From left: Ann Arbor city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mark Tucker, founder of the annual FestiFools and FoolMoon events.

At that meeting, he indicated a desire to start a conversation about public arts funding, and expressed the hope of getting input from the Ann Arbor public art commission and the community in general.

Some of that conversation took place at the public art commission’s Aug. 15 meeting, which ended in a vote of support for the millage proposal.

Much of the reaction so far from the arts community has focused on the short timeframe until the November election, and the lack of clarity that a yes or no vote would indicate, based on the wording of the proposal.

In response to that perceived lack of clarity, on Friday, Aug. 17, councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2) added a resolution to the Aug. 20 council agenda that would lead to a choice for voters on Nov. 6 between: (1) a millage to support public spending on art; or (2) no continued accumulation of public funds to be spent on art. Her resolution would direct city attorney staff to prepare ordinance language to repeal the funding mechanism in the Percent for Art ordinance – effective July 1, 2013. The intent is to repeal the ordinance in a way that allows funds already set aside for art to be spent on art, and to provide for maintenance of existing works.

If approved by the council on Aug. 20, Lumm’s resolution would lead in late September to the first of two city council votes necessary to repeal the ordinance section. In part, Lumm’s resolution states that “to truly enfranchise residents, voters should be offered a clear, yes/no choice on public funding for public art rather than an either/or choice of the mechanism used to fund public art; …” [.pdf of Lumm's draft resolution and memo]

Lumm’s resolution hadn’t been proposed when AAPAC held its special meeting on Wednesday to focus on Taylor’s millage proposal. The commission had essentially been forced to call a special session because its next regular meeting, on Aug. 22, falls after an expected vote by the council on Aug. 20.

The special meeting drew more public commentary than at any of AAPAC’s previous meetings. Nine people spoke, including leaders of several local arts institutions: Deb Polich of the Arts Alliance, Russ Collins of the Michigan Theater, Mark Tucker of FestiFools, and former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker, among others. Several more people attended but did not formally address the commission.

It seemed clear that neither commissioners nor members of the arts community who spoke during public commentary had been consulted about the millage proposal, and only a few had been informed that it would be brought forward. While there was broad support for the idea of a public arts millage, many people questioned the timing and felt that 11 weeks until the Nov. 6 election was too short a time to mount a successful millage campaign.

When asked by commissioners who would lead such a campaign, Taylor said he assumed it would be led by the arts community, with money raised from private contributions. He felt the amount of time was sufficient, and that the millage would be approved by voters. He thought the November election would be a good time for the vote, with higher participation by students and renters – that’s a good core, he said.

During AAPAC’s meeting, Taylor told commissioners that if a millage vote is delayed, that puts the current Percent for Art program at risk. He said his sense is that the risk is growing, though he was unclear about why he believes that’s the case. Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, wondered whether the concern stems from a change in composition to the council, following the November election. Taylor did not respond directly to that question.

In the Aug. 7 primary election, Democrat Sally Petersen defeated incumbent Tony Derezinski in Ward 2 – Derezinski also is a member of AAPAC, though he has not attended a regular meeting since May, and did not attend the Aug. 15 special session. No incumbents ran in the Ward 1 and Ward 5 races, where Democrats Sumi Kailasapathy and Chuck Warpehoski prevailed in their respective primaries. No Republican is running against Petersen or Kailasapathy in November. And though Warpehoski faces Republican Stuart Berry in Ward 5, it’s likely that Warpehoski will win that heavily Democratic ward. Taylor is also running for re-election, but was unopposed in the Ward 3 Democratic primary and is unchallenged in November.

In a pre-election survey conducted by the Arts Alliance, Petersen indicated support for the Percent for Art program, though she suggested some changes. Warpehoski supported “looking for ways to establish a more flexible funding stream for the arts.” Kailasapathy did not respond to the survey, according to the alliance, but her campaign website did not list public art among her priorities. [.pdf of Arts Alliance candidate survey]

In general, another complicating factor with the millage proposal is a separate effort to develop a countywide plan and funding mechanism for public art. The Arts Alliance is leading that initiative, and earlier this year applied for a $100,000 grant through the National Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” program to help fund it. At AAPAC’s Aug. 15 meeting, Polich – the alliance’s executive director – advocated for more time so that a fully-developed, comprehensive strategy could be prepared.

