The leadership group for the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services to End Homelessness made a presentation at the board’s May 22, 2014 working session. Their recommendations include the goal of building a $50 million endowment over 20 years. Payouts from the endowment would fund supportive services – such as treatment for mental illness and substance abuse – with the intent of addressing the root causes of homelessness. The concept is called permanent supportive housing, and is part of the community’s broader  Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was created in 2004 and is being updated.

A possible millage – recommended at 0.25 mills, for no more than 20 years – would help fund supportive services while the endowment is built. County commissioners are being asked to consider putting such a millage on the ballot, possibly in 2015.

Several steps have already been taken to achieve these goals. An endowment was established in 2011, with $2.1 million in commitments so far. That amount includes a $1 million gift from the St. Joseph Mercy Health System to create the endowment, which is called the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund for Supportive Services for Housing. Gellise is the former CEO of St. Joe’s. She served on the task force and is a founding board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Another $1 million commitment comes from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), where the endowment is housed. AAACF CEO Cheryl Elliott is another task force member. In addition, an anonymous donor has contributed $100,000.

The first fund distribution – of $26,100 – will be made this fall in a competitive grant process. AAACF’s distribution committee – an all-volunteer group – will be responsible for making grant recommendations.

AAACF is also helping provide a three-year, part-time development job to support fundraising for this endowment. Funding for the position will come from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance ($25,000), the AAACF ($5,000) and an anonymous donor ($10,000).

The foundation posted the position earlier this summer, with the intent of making a hire as soon as possible. The position would be in place until at least mid-2017. The employee will report to AAACF’s vice president for development and donor services, and to the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund development committee. Members of that committee are the same people who’ve served on the leadership team of the task force, Elliott said. In addition to herself, members include Bob Chapman, Sister Yvonne Gellise, Bob Guenzel, Norm Herbert and Dave Lutton.

This brief was filed from the county administration building at 220 N. Main. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel and Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office community & economic development, talk with former University of Michigan treasurer Norm Herbert before the start of the May 22, 2014 county board working session. Guenzel and Herbert are members of a task force on supportive housing. (Photos by the writer.)

The leadership team of the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services briefed commissioners on their recommendations, including the goal of building a $50 million endowment over 20 years. Payouts from the endowment would fund supportive services – such as treatment for mental illness and substance abuse – with the intent of addressing the root causes of homelessness. The concept is called permanent supportive housing, and is part of the community’s broader Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was created in 2004 and is being updated.

A possible millage – recommended at 0.25 mills, for no more than 20 years – would help fund supportive services while the endowment is built. County commissioners are being asked to consider putting such a millage on the ballot, possibly in 2015.

Former county administrator Bob Guenzel, a task force member, told commissioners that the task force believes this approach “is absolutely the right thing to do, to end homelessness and keep people housed. We feel very strongly about that. It’s a moral issue.” There’s also a strong business case for this approach when looking at the cost of emergency services and the criminal justice system, compared to the cost of permanent supportive housing, he said.

Several steps have already been taken to achieve these goals. An endowment was established in 2011, with $2.1 million in commitments so far. That amount includes a $1 million gift from the St. Joseph Mercy Health System to create the endowment, which is called the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund for Supportive Services for Housing. Gellise is the former CEO of St. Joe’s. She’s on the task force and is a founding board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Another $1 million commitment comes from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), where the endowment is housed. AAACF Cheryl Elliott is another task force member. In addition, an anonymous donor has contributed $100,000.

The first fund distribution – of $26,100 – will be made this fall in a competitive grant process. AAACF’s distribution committee – an all-volunteer group – will be responsible for making grant recommendations.

AAACF is also helping provide a three-year, part-time development job to support fundraising for this endowment. Funding for the position will come from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance ($25,000), the AAACF ($5,000) and an anonymous donor ($10,000).

The foundation will post this position in early June, Elliott reported, with the intent of making a hire as soon as possible. The position would be in place until at least mid-2017. The employee will report to AAACF’s vice president for development and donor services, and to the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund development committee. Members of that committee are the same people who’ve served on the leadership team of the task force, Elliott said. In addition to herself, members are Bob Chapman, Sister Yvonne Gellise, Bob Guenzel, Norm Herbert and Dave Lutton. They hope to get an additional two or three members, she said.

The next steps in this process include a request to the county board to sunset the task force at the June 4 board meeting. The board will also be asked to consider the task force’s recommendation for a millage. “Please use this year and into 2015 to set a millage strategy,” Elliott said.

The task force also stressed the importance of a public outreach and education effort, to help build awareness and support for the endowment.

The task force presentation was attended by five of the county’s nine commissioners. During their discussion, Conan Smith (D-District 9) expressed interest in having the county bond for this initiative – either for the full $50 million, or some portion of that amount. The county now has a triple-A bond rating, Smith noted. [That news had been announced earlier in the day. In general, higher ratings allow organizations to secure better terms for borrowing funds.] “This gives us an opportunity… to actually have some real impact in the community,” Smith said.

Task force members indicated that they hadn’t considered the option of bonding, and Elliott had some concerns about whether it would be legal to use taxpayer dollars for an endowment. They plan to explore the possibility, including consultation with legal counsel.

Background

By way of brief background, Washtenaw County and several other community partners developed the Blueprint to End Homelessness in 2004. Washtenaw Housing Alliance – a consortium of housing and shelter providers, social service agencies, and other groups that provide support services – was given the task of implementing the blueprint.

As part of the implementation efforts, in 2007 the county board created the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services. Its charge was this: “Explore locally viable long-term revenue sources for the creation and sustainability of supportive housing units and related services.”

The following year, the task force delivered a report and set of recommendations, which the county board adopted on Oct. 2, 2008. [.pdf of 2008 report and recommendations] As summarized in the report, the recommendations are:

Promote Supportive Housing in Washtenaw County: Mobilize new supportive housing service funding for 500 units at an average cost of $5,000/unit/year.

Charter an Implementation Process: Charter a “Phase II” planning and implementation process (via action of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners) to provide continuing leadership and coordination in advancing achievement of the recommendations articulated in this report of the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services.

Educate the Public: Design and launch a public education campaign focused on the nature and value of supportive services with an aim of raising community support and resources for supportive housing initiatives and the 500‐Unit Plan.

Secure Bridge Funding: Mobilize multi‐systems commitments of up to $1.2 million/year in public‐private resources as “bridge funding,” to support at least 200 units of supportive housing, based on the model being implemented through the Joint Integrated Funding Pilot Project in 2008‐2010. This gap funding will be replaced by new revenue sources, as described within this report.

Re‐allocate Mainstream Services Funding: Advocate with mainstream service systems to mobilize supplemental commitments of up to $500,000 per year in mainstream systems resources [e.g. Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS), Employment Training & Community Services (ETCS), Head Start) to help address inflation in services costs and expand impact of new community investment in supportive housing services.

Establish User Fees: Establish a strategy to recruit appropriate consumer service contributions (user fees) toward supportive services costs in new units created through the 500‐Unit Plan.ƒ

Explore Millage Funding: Explore the development of a millage strategy that will generate the needed amount of dedicated and sustainable revenue over a period of time not to exceed twenty years.

Raise Endowment Funding: Raise $10‐20 million in new private/corporate/foundation funding to create a Supportive Housing Services Endowment (by 2014), sufficient to generate significant continuing revenues dedicated toward the total of ongoing services costs required for 500 new units of housing.

A leadership team was formed to work on the second phase of this effort, and workgroups were established in three areas: (1) public education; (2) millage strategy; and (3) private endowment.

The results of this effort were presented to county commissioners on May 22.

Task Force Presentation

Bob Chapman – the task force chair, CEO of United Bank & Trust, and chair of the Washtenaw Community College Foundation – introduced other members of the task force leadership team, who all attended the May 22 working session:

• Cheryl Elliott, president of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.
• Sister Yvonne Gellise, retired CEO of the Saint Joseph Mercy Health System.
• Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator.
• Norm Herbert, retired University of Michigan treasurer and associate vice president.
• Dave Lutton, president of the Charles Reinhart Company.

Their intent, Chapman said, was to give the county board some background about the Blueprint to End Homelessness and its plan for adding 500 units of permanent supportive housing, as well as the history of the task force. They would also introduce a plan for creating an endowment for supportive services, and would ask that the board formally dissolve the task force at its June 4 meeting.

Task force members Dave Lutton (standing) and Bob Guenzel.

