mayor, she will work with the mayor. Based on her professional training, she said, you leave behind your biases and you deal with the facts.

Sturgis said he had no issues working with Hieftje. He said he gives Hieftje a lot of respect. He said if he had been called “corrupt” in the 2010 election, that takes a pretty big person to put that aside. The word “corrupt” is a huge word to use when you disagree with somebody, he said. When you “run with people who call themselves the anti-mayor slate” or support people like that, Sturgis began – but he did not finish the thought. [In the 2010 Democratic council and mayoral primary campaigns, the word "slate" evolved into a kind of pejorative reference used by incumbents to characterize the set of challengers that year, of which Kailasapathy was one. See, for example, coverage from that year: "Ann Arbor Dems Primary: Mayoral Race"]

What’s important is having respect for the mayor and not feeling that the mayor is corrupt, trying to fill his own pockets for personal gain – which is what the word “corrupt” essentially means, Sturgis said. He doesn’t believe that at all, Sturgis said, but rather thinks that Hieftje genuinely cares about Ann Arbor.

Sturgis noted that in Hieftje’s six times running for mayor, Sturgis could count on one hand the number of precincts Hieftje had lost. So the majority of Ann Arbor residents feel like working with the mayor is important, he concluded.

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!