Polich questioned how the millage rate was determined in Taylor’s proposal – a 0.1 mill tax for four years. She raised the concern that the city is “leaving money on the table” – that is, it’s possible that voters would be willing to pay more for public art than the amount proposed. Polich also mentioned concerns about the millage’s potential impact on private contributions to arts and cultural organizations, which wouldn’t necessarily get funding from a public arts millage. There might be confusion about that, making fundraising more difficult.

Despite a range of concerns, AAPAC ultimately voted unanimously to recommend that the council place the proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot. Among the commissioners, John Kotarski appeared to be the most enthusiastic supporter of the proposal, praising Taylor for bringing it forward.

Background

The city of Ann Arbor already has one means of paying for works of art with public funds – the Percent for Art program, which is funded through a city ordinance. The context of the proposed millage is this existing funding program.

Background: Percent for Art

The current Percent for Art program has been in place since 2007. It requires that 1% of the budget for any capital improvement project be set aside for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per project. The program has generated just over $2 million, and more than $1 million in Percent for Art revenues have been expended to date – primarily for the program’s first and largest project, the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall.

Projects paid for with Percent for Art funds are restricted in two major ways. They must be permanent “monumental” type art, which means that “temporary” art like performances or artist-in-residency programs can’t be supported with Percent for Art funds. The projects must also have some link to the funding source – that is, art paid for out of street millage revenues must be part of a street project, or incorporate street or transportation themes. This lack of flexibility has been a frequent criticism of the program. Questions also have been raised about the legality of diverting funds intended for capital projects to use for public art. The city attorney, Stephen Postema, has never made public a legal opinion on this issue.

The amount of funding has also been a point of contention. There have been three proposals brought by city councilmembers over the past few years to reduce funding for the program, though none have received enough votes on council to pass. There has never been a formal proposal to eliminate the program completely.

The idea of a millage for public art had been mentioned by councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) earlier this year, during the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting when councilmembers voted on artwork for the city’s new justice center. However, no formal proposal was presented or further discussed by the council. Nor was the issue pursued by the city’s public art commission, even though they recently crafted and approved a four-year strategic plan at their July 2012 meeting.

Background: Public Art Millage – Ann Arbor

So it came as a surprise to many – including Kunselman and other councilmembers, AAPAC members and leaders of the arts and cultural community – when Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) proposed putting a public arts millage on the Nov. 6 ballot. He took that action at the council’s Aug. 9 meeting. An email from assistant city attorney Abigail Elias to Taylor and mayor John Hieftje on July 25 indicated that by then the ballot language had already been reviewed by the state’s attorney general.

The ballot proposal would levy a 0.1 mill tax for a four-year period, which would bring in an estimated $450,000 annually. The proposal is worded so that passage of the millage would suspend the collection of Percent for Art funds under the city’s ordinance only during the four-year period of the millage. So if voters approved the public art millage this year, and then failed to approve a millage renewal four years from now – either because the council did not place a renewal on the ballot, or voters rejected the renewal – the Percent for Art ordinance would again require that funds from capital project budgets be set aside for public art.

If approved by the city council on Aug. 20 as proposed, the ballot question would read:

Shall the Charter be amended to limit sources of funding for public art and to authorize a new tax of up to one-tenth (0.10) of a mill for 2013 through 2016 to fund public art, which 0.10 mill will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $459,273?

The corresponding charter language would be [emphasis added]:

Funds for Public Art
SECTION 8.24. In addition to any other amount which the City is authorized to raise by general tax upon the real and personal property by this Charter or any other provision of law, the City shall, in 2013 through 2016, annually levy a tax of up to one-tenth (0.10) of a mill on all taxable real and personal property situated within the City for the purpose of providing funds for public art, including but not limited to the permanent and temporary acquisition, maintenance and repair of works of art for display in or on public structures or sites and/or as part of or adjacent to public streets and sidewalks, and performance art on City streets, sidewalks or sites. Except for funds previously raised, set aside, allocated or otherwise designated to be used for public art, including such funds in the July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 fiscal year budget, and except for funds that are received by grant, gift, bequest or other donation to the City for public art, for the duration of this millage, the City shall not raise, set aside or designate funds for public art in any other manner. This millage also shall not preclude the grant, gift, bequest or other donation to the City of works of art.