Bob Guenzel told commissioners that this work goes back over 10 years. [It began when Guenzel was still county administrator. He retired in 2010.] The Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was developed in 2004, included major priorities that the community planned to focus on: (1) homeless prevention, to help keep people secure in their homes; and (2) housing with supportive services.

Regarding housing with services, Guenzel noted that the most difficult people to house are those who need services to help them find housing and to stay housed. The idea is to form a system of care and to engage the community to do that, he said. Dave Lutton chaired the committee on this topic, to develop realistic goals and to articulate why it’s important to provide supportive services.

Lutton spoke next, noting that there are currently about 350 units of permanent supportive housing in the county, so they haven’t met the target of 500 yet. People in these units earn below 30% of the area median income (AMI). The blueprint had called for 250 units for families and 250 units for individuals, with a goal of breaking the cycle of poverty and homelessness, “which is very challenging,” Lutton said.

Permanent supportive housing combines housing with services that people need, Lutton explained. The theory is that if housing is stabilized, there’s a better chance of addressing the underlying needs and challenges that contribute to homelessness, such as substance abuse and mental illness.

The agencies that form the Washtenaw Housing Alliance in reality are dealing with people who are earning about 15% AMI, Lutton said, so these are people who are extremely poor.

Contributing factors to homelessness are many and varied, Lutton said. Factors include lack of employment, drug and alcohol dependencies, physical disabilities, and mental illness – as well as a lack of support systems for the mentally ill, compared to a few decades ago. If people are housed, it’s much easier to tackle these other challenges, he said.

Someone living in permanent supportive housing pays no more than 30% of their income for rent. There are government vouchers and other subsidies that help offset the gap between that amount and the actual cost of housing, Lutton noted. The key factor is that the tenant holds the lease and it’s not limited by a length of tenancy. That’s another way to encourage housing stability, he said.

Permanent supportive housing requires property management, Lutton said, as well as a greater level of cooperation, coordination and communication with the landlord and support service providers. Participating landlords are “admirable, and know that they’re taking on a more challenging population than the mainstream public,” Lutton added, so it’s important to have a safety net – a quick, effective response – when a problem occurs.

Carole McCabe, executive director of Avalon Housing.

The whole system of supportive services is voluntary, Lutton explained. That is, it’s not thrust upon a family or individual. They agree to be open to the services. Services are customized according to each tenant’s needs, he noted, and include case management, crisis intervention, and assistance with all kinds of basic needs, including food and health care. When it’s done well, Lutton said, the tenant begins to feel like part of a community, and becomes connected to other tenants. “That again reinforces permanency,” he said. Lutton noted that tenants of the nonprofit Avalon Housing, which provides permanent supportive housing, stay an average of seven or eight years. A lot of what Avalon does is to create a sense of community for its tenants, he said.

Guenzel told commissioners that the task force believes this approach “is absolutely the right thing to do, to end homelessness and keep people housed. We feel very strongly about that. It’s a moral issue.”

More convincing to some people, Guenzel added, is that there’s a tremendous business case for this approach. Homelessness is very costly for taxpayers, he said. Studies – including research by the Corporation for Supportive Housing – have shown that emergency room and hospital in-patient days decreases by 50% for people who are in permanent supportive housing. Use of emergency detox services decreases by 80%. And earned income – which helps people get back on their feet, Guenzel noted – increases by 50%. So there’s a strong business case for this approach when looking at the cost of emergency systems compared to the cost of permanent supportive housing, he said.

Other community costs are also impacted, Guenzel noted. The average cost for permanent supportive housing is about $40 a day. That compares to the average daily cost of the state prison ($94), county jail ($129), and emergency shelter ($66). That’s a tremendous savings to taxpayers, he said, compared to the costs of the criminal justice system and homeless shelters.

In the past 10 years, new units of permanent supportive housing have come on line, Guenzel said. When the YMCA closed its downtown location, the city lost 100 units of low-income housing, he noted. Other units have come on line, but not all of them include support services. There are currently an estimated 350 units of permanent supportive housing, including about 75% that are managed by the nonprofit Avalon Housing. Most recently, Avalon opened a complex on Pauline Boulevard.

Guenzel noted that single-site complexes like the one on Pauline are more cost effective to offer supportive services, compared to housing at scattered sites with private landlords. But to meet the needs of the community, all types are necessary, he said.

Chapman spoke next, reminding commissioners that in 2007 the county board created the task force. Its charge was to “explore locally viable long-term revenue sources for the creation and sustainability of supportive housing units and related services.” In 2008, the task force delivered a report with recommendations, which was approved by the board.

From left: Norm Herbert, Cheryl Elliott, and Bob Chapman.

Those recommendations included starting a second phase of this effort, Chapman said. They created a leadership team and established workgroups in three areas: (1) public education; (2) millage strategy; and (3) private endowment.

Regarding public education, the real intent is to raise the public’s awareness and support for resources that would be needed to sustain supportive housing services. That was necessary, Chapman noted, because the task force’s main recommendation back in 2008 was to seek a voter-approved millage. The millage would provide dedicated revenue for a period not to exceed 20 years.

At the same time, the third initiative was to build a private endowment, Chapman explained. So at the end of a 20-year millage, there would be money available to replace those tax revenues.

However, starting in last 2008 there was a significant change, Chapman noted: “We went through the Great Recession.” That period included a reduction in state and federal funding sources, and “no appetite for a millage,” he said.

Norm Herbert picked up the presentation, noting that fundraising slowed down considerably in 2008 as well. So the task force decided to shift the priority away from a millage and toward building an endowment. They set an initial goal of $17 million. That amount was largely influenced by the amount it would take to fund supportive services for 136 units, Herbert said. They were using an annual cost of $5,000 per unit to provide the services.

The value of an endowment is that it’s permanent, and provides an annual payout in good and bad economic times, Herbert noted. “It’s a reliable source of revenue, and should provide the same or greater purchasing power over the time that these needed supportive services can be provided,” he said.

Given the challenges of building an endowment, it was important to determine “community readiness” for such an initiative, Herbert explained. The firm Hammond & Associates LLC was hired in 2013 to conduct that assessment. They held 21 one-on-one confidential interviews, as well as two group interviews. “We learned through that process that more community education was needed, both on the complexities of homelessness, and secondly, on the workings of an endowment fund and of how that would provide the ongoing needed support,” he said.

Sister Yvonne Gellise.

They also learned that professional expertise would be needed to assist with building the endowment. “It wasn’t just a matter of going out and asking for support, as we do with annual fund drives,” Herbert said. “This took on a different level of complexity, because people need to understand how an endowment works.”

Herbert reported that the task force has achieved some success so far. They established an endowment in 2011 and raised $2.1 million in commitments. That amount includes a $1 million gift from the St. Joseph Mercy Health System to create the endowment, which is called the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund for Supportive Services for Housing. Gellise is the former CEO of St. Joe’s, and is a founding board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance.

Another $1 million commitment comes from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), where the endowment is housed. In addition, an anonymous donor has contributed $100,000.

Cheryl Elliot, the AAACF’s CEO, reported that the fund will disburse revenue annually using a process set up by AAACF with input from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, the county’s office of community & economic development, and the coordinated funding partners. The first fund distribution, of $26,100, will be made this fall in a competitive grant process, she said.

The AAACF’s distribution committee – an all-volunteer group – will be responsible for making grant recommendations, Elliott said. She added that it looks like an additional $24,500 will be available for grants in 2015.

Regarding staff to help build the endowment, in March of 2014 the AAACF board agreed to contract a three-year part-time development position at the foundation solely to support the fund development efforts for this endowment. Up to $40,000 will be needed annually for this job, Elliott said, and will come from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance ($25,000), the AAACF ($5,000) and an anonymous donor ($10,000).

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) was a member of the task force on sustainable revenues for supportive housing services.

The foundation will post this position in early June, Elliott reported, with the intent of making a hire as soon as possible. The position would be in place until at least mid-2017. The employee will report to AAACF’s vice president for development and donor services and the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund development committee. Members of that committee are the same people who’ve served on the leadership team of the task force, Elliott said. In addition to herself, members are Bob Chapman, Sister Yvonne Gellise, Bob Guenzel, Norm Herbert and Dave Lutton. They hope to get an additional two or three members, she said.

The goals for the endowment itself are large but achievable, Elliot told commissioners. Over the next five years, the goal is to raise $5 million in gifts and pledges. For the seven to ten years after that, the goal is to raise $17 million. The long-term goal is to raise $50 million in 20 years – a combination of gifts, pledges and return on investments.