The reaction on Aug. 9 from councilmembers to Taylor’s proposal was generally positive, though considerable dissatisfaction was expressed regarding the secretive nature of the work that had produced it. In making the proposal on Aug. 9, Taylor first read a prepared statement then asked for postponement of the resolution. The council agreed unanimously to postpone action until its next meeting, on Aug. 20.

During council deliberations, Taylor indicated that he hoped to receive input from the public art commission, before the council voted on whether to put the proposal on the ballot. This essentially forced the commission to schedule a special meeting on the issue, as its next regular meeting – on Aug. 22 – fell after the Aug. 20 council meeting.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Ballot Questions: Parks, Public Art Funding” and “Column: Two Questions on Public Art.” Or click here for a list of Chronicle reports on past meetings of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Background: Public Art Millage – Countywide?

Part of the dynamic related to the current Ann Arbor millage proposal is connected to a quiet discussion that’s been taking place about a possible countywide millage for public art. That effort is being led by the Arts Alliance and its Cultural Leaders Forum – an invitation-only group focused on advocacy and sustainable funding for local arts and culture.

Earlier this year, the alliance submitted a $100,000 grant proposal to the National Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” program. If awarded, the funding would be used to help develop a public arts master plan for Washtenaw County over an 18-month period. According to an excerpt from the grant proposal, the total budget for this effort would be about $400,000, with other funds anticipated to come from Washtenaw County government ($25,000); ArtServe Michigan ($5,000); the city of Ann Arbor/Ann Arbor public art commission ($5,000); the Cultural Alliance of Southeast Michigan ($5,000); the University of Michigan’s ArtsEngine program ($92,825); and the Huron River Watershed Council ($10,000).

Update after publication: The alliance has been informed that the NEA grant for this project would not be awarded. In an email to the proposal’s partners, Polich described it as a “blow to the full project” but indicated an intent to explore options and move forward with some aspects of the proposal.

The grant proposal noted that in 2008, the Arts Alliance developed a Washtenaw County cultural plan, as well as individual plans for seven communities within the county: Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Dexter, Manchester, Milan, Saline and Ypsilanti. Public art wasn’t a part of that plan, however. More recently, according to the proposal, the alliance “convened a meeting with all interested parties during which it was decided to have the Arts Alliance apply its expertise and the methodologies it used for the Cultural Plan to create a Washtenaw County Master Public Art Plan.”

Among the activities cited in the grant proposal, one major goal would be to “assign responsibility, stewardship and accountability” for public arts in Washtenaw County: “With citizen input, guiding principles, goals and best practices will be set to determine who is accountable for how public art is to be administered, funded, proposed, selected, installed and maintained in each city specifically and in the county in general.”

During the Aug. 15 AAPAC meeting, Theresa Reid – the commission’s newest member who’s also executive director of UM’s ArtsEngine – noted that the alliance’s Cultural Leaders Forum has discussed the possibility of a countywide millage. She said there doesn’t yet seem to be a consensus on how to proceed with that effort, and it’s unclear how long it might take to put forward a countywide public arts millage. She noted that one concern is whether a public arts millage in Ann Arbor would undermine that broader effort.

Public Commentary: Pre-Vote

Eight people spoke to the commission at the start of AAPAC’s Aug. 15 meeting.

Margaret Parker introduced herself as an artist and co-owner of Downtown Home & Garden – her studio is located above the Ashley Street store. She noted that she served on the commission since it started in 2004, and had been chair for many of those years. She had helped get the Percent for Art ordinance passed and had helped develop the guidelines for the commission. Parker said when she first heard about the millage proposal, she had been shocked because it had happened so fast. She allowed that she’d made some errors in calculating how much the current program generated in revenues. She had been worried that the millage wouldn’t bring in as much, but now she felt it would be generally an even exchange. It would be a good start. She’s been told that a lot of the administrative duties would be the same, but there would also be different guidelines so a lot of their previous work “would be thrown out the window, but that’s how it goes.”

Parker was also concerned about the short time – until Nov. 6 about 11 weeks – but said it doesn’t appear they have a choice about it. She noted that other millages have passed, so while she was initially worried, she’s feeling better about the situation now.

Lynne Friman, a Saline resident and chair of the Ann Arbor-based Arts Alliance board, noted that the Ann Arbor region is widely recognized for its arts community. The area is an arts and cultural mecca and destination that’s known throughout the country. The community places a high value on arts and culture, she said. Adequate funding is critical to the growth and sustainability of the arts community throughout Washtenaw County. It’s disappointing that while other cities nationwide invest in their public art, Ann Arbor must continually defend the Percent for Art program. Friman noted that the Arts Alliance is exploring public arts funding across the county, possibly through set-asides in individual communities, or through with a countywide millage.