Elliott outlined next steps in the process, which includes asking the county board to sunset the task force at the June 4 board meeting. The board will also be asked to consider the task force’s recommendation for a millage. “Please use this year and into 2015 to set a millage strategy,” she said.

Gellise wrapped up the presentation, joking that “I’m getting a little tired of hearing my name – but at least it’s in connection with something good.” She hoped that commissioners saw the connection between having a home and improving the health of this community – referring to a presentation earlier in the working session by the county’s health officer, Ellen Rabinowitz.

Providing supportive services for housing is not only successful in keeping people housed, Gellise said, but is also cost-effective, with a good return on resources invested. “The bottom line – and I am a bottom-line person: It is the right thing to do. We need to do it,” she said.

Gellise thanked commissioners for their support, and asked them to “keep a millage on your radar screen.”

Board Discussion

Several of the five commissioners who attended the working session thanked the task force for their service.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked for clarification about the amount needed per unit to provide housing and supportive services. The $5,000 per unit annually is the cost to provide supportive services, to eventually be covered by the endowment. The $40 per day per unit is estimated rent – to be covered by both the tenant and any available subsidy.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Smith elicited from Cheryl Elliott the fact that the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation currently manages about $76 million in total assets. Elliott said the goal is to get an 8% return on investments to allow for a 5% spending policy and 3% inflation. The goal is to preserve the inter-generational equity or purchasing power of a gift or a fund, she said. So if someone set up a $10,000 endowment 50 years ago, “that fund had better be more than $10,000 today and have been paying out grant dollars every year,” Elliott said. AAACF staff and volunteers pay serious attention to that, she added.

Responding to additional queries from Smith, Elliott reported that AAACF was founded in 1963 and over those years the return on investments has varied. The way that funds are invested has also changed, she noted. Today the portfolio is very diverse, everything from traditional U.S. stocks to emerging markets and alternative investments – hedge funds, private equity, and real assets. Elliott noted that Norman Herbert sits on the foundation’s finance and investment committee.

Herbert said that over the last 20 years, AAACF has hit its target of an 8% return. In 2008, the portfolio lost 30.8% of its value, Elliott added, but the value was recouped two years after that. However, because the payout policy is based on a 16-quarter rolling average, AAACF was able to continue making grant payouts during that time, she noted.

Smith said he asked these questions to recognize that the AAACF has been doing this work for a long time, and has been quite successful.

Board Discussion: Bond vs. Millage

Conan Smith asked Bob Guenzel whether the task force had considered bonding as an option, rather than a millage. What if the county bonded for $50 million toward this initiative?

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), one of the commissioners representing Ann Arbor, is chair of the board’s working sessions.

Guenzel replied that there would still need to be a revenue stream to pay off those bonds. Smith indicated that if the county borrows at a 2% interest rate and invests the money, getting a return of 8%, then bonds could be leveraged to pay off the debt. “It seems to me like we might be able to achieve the greater community goal in a less costly way, perhaps, in a partnership like that,” Smith said. Guenzel said they’d certainly be willing to consider it.

Smith reported that he and Mary Jo Callan – director of the county’s office of community & economic development – have been exploring the concept of “social impact” bonds as a mechanism for financing social programs. He said it would be worth taking time to look at the potential of bonding. It seemed to him like bonding would require a substantially lower revenue stream to pay it off.

The county now has a triple-A bond rating, Smith noted. [That news had been announced earlier in the day. In general, higher ratings allow organizations to secure better terms for borrowing funds.] “This gives us an opportunity, if we’re going to do projects that scale, to actually have some real impact in the community,” Smith said.

Herbert said there might be some arbitrage issues coming into play that could be a concern, so they’d need to look at that. He indicated that the possibility could be explored.

Smith then asked if the county is currently contributing to this initiative. Amanda Carlisle, executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, replied that the county provides support through its participation in coordinated funding. Avalon Housing, for example, is getting $85,000 from the county this year through coordinated funding. Carole McCabe, Avalon’s executive director, noted that the amount is a decrease from last year.

Guenzel described funding for housing and supportive services as a “hodge-podge,” including federal grants as well as the local coordinated funding.

Smith asked if the county’s contribution to Avalon Housing would be diminished, if the endowment were fully capitalized. Is that the intent? Guenzel replied that it might be the outcome, if the endowment is large enough. But “that’s a very long way off,” he added.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

“I’m not so sure it is,” Smith responded. For the sake of argument, Smith said, let’s assume the county is making a $100,000 annual investment in supportive housing now. If the county wants to ensure that same amount is provided in perpetuity, adjusted for inflation, then they’d need to give the endowment $2 million, he said. Herbert clarified that Smith’s calculation assumes a 5% distribution rate, and that 4% would probably be more reasonable to assume.

Smith suggested that the county give the endowment $2 million, and also somehow ensure that its current grantees – like Avalon Housing – would be held harmless in terms of support from the county, until the remainder of the endowment is built.

Cheryl Elliott told Smith that in Michigan, it’s not legal to put public taxpayer dollars into an endowment like this. Herbert noted that these are issues that would need to be researched.

Dave Lutton reported that the task force has been working on the understanding that a 0.25 mill tax would fund 500 units of permanent supportive housing. “We don’t think that 500 units is all that’s needed in Washtenaw County in terms of housing or permanent supportive housing, but it’s a great leap from where we’ve been,” he said. So that’s the first target of this plan.

Elliott added that the idea of a millage stems from looking at what other communities are doing, and at what would work best for Washtenaw County – a permanent endowment. Herbert noted that the intent is to build the endowment so that after a period of time, the millage is no longer needed. The goal of $50 million would support 500 units, which was part of the original Blueprint to End Homelessness.

Smith ventured that there are some “interesting financial opportunities for the county to be a partner in this strategy going forward.” That might include a millage, bonding, or potentially using county funds in an endowment-type effort, he said. This is a public good and a public responsibility, Smith added, and it’s something that taxpayers should want to be a part of.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that an advisory committee will be looking at the use of the county-owned Platt Road property, a 13.5-acre site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road. He thought there was an opportunity for affordable housing solutions at that location, and he asked the task force leadership team to consider advocating for that.

Related to the possible funding options, LaBarre asked how seriously should the county look at the possibility of bonding – assuming that a millage isn’t politically viable. Would the county’s upgraded credit rating have any kind of effect on that decision?

Herbert replied that legal counsel should be involved in helping to determine whether bonding is an option.

LaBarre then asked what the fallback plan would be, if a millage isn’t pursued or if voters reject it. Herbert responded: Under that scenario, the only real option would be to build the endowment through private donations. That’s an important part of the education initiative that the task force outlined, he said.

LaBarre wondered if there was any hope of support from the state or federal governments. “Not currently,” Herbert replied.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who was part of the task force, thanked the leadership team for their work. She was amazed at their ingenuity, passion and dedication.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) also thanked the task force. A lot of things that the county is celebrating now are due to work that’s happened in the past, he said. Former county administrator Bob Guenzel had laid a lot of groundwork for this, Rabhi added. There are a lot of challenges, he noted, but the community now understands what the problem is and is seriously tackling it.

There are a lot of creative ideas, Rabhi said. He agreed with LaBarre that there’s a great opportunity at the Platt Road site. It might not result in a cash contribution from the county, but the site could be used for supportive housing, affordable housing or even mixed-income housing, he said. The 13.5 acres might be more valuable if used for housing – more so than if it were sold, he noted.

Rabhi thought there was a role for commissioners to play, even as individual community members helping to raise awareness of this initiative and to help build the endowment. “We can and should certainly play an advocacy role in helping to lead the community movement toward making that endowment a reality.”

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The grant will pay for training of food council members, a “foodshed mapping” project, and development of an educational and public outreach effort. The grant will be administered by a staff member of the county’s public health department, who has a seat on the council. The department will provide a $15,571 in-kind match for the grant.

The food policy council was created by the county board on March 21, 2012. Most of its members – including Rabhi – were appointed on June 6, 2012, when the county board also approved the council’s bylaws. [.pdf of food policy council bylaws] The council aims to support local small and mid-sized farmers by fostering policies that encourage local food purchasing and production. Council activities might include: recommending policy changes at the local, state and national levels; providing a forum for discussing food issues; encouraging coordination among different sectors of the local food system; evaluating, educating, and influencing policy; and launching or supporting programs and services that address local food needs.