Friman told commissioners that the alliance is developing a public arts master plan for the entire county, an effort that has included several members of AAPAC, she said. While she applauded Taylor’s initiative, she would have preferred it if he had consulted the arts and cultural community to get a better understanding of the risks and impact of his millage proposal. The alliance believes that more time and thought is needed to work together, improving the current functioning program and determining what’s necessary to ensure that the Ann Arbor region benefits from a well-conceived, successful funding plan.

Standing: Ann Arbor public art commissioner John Kotarski and Margaret Parker, former chair of the commission. Seated is Cathy Gendron, another art commissioner.

Shoshana Hurand, program manager for the Arts Alliance, said that everyone in the room supports arts and culture. Her points would be more focused on process and timing. If approved by voters, the millage would reflect that the community highly values the arts. But it takes 12-18 months to do a millage campaign properly, she noted – to consult with community leaders, get a sense of the appropriate millage rate, educate the community and select the right time to put it on the ballot. There needs to be sufficient time for all this to happen.

Hurand acknowledged that the Percent for Art program has issues. For example, she said she’d love to know the language that explains exactly what the Percent for Art funding can support. There needs to be time to explore other models. “We want to make sure we do this right,” she said, and that will take more than 11 weeks.

Tom Petiet introduced himself as a commercial artist and illustrator, and member of the Ann Arbor Comic Opera Guild. He indicated that the millage vote was essentially a good idea, in that it would allow everyone to know the public’s view. He wanted the support for arts to expand beyond the visual arts. This area probably has more performing artists than any other city of its size in the country, he said. But there’s no place to perform other than the university, and that’s too difficult. There’s no affordable rehearsal and performance space, he said. Arts groups are suffering from a lack of funding, and audience levels are also falling. That means more money has to be spent on advertising – all of this needs to be considered, Petiet said. The public art ordinance should be more inclusive, and should include funding for the creation of a public performance space. There’s an opportunity now, he said, and people would be receptive to the idea.

Russ Collins, executive director of the Michigan Theater, began by thanking commissioners for the work they do. He noted that he serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and indicated that he knows how hard it can be. He said he was glad that Taylor had brought forward the millage proposal, because now it creates a dialogue about funding arts in this community. He noted that the community hasn’t really funded the arts very much. Ann Arbor aggressively funds other things that contribute to quality of life – parks, schools, public transportation, the library. But the thing that’s missing is governmental funding of the arts. The No. 1 source of government funding for the arts comes from local communities, not the state or federal levels, he said. And in that regard, in general this community’s public funding for the arts hasn’t reflected its community values.

Collins said he was sorry that this conversation had been imposed on the commission, but it’s now the start of a dialogue. Yes, it’s a short time, he said, but he hoped this proposal could be leveraged into a dialogue about the broader role of government in subsidizing the arts. Our community has been very generous in private giving to sustain the arts, Collins said. The University of Michigan has also been very generous, and that’s often taken for granted. There needs to be a broader discussion within the county, he said, and they need more time to talk about these issues.

Mark Tucker told commissioners that he was there as a representative of FestiFools, FoolMoon, and as a resident and artist. Because Taylor had mentioned FestiFools and FoolMoon as a possible recipient of funding from a millage, Tucker felt it was appropriate to comment about it. The millage is a good idea, he said. It takes what’s already strong about the public art commission and the Percent for Art program, and releases some of the baked-in restrictions of the current ordinance. That’s beside the fact that FestiFools and FoolMoon might benefit from millage funding, he added – he noted that he’s been an outspoken supporter of the Percent for Art program even after receiving a letter from the commission stating that FestiFools couldn’t be funded by it. Tucker said he didn’t know about the timing of it, but he supported a millage. He hoped everyone could leave the room on the same page, heading in the same direction – with or without a millage.

Shary Brown, an Ann Arbor Township resident, described herself as a retired arts administrator. She was director of the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair and before that was director of the Ann Arbor Summer Art Fair. It would be a terrific thing to look at funding episodic, temporary art events, she said. Ann Arbor is known for its stellar line-up of art festivals, which brings money into the community – money that’s spent locally. The Street Art Fair alone pays the city close to $60,000 in fees, she noted. She urged the commission to take a broad look at the issue, but she observed that the timing is very short to educate the arts community, let alone the community at large.