County board chair Yousef Rabhi, who also serves on the food policy council, had informed the board on March 6, 2013 that the county would be applying for this grant. At that meeting, commissioner Ronnie Peterson had expressed interest in having a broader discussion to develop a process for seeking funds for projects that other commissioners might want to bring forward. That discussion has not yet occurred.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Interim Ann Arbor police chief John Seto talks with Eunice Burns, a longtime activist who attended an April 12 sustainability forum at the Ann Arbor District Library. Seto was a panelist at the forum, which focused on building a sustainable community. (Photos by the writer.)

Community is one of four categories in a framework that’s been developed over the past year, with the intent of setting sustainability goals for the city. Other categories – which have been the focus of three previous forums this year – are resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community.

At the April 12 forum on community, Wendy Rampson – the city’s planning manager, who moderated the discussion – told the audience that 15 draft goals have been selected from more than 200 already found in existing city planning documents. The hope is to reach consensus on these sustainability goals, then present them to the city council as possible amendments to the city’s master plan. The goals are fairly general – if approved, they would be fleshed out with more detailed objectives and action items. [.pdf of draft sustainability goals]

Rampson said that although this would be the final forum in this year’s series, there seems to be interest in having an annual sustainability event – so this would likely not be the last gathering.

The forum was held at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building, and attended by about 50 people. Panelists were Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program; Cheryl Elliott, president of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation; John Seto, Ann Arbor’s interim chief of police; Jennifer L. Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission; Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission; and Cheryl Saam, facility supervisor for the Ann Arbor canoe liveries.

Several comments during the Q & A session centered on the issue of housing density within the city. Eunice Burns, a long-time local activist and former Ann Arbor city councilmember, advocated for more flexibility in accessory apartments.

Doug Kelbaugh, a UM professor of architecture and urban planning, supported her view and wondered whether the city put too high a priority on parks, when what Ann Arbor really needs is more people living downtown. He said a previous attempt to revise zoning and allow for more flexibility in accessory units was shot down by a “relatively small, relatively wealthy, relatively politically-connected group. I don’t think it was a fair measure of community sentiment.”

Also during the Q & A period, Pete Wangwongwiroj – a board member of UM’s student sustainability initiative – advocated for the concept of gross national happiness to be a main consideration in public policy decisions.

The April forum was videotaped by AADL staff and will be posted on the library’s website – videos of the three previous sessions are already posted: on resource management (Jan. 12); land use and access (Feb. 9); and climate and energy (March 8). Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality” and “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability.“

Update on Sustainability Goals

The overall sustainability initiative started informally two years ago, with a joint meeting of the city’s planning, environmental and energy commissions. The idea is to help shape decisions by looking at a triple bottom line: environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.

In early 2011, the city received a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to fund a formal sustainability project. The project set out to review the city’s existing plans and organize them into a framework of goals, objectives and indicators that can guide future planning and policy. The overall project also aimed to improve access to the city’s plans and to the sustainability components of each plan, and to incorporate the concept of sustainability into city planning and future city plans.

The Home Depot grant funded the job of a sustainability associate. The position is held by Jamie Kidwell, who’s been the point person for this effort. In addition to city staff, this work was initially guided by volunteers who serve on four city advisory commissions: park, planning, energy and environmental. Members from those groups met at a joint working session in late September of 2011. Since then, the city’s housing commission and housing and human services commission have been added to the conversation.

Over the past year, city staff and a committee made of up members from several city advisory commissions have evaluated the city’s 27 existing planning documents and pulled out 226 goals from those plans that relate to sustainability. From there, they prioritized the goals and developed a small subset to present for discussion.

Fifteen goals have been organized into four main categories: climate and energy; community; land use and access; and resource management. The draft goals are:

Climate & Energy

• Sustainable Energy: Improve access to and increase use of renewable energy by all members of our community.
• Energy Conservation: Reduce energy consumption and eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions in our community.
• High Performance Buildings: Increase efficiency in new and existing buildings within our community.

Community

• Engaged Community: Ensure our community is strongly connected through outreach, opportunities for engagement, and stewardship of community resources.
• Diverse Housing: Provide high quality, safe, efficient, and affordable housing choices to meet the current and future needs of our community, particularly for homeless and low-income households.
• Safe Community: Minimize risk to public health and property from manmade and natural hazards.
• Active Living: Improve quality of life by providing diverse cultural, recreational, and educational opportunities for all members of our community.
• Economic Vitality: Develop a prosperous, resilient local economy that provides opportunity by creating jobs, retaining and attracting talent, supporting a diversity of businesses across all sectors, and rewarding investment in our community.

Land Use & Access

• Transportation Options: Establish a physical and cultural environment that supports and encourages safe, comfortable and efficient ways for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to travel throughout the city and region.
• Sustainable Systems: Plan for and manage constructed and natural infrastructure systems to meet the current and future needs of our community.
• Efficient Land Use: Encourage a compact pattern of diverse development that maintains our sense of place, preserves our natural systems, and strengthens our neighborhoods, corridors, and downtown.

Resource Management

• Clean Air and Water: Eliminate pollutants in our air and water systems.
• Healthy Ecosystems: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
• Responsible Resource Use: Produce zero waste and optimize the use and reuse of resources in our community.
• Local Food: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our local agriculture and aquaculture resource.

A public meeting on March 29 to get input on these draft goals drew only a handful of people, but feedback can also be sent to the city via email at sustainability@a2gov.org.

Framing the Discussion: What Is Community?

As he did at the first sustainability forum in January, Dick Norton – chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program – began the April 12 event by giving an overview to frame the subsequent discussion. He started by defining three terms: community, development and sustainability.

What is community? It’s not “I am an island unto myself,” he said, nor is it anarchy, nor dystopia, nor even utopia. Rather, community brings to mind images of the common, the social aspects of our nature, the notions of inclusiveness, identity and belonging. But it’s likely that most people in the room didn’t give much thought to what community means, he said.

The concept of development connotes improvement over time in the things we value, Norton said. It’s a sense of improving the human condition, in a qualitative way. Sustainability is harder to define, he noted. If we sustain our society, we keep it going and stable. But we want a just community, too – we want governments and those with power to treat the rest of us fairly. We also want happiness, Norton said, so we want to develop communities that we love, that are desirable places to live, work and play.

The trick is to do all these things simultaneously, he observed. So what institutions can help us get there? Government certainly plays a role, as do markets, to some extent. But nonprofits and religious institutions also play an important role. All of these entities interact, Norton said, adding complexity.

Norton also talked about the wide range of components that are necessary to build community. Citizen participation is key – residents need to be engaged. Fair and affordable housing, jobs, public safety, landscape and environment, services and amenities, historic preservation – all of these are important.

Norton also raised the issue of connectivity – how accessible are things? [This was a topic addressed at length by his UM colleague Joe Grengs at the Feb. 9 forum on land use and access.] Redevelopment is another component of community, but that’s set against concerns of gentrification. There are also issues of race, class and inclusiveness, Norton said. Who are we talking about when we talk about community?

Norton then laid out challenges faced in promoting community development. First, people are individuals, yet they’re also social creatures – we live in that tension, he said. Added to that, we’re a community of individuals with a variety of abilities, ambitions and circumstances. That causes us to behave differently, yet we still need to make communities work, given that variation.

Another challenge is the huge plurality of viewpoints and values that we hold about what’s important and valuable. We tend to want people to see things the way we see them, Norton said. But there are different preferences for whether things should be planned or evolve organically, for example, and those preferences influence how much government we want.

Norton also pointed to the challenge of randomness and uncertainty. That makes planning difficult, because you don’t know how things will play out. Measurement is also a challenge, he said. How do you measure whether you’re achieving your community development goals?

Community is vital, Norton concluded. The American ethos tends to be a cowboy mentality, the idea of individuals bootstrapping themselves and making it on their own. “That is just so untrue,” he said. People depend on communities to help them thrive.

Quality of Life: Community Foundation

Cheryl Elliott, president of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, described the work of her organization. It was founded nearly 50 years ago, and its overall mission is to improve the community’s quality of life. AAACF manages more than 425 funds with over $60 million in assets, and administers scholarships, grants and other community support.

Cheryl Elliott, president of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Elliott focused her comments on the quality-of-life issues of community, and said some of her remarks were informed by the recent book “The Economics of Place,” a publication of the Ann Arbor-based Michigan Municipal League. Quality of life plays a vitally important role in the community’s economic future, she said. When Elliott came to Ann Arbor as a University of Michigan freshman in 1969, “you could have shot a cannon down Main Street,” she said, and not hit anyone. It took a lot of collaboration to achieve the city’s vibrancy that you see today.

A wonderful community is crucial to attract and retain workers in a knowledge-based economy, Elliott said. An AAACF board member [Kevin Thompson] works for IBM and could live anywhere, she reported, but he chose to live in Ann Arbor. Quality of life and place wasn’t something that was previously considered as a factor in economic development. But today, a functioning, safe community isn’t enough, she said. It needs to be a place that inspires people, and that encourages creativity and innovation.

Elliott ticked through eight dimensions that affect quality of place: physical design and walkability, green initiatives, a culture of economic development, entrepreneurship, multiculturalism, messaging and technology, transit, and education. We need to think more regionally to achieve goals in these areas, she said.

Turning her comments to the role of culture in economic development, Elliott highlighted the importance of a healthy creative sector. Before Pfizer pulled out of Ann Arbor, its leadership talked about the city’s diverse cultural environment as an important factor in their desire to be located here, she said. Communities with healthy cultural sectors help create jobs, build a stronger tax base, and bring in more tourism.

Ann Arbor ends up on a lot of national Top 10 lists, Elliott noted, in large part because of the city’s quality of place, and a lot of that has to do with arts and culture – everything from the Ann Arbor Summer Festival and art fairs, to the University Musical Society and events like FestiFools. But “it doesn’t just happen,” she added. These things require partnerships and a lot of collaboration.

Elliott wrapped up her remarks by saying that the area has a creative, entrepreneurial nonprofit sector. She cited the example of a coordinated funding approach being taken to fund human services – a joint effort of the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, AAACF and Washtenaw United Way, administered by the city/county office of community and economic development. No other community in the country is doing that, she said.

Public Safety

John Seto, Ann Arbor’s interim chief of police, told the audience that when he first was asked to speak at the forum, he wasn’t sure how public safety fit into the notion of sustainability. But after giving it some thought, he realized that most of what the police force does helps create a sustainable community, and it would be difficult to condense it into the limited time he had for his presentation.

John Seto, Ann Arbor's interim chief of police.

So what does sustainability look like for public safety? he asked. It entails a vibrant downtown, safe neighborhoods, disaster preparedness, and a partnership with the community. Seto outlined a variety of ways that Ann Arbor police work toward these goals:

• Neighborhood crime watch: There are over 300 neighborhood crime watch captains in the city, working with a police coordinator who disseminates information throughout the city.
• Crime Stoppers: The coordinator for this Washtenaw County program works out of an office at the Ann Arbor police department. The anonymous tip line is 1-800-SPEAK UP.
• Justice Center e-kiosk: Located in the lobby of the new Justice Center at the corner of Fifth and Huron, an electronic kiosk allows users to make a police report, get traffic crash reports, pay a parking ticket, obtain a Freedom of Information Act request form and more.
• Online police reports: Several types of reports can now be made on the police department’s website, Seto said. They are typically crimes with no suspects, or reports that are needed for insurance purposes. The reports that can be filed if there are no known suspects include harassing phone calls; theft (but not of a home or business that’s been entered illegally); and vandalism. Reports of private property traffic crashes – if your vehicle was parked and struck by an unknown vehicle, for example – can also be made online, as can reports for lost or damaged property.
• CrimeMapping.com: Ann Arbor is now participating in this online mapping of crime data, which indicates the location and type of crimes. It allows users to search by date, crime type or address.
• Disaster preparedness: The city’s office of emergency management coordinates the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), a countywide effort with more than two dozen members.
• CodeRED notification: Residents can sign up to be notified of crime alerts and other warnings – such as missing persons – through an automated phone notification system. It can handle 1,500 calls per minute, Seto said.
• Regional collaboration: Sustainability means collaborating to make the most out of your resources, Seto said. For policing, the city is collaborating both in everyday operations – like a joint dispatch unit with Washtenaw County, or mutual aid agreements with surrounding communities – and in special units like the SWAT and crisis negotiations teams.

Seto concluded by asking the audience how they would like to see the police department partner with the community. He said he hoped to hear some questions and comments about that later in the evening.

Affordable Housing

Jennifer L. Hall gave a shorter version of a presentation she made at the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s December 2011 board meeting, which was her first meeting as executive director of the AAHC. Previously, Hall served as housing manager for the Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community development.

She began by describing affordable housing. It’s defined relative to income levels – what is affordable to a higher income family is not necessarily affordable for a lower income family. For federal funding purposes, affordable housing means that a household is paying 30% or less of its gross income for housing, including utilities, taxes and insurance. Several programs of the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) provide affordable housing assistance for low-income families – AAHC is one of the local entities that receives funding from these HUD programs.

Hall described a continuum of affordable housing throughout Washtenaw County. On one end are shelters for people who are homeless, including the Delonis Center, SafeHouse Center (for victims of domestic violence), Interfaith Hospitality Network’s Alpha House (for families), and SOS Community Services, which runs a housing access hotline. At the opposite end is market rate housing that is affordable. Within those extremes, Hall outlined a range of other housing assistance and types:

• Transitional housing (Dawn Farm, Michigan Ability Partners, Home of New Vision)
• Group homes (Synod House, Washtenaw Community Health Organization)
• Senior assisted-living (Area Agency on Aging 1-B, private sector)
• Nonprofit supporting housing (Avalon Housing, Michigan Ability Partners, Community Housing Alternatives)
• Senior housing (Lurie Terrace, Cranbrook)
• Public housing (Ann Arbor Housing Commission, Ypsilanti Housing Commission)
• Tenant vouchers (Ann Arbor Housing Commission, Ypsilanti Housing Commission, Michigan State Housing Development Authority)
• Private developments (Windsong)
• Cooperatives (Arrowwood, Pine Lake, Forest Hills, University Townhomes)
• Houses for homeownership (Habitat for Humanity and other nonprofits)
• Units within private developments (First & Washington, Stone School)

Ann Arbor’s owner-occupied housing market is getting more expensive compared to other areas nationally. According to data from the National Housing Conference, in 2011 metro Ann Arbor (Washtenaw County) ranked as the 87th most expensive housing market among the nation’s 209 metro areas, Hall reported. The median home price for the Ann Arbor metro area was $162,000. Just two years earlier, the median home price was $136,000, and metro Ann Arbor ranked 132 among the 209 metro areas, she said.

Jennifer L. Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

For the rental market, metro Ann Arbor also ranked 87th among the 209 markets in 2011, with an average monthly rent of $882 for a two-bedroom apartment. But that is a drop in the rankings from 2009, when the area ranked 51st with an average monthly rent of $940.

Hall noted that in an ideal world, every household would live in a unit it could afford – there would be units available for all income levels. But unfortunately, that’s not the case, she said. There’s a mismatch of availability and income, with some families paying more than 30% of their income for rent, and others paying far less than 30%.

There’s a growing need for more affordable housing in this community, Hall said. A study conducted by the Washtenaw Housing Alliance showed that in 2004, 2,756 people in Washtenaw County reported that they had experienced homelessness. In 2010, that number had grown to 4,738.

AAHC manages two main programs: (1) the Section 8 voucher program for Washtenaw, Monroe, and western Wayne counties; and (2) public housing units in Ann Arbor. Hall noted that the majority of people on wait lists for these programs fall into the category of extremely low-income families, with income at 30% or less of the Ann Arbor area’s median income. For a family of four, Ann Arbor’s median income is $86,300 – 30% of that would be an annual income of $25,900.

Hall then turned to the issue of fair and equitable housing. She showed the audience a map that indicated levels of poverty throughout the county, and pointed out that the map showed concentrations of poverty in downtown Ann Arbor, in the student neighborhoods around the University of Michigan. The city has benefited from its student population, in terms of federal funding, because students typically report poverty-level incomes, she noted. And because federal funding to communities from HUD is based on formulas that are tied to poverty levels, Ann Arbor receives more funding than it otherwise would, Hall explained. HUD is looking to change that formula, she added, but the formula hasn’t been changed yet.

In fact, this measure of poverty doesn’t reflect where most true low-income households are located, she said. For example, you’d see very different areas of poverty – primarily clustered in Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – if measured by the number of people on public assistance.

Hall also observed that as people search for affordable housing and move further away from where they’d prefer to live, they often increase the amount they pay for transportation to get to work or to necessary services, like grocery stores. That increased cost often isn’t factored in to their housing decisions, she noted, and the more distant location can end up being more expensive overall.

Hall wrapped up by noting that federal funding for low-income housing is decreasing. In 1976, HUD’s budget was $86.8 billion. By 2010, its budget had dropped to $43.58 billion.

Parks & Recreation

Giving the presentation on Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation were Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission, and Cheryl Saam, facility supervisor for the Ann Arbor canoe liveries.