David Esau, of Cornerstone Design Architects, is an Arts Alliance board member, and said he endorsed the alliance’s position. He supports waiting on the millage, but if it does move forward, he’d encourage publicity about the parameters of what the millage can or can’t fund. He doesn’t want people to stop funding arts organizations, thinking that those organizations would be supported by the millage revenues.

Public Art Millage: Taylor’s Comments

Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, asked Christopher Taylor to talk about his proposal, joking that he’d get more than the three-minute speaking turn allowed for public commentary.

Taylor began by saying that he hadn’t prepared anything, because he hadn’t anticipated making a presentation. He noted that his proposal is clearly “animated” by the principle that public art is a public good. Arts and culture are one of the community’s core values, and it ought to be something that people can rally around and support. The current incarnation of the public art funding is contentious in a manner “that we all regret,” he said. To the extent that the program is contentious, it relates to the manner in which it’s funded, he said. It takes infrastructure dollars and uses them in a related manner for public art. That’s a policy matter, he said, and there’s some controversy about it. The current program also constrains the commission’s work and its ability to make decisions, he said. Those strong limitations are inhibiting the program’s success – it’s a vicious circle.

Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, with city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

It appears that the way to fix this, Taylor said, is to revitalize the program by changing the funding model. He believes the millage would pass, and would demonstrate wholeheartedly the citizenry’s support for public art. And it would free the commission to use its best judgment about what to fund. The millage funds could be used for a broader range of projects, including performing art and temporary art.

Taylor explained that the current program is a “creature of the city council,” so passage or rejection of the millage wouldn’t automatically alter the Percent for Art ordinance language. The millage vote would be a point of information, one way or another, he said, as to whether the program would be continued. The millage wouldn’t terminate the program, he said.

The millage proposal was intended to initiate a conversation, Taylor said – and that’s happened, so that’s good. He thinks 11 weeks is sufficient time, and the November election is a good time for the proposal to be on the ballot. His emails are running more than 2-t0-1 in support of the millage, Taylor reported. That’s not scientific, but it’s encouraging.

Taylor told commissioners that there’s risk in delaying a millage vote. The current program is contentious. We live in a politicized environment, he added, and if nothing is done now – if there’s a delay in order to prepare for a millage vote several months away – that puts the current program at risk. What that risk is, he added, is impossible to say. But his sense is that the risk is growing.

Taylor concluded by joking: “Fix it or risk it, if I can go Johnnie Cochran on it.”

Public Art Millage: Deliberations

Commissioners spent much of the next hour asking Taylor questions about his proposal. And at the behest of John Kotarski, the meeting rules were relaxed to allow for input from the public during the discussion. This report organizes that discussion thematically.

Public Art Millage: Deliberations – Timeline

Connie Brown began by noting that the city’s parks millage will also be on the Nov. 6 ballot, and she wondered how Taylor would compare the timeline for that proposal with the much shorter timeline for the public art millage, and whether the shorter timeline is adequate.

By way of background, the renewal of the city’s parks maintenance and capital improvements millage – at the rate of 1.1 mills from 2013-2018 – has been discussed by city staff for months. The park advisory commission was first briefed about the millage renewal at its March 22, 2012 meeting. At its June 19, 2012 meeting, PAC voted to recommend that council place the millage on the ballot, which the council did at its Aug. 9 meeting.

Responding to Brown, Taylor said the public art millage proposal was made with the stated and actual intent of starting a conversation. If it’s the consensus of the community’s cultural leaders that a millage is generally a good idea, but that the vote should be held off until a future date, then he’d be inclined to defer to that. So holding off is a real possibility, Taylor said. There are many possibilities, and he’d be open to them.

Broadly speaking, he continued, there’s been a lot of discussion about the benefits of public art for a long time. In discussions about problems with the current program, there’s virtually always the statement that the criticism isn’t about funding public art, but about how the city is going about that funding. So the groundwork for a millage is laid, he said. The economic benefits of public art are well known, he said – that’s largely a given throughout the community.

Connie Rizzolo Brown, an AAPAC member and local architect.

What if the millage isn’t put on the Nov. 6 ballot? Tom Petiet asked. What would be the next opportunity for it?

Taylor replied that the state now limits elections to four times a year. They can be held on the fourth Tuesday in February, and the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May, August and November. Petiet clarified with Taylor that it would therefore be possible to put a millage on the ballot within a year.