The city has 157 parks and recreational facilities, 52 miles of pathways, and 2,008 acres of land – 72% of that land in open space. How the city cares for these resources makes an impact on the quality of life for residents here, Saam said.

Grand noted that one of the city’s draft sustainability goals is to have an engaged community. The goal states: “Ensure our community is strongly connected through outreach, opportunities for engagement, and stewardship of community resources.” One way to do that is through neighborhood parks, Grand said – this is a community that’s very engaged with its parks, and many neighborhoods are defined based on their relationships to nearby parks.

The city also engages residents through its senior center and other community centers, as well as through volunteer programs like the Give 365 program, Adopt-a-Park, or natural area preservation program. The thousands of volunteer hours benefit the parks system, Grand said, but also provide a way for people to feel connected to the community and give back in a meaningful way.

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

The parks system also supports the community goal of diverse housing, Grand said, through partnerships with the office of community and economic development. Parks land acquisition funds paid for property to expand the Bryant Community Center, for example. The city’s goal is to have a park within a quarter-mile of every residence, she said, and to make sure that low-income areas are well-served.

Grand said that having a safe and healthy community is also important to the parks system. Using best practices in stormwater management, protecting the Huron River ecosystem, and building non-motorized pathways are all examples of that. Parks and recreation also contribute to the city’s economic vitality, with facilities that draw people in, she said – the farmers market, golf courses, and other venues. “People want to live in communities with a vibrant parks system.” Parks also improve safety and add value to neighborhoods, she said.

Saam addressed the goal of providing an active living and learning community. The parks system provides both structured and unstructured active recreation, where people can get measurable health benefits and social interaction – summer camps, classes, or places just to relax and take a walk. A scholarship program offered by the parks system makes the venues and class offerings accessible to lower-income families.

The mission of the parks system is to provide open space and recreation that’s accessible, Saam said, and they strive for a broad range of services and facilities for people with disabilities. Recent examples include adding steps in Buhr pool, and plans to renovate the Gallup canoe livery, adding ADA-compliant pathways.

Saam also highlighted recent renovations in West Park and the new Argo Cascades, a bypass by the Argo Dam that’s just now being completed. And Grand pointed to land acquisition – both through the city’s greenbelt program, and for parkland within the city – as other examples of the parks system enriching the community.

Turning to the future, Grand said the parks system hopes to increase volunteer opportunities, expand non-motorized pathways and connections between the Huron River and the city’s urban core, continue paying attention to best practices in stormwater management, and emphasize making improvements to existing facilities – it’s important to improve what the city has before building something new, she said.

Grand also reminded the audience that the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage would be up for renewal in November. She encouraged people to get more information online or to attend an upcoming public forum on the topic. [Also see Chronicle coverage: "Park Commission Briefed on Millage Renewal."]

Questions & Comments

During the last portion of the forum, panelists fielded questions and commentary from the audience. This report summarizes the questions and presents them thematically.

Questions & Comments: Accessory Dwellings, Density

Several questions and comments centered on the issue of housing density within the city. Eunice Burns, a long-time local activist and former Ann Arbor city councilmember, described how she’d sold her house to her daughter and son-in-law, and now lives in the home’s garage that was renovated into an apartment for her. But because of existing zoning constraints, only a family member can live in an accessory dwelling, she noted – no one will be able to use the apartment when she’s gone. The city’s ordinances need to be revised to allow for more types of dwellings like this for a wider range of people, Burns said.

Eunice Burns advocated for zoning changes to allow for more accessory dwellings in Ann Arbor. Her record of public service includes the Ann Arbor city council, the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the local officers compensation commission.

Ann Arbor faces a growing senior population, and many of them can’t afford senior housing like Glacier Hills, Burns noted. She recalled that when the city tried to change zoning for accessory dwelling units in the past, it had met with resistance. ”I’d like to see us work on this again and see if we can get it through this time,” she said.

(Burns concluded her remarks by putting in a plug for Huron River Day on July 15.)

The derailed effort that Burns mentioned would have changed the city’s zoning to make it possible for non-family members to live in accessory apartments. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, told the audience that the concern had primarily been about neighborhoods close to campus becoming too densely populated.

Conditions have changed since then, however. Rampson noted that according to the most recent census, Ann Arbor’s population has stabilized while the size of households has decreased. With fewer people living in individual homes, density isn’t as great as it was a few decades ago.

Dick Norton responded to Burns’ comments by taking a broader view. Like sustainability, the concept of community is difficult to define – it means different things to different people. Residents of a gated community might have a different definition than people who live outside of it. Norton pointed to sociologist Max Weber’s description of the Protestant work ethic in America – the idea of individuals making their way in society through hard work, and succeeding on their own merits. That concept influenced how people viewed the world, and complicated efforts to help people who are less well off, Norton said – people think that if someone is poor and homeless, it’s because they lack the ambition to work.

There are some deeply embedded ideological perspectives that need to be addressed, Norton said. Americans need to figure out how to ensure that people who are in less fortunate circumstances are at least doing okay and have opportunities to do better, he said. It requires people to open their minds a little bit. People tend to fear change and feel threatened if they’re asked to do something where there are no easy answers. Norton concluded by saying he knew he was preaching to the choir – the people who show up to the sustainability forums are already engaged in these issues, he said.

Doug Kelbaugh, a University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning, also commented on the topic of density. The carbon footprint of those living in the suburbs is dramatically higher than for urban residents, he noted. Increasing urban density would have the single greatest impact on reducing that carbon footprint – saving energy, the amount of land that’s used for development, the amount time people spend commuting, and more.

Kelbaugh said he loves the city’s parkland, but he sometimes thinks there’s too much of it – what the city really needs is more people living downtown. Perhaps parkland is being over-prioritized.

Regarding sustainability and affordable housing, Kelbaugh said the lowest-hanging fruit to address that issue is accessory dwellings. The previous attempt to revise zoning and allow for more flexibility in accessory units was shot down by a “relatively small, relatively wealthy, relatively politically-connected group,” he said. “I don’t think it was a fair measure of community sentiment.”

There cannot be too many people living downtown, Kelbaugh concluded – the more, the better – and Ann Arbor is far from hitting the upper level of the population it can sustain.

Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission, said she’d argue that the city needs greenspace to allow people room to breathe. There also needs to be recreational opportunities for residents, she said.

Questions & Comments: Being Proactive

Ann Larimore, a UM professor emeritus of geography and women’s studies, followed up on the issue of density by saying that it doesn’t help to use the word in a general way. There are different kinds of density – of families with children, of low-income people, of students living in high-rise apartment buildings, of people who only use their Ann Arbor homes on football weekends and otherwise those homes sit empty.

But Larimore said her question related to creating a community that’s proactive. An increase in private high-rise apartments aimed at students has been a national trend that’s also seen in Ann Arbor, she said, often fueled by out-of-town development money. Pfizer pulled out of Ann Arbor several years ago and UM bought its large research campus, thus taking that property off of the local tax rolls and creating an employment crisis. There’s also been more severe weather because of global warming, she said. What can the community do to be more proactive to these kinds of outside events?

Dick Norton noted that by the very nature of these events, it’s difficult to be proactive. But it’s possible to build a community that’s adaptable and resilient, he said. Creating a diverse economic base is also important, so that the community is not dependent on any one entity like Pfizer or UM.

Norton said he teaches planning, which includes taking stock of how things currently stand and reflects on where you’d like to go. But a plan is never a fixed thing, he added. You need to build in a resiliency and a capacity to respond as conditions change. That’s an unsatisfying answer, he acknowledged, but it’s a complicated world.

Jennifer Hall of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission responded by saying that you can’t discriminate against the type of people who might move into a building. You can plan for the type of building, but not the type of people who ultimately live there, whether they be students or the elderly. It’s a fair housing issue, she said.

Questions & Comments: Gross National Happiness

Pete Wangwongwiroj introduced himself as a University of Michigan student who’s active in the campus sustainability movement – he’s a board member of the student sustainability initiative. He said he’s shifted the focus of his studies from environmental issues to happiness. Happiness is an issue that’s bipartisan and that can unite people, he said. The country focuses its attention on the gross domestic product as an economic indicator, he noted. But there’s a new concept that deserves consideration: gross national happiness. Wangwongwiroj advocated that this concept should be the main consideration of public policy decisions. He asked the panel what has been done in Ann Arbor regarding the well-being and quality of life for residents, and what more can be done?

Jennifer Hall observed that there are some interesting new studies related to that topic and public health, looking at how your environment can make you happy or depressed. People are more depressed who live in neighborhoods with buildings that have boarded up windows and are in disrepair, with uncollected garbage and broken streetlights. She related an anecdote about developers who came to Ann Arbor and were interested in building affordable housing. Hall took them on a tour of one of the city’s low-income neighborhoods – the Bryant area, on the southeast side of Ann Arbor – and reported that the developers were shocked that it was considered low-income, because it was so much nicer than the low-income areas they were used to seeing elsewhere. So Ann Arbor is doing relatively well, she said.

Cheryl Elliott pointed to the involvement of youth as a community resource, through volunteering in different organizations – in youth advisory councils, for example. The community can leverage that enthusiasm and creativity, she said: “They aren’t jaded yet.” In general, a more engaged community does bring more happiness to residents, she said. Elliott also pointed to public events like the recent FestiFools parade as another way that Ann Arbor brings happiness to residents.

John Seto of the Ann Arbor police said that many times, it’s the smaller things that affect quality of life. Many complaints that the police receive have to do with quality-of-life issues – a neighbor’s barking dog, or uncut grass. It’s important not to lose sight of those smaller issues, he said, adding that Ann Arbor does a good job of that. Any complaint is important, he said.

Wendy Rampson noted that as the sustainability project moves ahead, the next step – after a consensus is reached on goals – will be to develop objectives and metrics to measure progress. She asked Wangwongwiroj to fill out a comment card, and said the group that’s working on these sustainability goals would be happy to consider adding happiness as a factor.

Dick Norton noted that happiness is based on a sense of safety and stability, but also on the relationships you build. The problem is that there’s too much focus on GDP, especially at the national level. The government needs to rethink that approach, and people need to resist the constant bombardment of advertising to buy more stuff. Norton also recommended getting backyard chickens to increase happiness – chickens are very calming and fun to watch, he said.

After the panelists finished weighing in, Doug Kelbaugh, a UM professor of architecture and urban planning, stepped to the microphone to make a comment related to accessory dwellings and density (see above). But he prefaced his remarks by saying that although a happiness index might sound frivolous, in fact it’s getting a lot of serious professional and academic respect.

Questions & Comments: Spending Priorities

Thomas Partridge said he wanted to know how the community could prioritize, when there was no sustainable, progressive tax base. He said he’s called on the Ann Arbor city council and Washtenaw County board of commissioners to place a Headlee override on the ballot. He also wondered why there is a dedicated millage for open space and parkland, while at the same time there are homeless people living in parks and under freeway overpasses. The city isn’t giving priority to human values like affordable housing, health care, transportation, education, human rights, and adequate fire and police protection.

Panelists responded primarily by pointing to examples of collaboration. Cheryl Elliott talked about the collaborative funding approach used to support local human service organizations – a joint effort with the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Urban County, Washtenaw United Way, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. They aren’t working in silos, she said. They’re communicating and working more effectively with the resources they have.

Julie Grand noted that the city parks collaborates with the county – the proposed Ann Arbor skatepark project is an example of that, she said, and also involves the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The county’s parks and recreation commission has committed $400,000 to that project.

Grand also reported that when the city park commissioners discuss land acquisition, the first question they consider is how much it would take away from the city’s tax base. She said they’ve determined that the Headlee rollback isn’t significant enough to be a real concern.

Jennifer Hall thanked Partridge, saying that she appreciated his advocacy for the same people that she was trying to support. She raised the issue of Michigan being a “home rule” state, making it difficult to overcome the jurisdictional boundaries of townships, cities and villages. The city of Ann Arbor’s tax rate is much higher than the townships, she noted, so many people want to live in the townships and pay lower taxes, yet they use the amenities of the city. It results in some “weird dynamics,” she said. Hall also noted that Ann Arbor is very generous in its funding of housing and human services for low-income residents.

The Chronicle could not sustain itself without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. 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!

Mary Jo Callan, director of the Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, described a proposed coordinated funding strategy by local governments, United Way of Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation at the Sept. 28 meeting of the Washtenaw Urban County. (Photos by the writer.)

At Tuesday’s meeting of the Washtenaw Urban County executive committee, members were briefed on the proposal, which involves the Washtenaw United Way, Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, Washtenaw County, city of Ann Arbor and the Urban County. Together, these entities provide about $5 million annually for local human services nonprofits.

Mary Jo Callan, director of the Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community development, told Urban County members that the public/private model would focus funding on six priorities that have been identified for the entire county: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health and food.

The two-year pilot project is grounded in previous coordination between the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and the Urban County, a consortium of 11 local governments. The office of community development (OCD), which Callan leads, already manages nonprofit funding for those three entities.

Callan also said this could be a national model for communities that are trying to do a better job of delivering human services with constrained resources.

Some members of the Urban County executive committee, while expressing general support, also raised questions and concerns. How do individual nonprofit agencies fit into the funding model, especially if they don’t provide services in the areas identified as priorities? Will small or new nonprofits be able to compete successfully for funding, or will larger, well-established nonprofits have an overwhelming advantage? How well will the different cultures of United Way, the community foundation and local governments work together, and what roles will they play?

Callan acknowledged these challenges, but noted that many of these same concerns exist under the current, more fragmented funding model. Coordinated funding is the best approach to providing needed services to people in the county, she said.

The Urban County is expected to vote on the proposal at its Oct. 26 meeting. The other groups – including Ann Arbor’s city council – are expected to vote at meetings in late October and early November. Callan will also be making a presentation about the initiative to the county board of commissioners at their Oct. 7 working session.

Coordinated Funding: How It Works

Callan began her presentation by noting that Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and the Urban County have already integrated their funding for human services – those groups combined represent about $2.6 million in annual funding for nonprofits in the county. Callan’s staff – with representatives from the county, city and Urban County – reviews applications from nonprofits and makes funding recommendations. Each governing entity subsequently reviews and approves recommendations tied to their funding sources.

Now, the intent is to include United Way of Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation in this effort. United Way distributes about $2.3 million in grants, while the community foundation gives out around $300,000 annually, according to Callan.

There are already collaborative efforts that involve these groups, most notably a common online grant application system. Over the past few months, Callan said, representatives from these different entities have been talking about how to work even more closely, with an eye toward better organizing the community’s investments in nonprofits. They’ve met with nonprofit leaders to get feedback, as well as with key donors, business leaders and other stakeholders.

Callan said that funders have been asking nonprofits to work together and collaborate, so modeling that kind of approach makes sense. That’s one of four principles that guide this approach: 1) focusing on the consumer of services, not on the organization that provides the services, 2) creating savings and improving the process for funders and service providers, 3) leveraging the assets and strengths of each funding organization, and 4) providing a model of cooperation and collaboration.

The plan is to target investments in six priority areas: housing/homelessness, aging, school-aged youth, children from birth to six, health and food. When reviewing applications for funding, Callan said, priority will be given to these areas: “Our investments will tie in with the community plan.”

Each of those areas will have a planning/coordinating group that will help make recommendations about the kinds of services that the community needs. For example, the Blueprint for Aging consortium could identify needs of senior citizens in the community, while the Washtenaw Housing Alliance could do the same for the needs of the homeless or people needing low-income housing.

Callan stressed that these planning/coordinating groups wouldn’t be making actual funding decisions, but would be providing input and guidance.

Overall, the approach will provide a shared set of funding guidelines, Callan said, as well as a single deadline to apply for funds from all funding entities, a single review process, a single set of funding recommendations, and a single, shared monitoring and reporting process. This more efficient approach will save time and money for the funding agencies as well as the nonprofits seeking funds, Callan said.

Urban County Members Raise Questions, Concerns

Throughout Callan’s presentation on Tuesday, members of the Urban County executive committee asked questions and raised concerns about the approach, though overall they expressed support.

Margie Teall, an Ann Arbor city councilmember representing Ward 4, asked how individual nonprofits fit in to the model. Callan replied that during feedback sessions they’ve held with nonprofits over the past few months, that was the No. 1 question – the nonprofit leaders are understandably concerned, she said, because it’s a change.

Callan then gave an example of the Corner Health Center in Ypsilanti, which provides basic medical care to low-income youth. If the planning/coordinating group for health identifies dental care as a priority, but Corner Health Center requests funding for a theater troupe, they probably wouldn’t get funded, Callan said – it wouldn’t be the right fit, obviously. But it would be crucial for the planning/coordinating groups to reach out to nonprofits, she added, so that those seeking funding would understand the community priorities. “It seems convoluted,” she acknowledged, “but it’s partially what already exists.”