Taylor noted that if the commission stated that the Nov. 6 election is too soon for a millage question, and if the council concurs, then the council could postpone action on the issue until a later meeting.

Margaret Parker weighed in, saying that November will be a huge election because of the presidential race. She felt that the more people who turn out to vote, the better chance the millage will have to be passed. Mark Tucker asked if that’s what Taylor thought, too.

Taylor thought the November election would be a good time, with higher participation by students and renters – that’s a good core, he said. [Those two groups do not pay property taxes directly – and the millage is a property tax.] He said he liked the idea of asking more people about something like this, since it has been the subject of some controversy.

Cathy Gendron pointed out that if they don’t have time to educate the community, then voters won’t be informed. There might be less risk with a smaller turnout, when people would be well-informed and feel strongly about it.

It’s a judgement call, Taylor acknowledged. With a February election, you can know with a fair degree of “granularity” who the voters will be, he said. In November, you’ll get a wider swath of the community.

Sabra Briere, a Ward 1 councilmember who attended the meeting, added that in a special election, you’ll get a certain kind of voter who’ll likely feel passionate about the issue, compared to the November general election. Another factor is that on Nov. 6, there will be a significant number of statewide and local issues on the ballot, she noted. An issue like this public art millage might get lost, she said, yet it might still garner enough votes. If it’s the only item on the ballot – during a special election, for example – then it becomes difficult to sell, she said.

Lynne Friman of the Arts Alliance board reported that in her day job, she works for the Cultural Alliance of Southeast Michigan. That group was involved in the recent successful millage campaign for the Detroit Institute of Arts, which had been on the Aug. 7 ballot. There had been many conversations about the timing of that vote, she said, and much research was done about when to place the millage on the ballot. They learned that a general election is not the best time for an arts issue, she said. The DIA specifically put the millage question on the August ballot in order to reach a certain kind of voter, Friman said. She suggested looking at the timing of similar arts millages that had been successful.

Public Art Millage: Deliberations – Relationship to Current Program

Connie Brown wondered if the current Percent for Art program would automatically be suspended, if the millage passes. The funding would be suspended, Taylor replied, but the ordinance would be “live and active” until the council acted to change it.

Theresa Reid asked what would happen in four years if a millage renewal doesn’t pass. Does the other Percent for Art funding kick in again? Taylor said it would surprise him if there weren’t changes to the ordinance before then, assuming that the millage passed in November. He would suspect that some aspects of the ordinance would be changed by the council. But right now, the only thing that would change is the funding.

Marsha Chamberlin noted that when the current ordinance was created, there was tremendous support for it from the arts community. With a millage, it would expand the ability to fund projects like FestiFools. In a way, it would be simply switching funding mechanisms while opening up the options for projects to fund. That’s one way of looking at it, she said. Taxpayers currently fund the existing program, and would be paying taxes on it in a different way with a millage.

Taxes would be raised with a millage, Taylor said. The current program might need to be tweaked to allow for the freedom of the new funding model, he added, but there wouldn’t be the need to start from scratch. [This might have been an indirect response to Margaret Parker's public commentary earlier in the meeting, when she stated that a lot of work they'd done to create the program's guidelines would have to be thrown out the window.]

Reid said there seems to be support for fewer restrictions on how the money is spent. Why couldn’t the council simply change certain aspects of the current ordinance, such as decoupling the artwork from its source of funding, or allowing for temporary art? That might be a way to address these issues while they work toward a longer-term solution, she said.

Taylor didn’t think that was possible. He said the ordinance had been created in this way based on state law, not the council’s whimsy.

Public Art Millage: Deliberations – Assessing Risk

Theresa Reid noted that people who are concerned about funding for public art are weighing the likelihood of losing funding because of city council action versus a public vote. She acknowledged that Taylor and others felt confident about the passage of the millage, but she observed that voters had recently rejected a schools millage. Sabra Briere clarified that the millage Reid mentioned was a countywide millage, not one in Ann Arbor. [In fact, Ann Arbor voters in May of 2012 approved a technology bond, at an estimated annual average millage rate 0.51 mills. Reid perhaps was recalling a countywide school millage that was on the November 2009 ballot, and defeated – though supported by a majority of Ann Arbor voters.]

Theresa Reid, an AAPAC member and executive director of the University of Michigan’s ArtsEngine program.