Bill De Groot of Salem Township

In response to questions about how the planning/coordinating groups will be selected, Callan said that the entities already exist. In addition to the Washtenaw Housing Alliance and Blueprint for Aging, the groups include Food Gatherers, the Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth, and Washtenaw Success by 6.

Bill De Groot of Salem Township noted that it’s already difficult for new nonprofits to get funded, and this plan seems to make it even harder. It’s important to keep an even playing field for nonprofits, he said.

Callan responded that nonprofits are mechanisms to deliver services. “they are not the be all and end all,” she said. It might be the case that new nonprofits don’t get funded, but the services they want to provide could be delivered through new programs at more established nonprofits, or through partnerships.

Leah Gunn, a Washtenaw County commissioner for District 9 who also chairs the Urban County executive committee, said her problem with new nonprofits is that they might be duplicating services provided by existing groups. Joe Zurawski, York Township supervisor, said his gut feeling was that this new approach might actually make it easier for new nonprofits to get funded, if they provided services that matched the community priorities.

The main goal, Callan said, is to do the most with the resources the community has, “not to make sure everyone gets funded who wants funding.”

De Groot also asked about the Urban County’s role in this approach. [By way of background, the Urban County is a consortium of Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and 9 townships, responsible for allocating federal funding for low-income housing and other community development projects. The funds are managed by staff of the joint county/city of Ann Arbor office of community development (OCD). For additional background on the Urban County, see Chronicle coverage: "Urban County Allocates Housing Funds"]

Joe Zurawski, York Township supervisor

Callan noted that it would be similar to what currently happens. The OCD staff makes recommendations, which are then voted on by the Urban County executive committee.

Darrell Fecho, Scio Township manager, wondered whether this new approach would take away the ability of the Urban County to provide funding for neighborhood groups. Callan said the Urban County executive committee could carve out part of the federal funding they received through the Community Development Block Grant program to fund neighborhood organizations, if they wanted.

De Groot returned to his point about making sure that smaller nonprofits aren’t pushed aside. He said he agreed wholeheartedly that their goal should be to serve as many people as possible with the resources they had. But he didn’t see how the new approach would make it easier for the “little guy” to compete against a larger nonprofit, even if the smaller one provided better services.

Callan drew on her experience as a former nonprofit director, for the Ozone House. Often, funding seemed directly correlated to relationships with funders, and isn’t necessarily outcome-oriented. Part of this plan is to develop a shared set of outcomes by which nonprofits can be measured, she said. The OCD staff is drafting those metrics, and hope to have them in place by November.

De Groot urged her to make sure that existing nonprofits are made aware of those metrics, as they prepare for the next funding cycle.

Overall, Callan acknowledged that the coordinated funding approach isn’t perfect. “But it will be an improvement over how the fragmented system works now.”

Callan said she’ll continue to talk with representatives from these various funding entities, to explain the proposal. The United Way board is expected to vote on the proposal on Oct. 14, followed by votes of the Urban County on Oct. 26 and the community foundation board on Oct. 30. The proposal will be considered by the Ann Arbor city council at its Nov. 1 meeting, and by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners on Nov. 3.

The goal is to have a system in place before the next two-year funding cycle, which begins in July of 2011.

Alex Perlman and Molly Dobson represent the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation's 45-year span. Dobson was a trustee from 1969-1971. Perlman, a Huron High senior, has been a youth council representative on the AAACF board.

“This has been a challenging year – you’ll hear that word a lot,” Debbie Beuche told about 300 people who attended Tuesday evening’s annual meeting of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. Beuche, the nonprofit’s board chair, said AAACF gave out $2.2 million in grants and scholarships in 2008 – a year in which their annualized investment return was -31%.

The meeting highlighted AAACF’s accomplishments during 2008, and recognized volunteers who were stepping down from their work with the organization. The event also included a presentation on a project funded by the foundation called The B-Side: The Business Side of Youth, a program to encourage entrepreneurship for youth.

But first, the finances.

Financial Report

Like virtually every organization or individual with investments in the market, AAACF took a beating in 2008. At the end of the year, the nonprofit’s assets totaled $39.7 million – down from $53.2 million at the end of 2007. Despite those results, “they could have been much worse,” David Sarns, the board’s treasurer, announced to the gathering on Tuesday. Their investment strategy aims for broad diversification, he said. According to the AAACF annual report, the group’s target asset allocation is domestic equity (25%), international equity (25%), hedge funds (20%), fixed income (10%), private equity/venture capital (10%) and real assets (10%).

For the first quarter of 2009, returns are down 4.9%, Sarns reported. “We hope for better results in the coming quarters.” He also noted that at the beginning of 2009 AAACF cut its administrative budget – by 12%, according to the annual report – to bring costs more in line with the drop in assets.

The B-Side: The Business Side of Youth

Started in 2007, the B-Side is a program of Eastern Michigan University’s Office of Academic Service-Learning. Jessica “Decky” Alexander, the office’s director, said that B-Side has worked with more than 200 youth, ages 13 to 20, many of whom have started their own businesses: tutoring, designing T-shirts, publishing an e-zine and more. The program “fosters a culture of possibility and tangibility,” she said, “and thus entrepreneurship.”

Malik Redding, an entrepreneur and sophomore at Huron High, spoke at the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation annual meeting on Tuesday.

Malik Redding, a sophomore at Huron High, has been involved in the B-Side for about a year and told the audience on Tuesday that his training has given him the ability to better understand financial statements and speak at public forums like this. His original idea was to open a coffee shop, but instead he decided to start a catering business, called Relax Cafe. He plans to open a food cart in downtown Ann Arbor as well. His longer term goals include going to the University of Michigan Ross School of Business, and expanding his food cart and catering business.

Margaret Rolax, a junior from Pioneer High, started a tutoring business in 2008 through the B-Side, and in March 2009 got a $400 microloan to develop marketing materials. Her business is targeting athletes who need help with their studies, and this coming school year she hopes to expand. She credited the B-Side with helping her develop a business plan.

Accomplishments, Farewells

In addition to the $2.2 million in grants and scholarships awarded in 2008, the AAACF spent the year evaluating how to award a $1 million gift from the Pfizer Foundation, Beuche said at the annual meeting. “We knew that there wasn’t more coming,” she said. “We had to be good stewards.”

Those funds, given by Pfizer early last year as the drug company pulled up stakes from Ann Arbor, were awarded to nonprofits in three areas: Ypsilanti renewal ($101,300 to the Ypsilanti Freighthouse and $300,000 to the Early College Alliance), early childhood development ($196,700 to the Washtenaw Success by 6 program), and arts & culture ($200,000 to the Arts Alliance to help develop a countywide cultural plan). In addition, the AAACF board set aside $200,000 to award in a competitive “Big Ideas” grant process, looking for projects with innovative approaches to community problems. Three project received funding from that earlier this year: 1) Food Gatherers received $92,000 to partner with other agencies to bring healthier food to low-income residents, 2) the Ecology Center got $58,000 for a collaboration to improve energy efficiency in local homes and businesses and to seek renewable energy sources, and 3) Ann Arbor SPARK received $50,000 for economic development through SPARK East in Ypsilanti.

Cheryl Elliott, AAACF president, thanked the more than 325 volunteers involved with the board, the foundation’s affiliate funds, its 32 scholarship programs and its many committees. About 30 of those volunteers were retiring from their work with AAACF, and they were recognized at Tuesday’s event.

The evening also gave a nod to the past and future through a presentation by Molly Dobson, who served as trustee from 1969-1971, and Alex  Perlman, a senior at Huron High who’s a youth council representative on the foundation’s board. The two stood together and contrasted the foundation in its early years compared to now. “Color me Generation Methuselah,” quipped Dobson, as she talked about her tenure in the 1960s. In its first year, the foundation made $6,291 in grants and had assets of $59,000. Perlman noted that they’ve come a long way, now giving out more than $2 million in grants. “You’re showing off,” Dobson chided. No, Perlman replied. “We’re just building on the foundation you laid.”

Cheryl Elliott, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation held its annual meeting at the Four Points Sheraton.

Youth council co-chairs, okay, co-totterers Neal Kelley and Jameson Tamblyn with the YMCA in the background. Note that the YMCA is simply the meeting location for Youth Council and should not be confused with the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Even though it’s been supporting community programs for almost 50 years – long before I moved to town – the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation first appeared on my radar when I tottered with Trevor Staples about a year ago. During his ride Trevor mentioned the AAACF in connection with its role as the fiduciary for the Ann Arbor Skatepark Action Committee.