Wiltrud Simbuerger pointed to Taylor’s statement about the risk of waiting. But if the millage is voted down, what does that mean? Is that a statement against public art? That result could be a greater risk for the existing program than waiting and taking more time to educate the public, she said.

That’s clearly true, Taylor replied. If the millage loses 40% to 60%, that means one thing, he said. If it loses by a single vote, that means something else.

Briere observed that now they’re talking about voter intent – which was something the council had discussed with regard to a proposed parks charter amendment that councilmembers voted down at their Aug. 9 meeting. Reasons for voting no could vary from voter to voter, she said. Some might vote no because the millage rate was too high or they didn’t support any public funding for art or they liked the current funding model. Defeat of the millage wouldn’t automatically mean that the council would agree not to fund public art, she said.

Taylor agreed with Briere’s assessment. He noted that he’s received about 170 emails about the millage, and some of those are against it because they like the current funding.

Simbuerger cautioned that defeat of the millage could be used as an argument to cut other funding, too. Taylor said defeat of the millage wouldn’t be a definitive sign, but it wouldn’t be a win, either.

Marsha Chamberlin raised another issue. Some councilmembers don’t think the current funding is legal or appropriate, so a no vote on the millage would fuel that fire. She didn’t think the majority of councilmembers felt that way, but some did.

Chamberlin said the commission has felt hamstrung by the current ordinance, because of restrictions that tied projects thematically to their funding sources, and that required a level of permanence that prevented the funding of temporary work. There’s been no doubt that the program took a while to get up and running, she added, as the commission developed policies and procedures. Now they have a strategic plan and 14 projects in the works, but their work isn’t yet visible – except for the Dreiseitl sculpture, which has been controversial.

For the past 1.5 years or so, Chamberlin said, the commission has been hearing from some city council members and others that the city is spending public dollars on art, but the public hasn’t voted to do that. The sense is that some of the new councilmembers feel strongly about this, she said, and that perhaps the Percent for Art ordinance might be repealed. She asked Taylor if that’s true – could the current ordinance be repealed?

Taylor replied that if someone wanted to draft a resolution to that effect, they could do so. It would require an initial vote, a public hearing, then a final vote at a second meeting. Briere, who had been out of the room at the start of Chamberlin’s question, said she didn’t think the council would consider simply eliminating the Percent for Art ordinance [leaving no public art funding in place].

In that case, Chamberlin said, it didn’t sound like that was an immediate concern. Taylor said the objections had primarily been related to funding, not to the overall program.

Public Art Millage: Deliberations – Communication, Mounting a Campaign

Connie Brown noted that there hasn’t been much dialogue on the public art commission or among leaders of the arts community about this millage. She asked Taylor to address this lack of engagement.

That’s a legitimate concern, he said. The council is under a time pressure because of the deadline to place a question on the Nov. 6 ballot – they would need to vote at their Aug. 20 meeting, he said. But if the arts community speaks with a clear voice that it wants to seek a millage – but not just now, then that would be something to weigh very seriously, he said.

Brown wondered how the voice of the arts community will be part of the publicity, assuming that the council decides to pursue a millage. There’s a lot of misunderstanding about the current ordinance, she noted, even though it’s been in place for several years. If a millage question is placed on the Nov. 6 ballot, there’s such a short time to communicate what that vote will mean, she said.

Taylor clarified with Brown that she was essentially asking how to run a millage campaign. Theresa Reid added: And who pays for it? Private donations would pay for a campaign, Taylor replied.

John Kotarski asked who would run such a campaign? “I don’t know,” Taylor said. He suspected that arts leaders would be engaged and do it.

What if arts leaders are divided on the issue? Reid asked. That sometimes happens, she joked. Taylor said it depends on the nature of the disagreement, and the manner in which it’s articulated.

Later in the meeting, Brown asked how much it would cost to mount a campaign. Taylor estimated it would cost about $25,000. Lynne Friman of the Arts Alliance board thought it would cost significantly more than that. [By way of rough comparison, in for the Aug. 7 primary, the eight city council candidates, in four two-way races, raised about $50,000 combined. As a one-way race, a campaign for the millage could conceivably be mounted for half that, or $25,000.]

Responding to another question, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – explained that although the city staff can’t advocate for a millage, they can provide information about it. Reid jokingly asked if the commission could spend Percent for Art funding on yard signs “if we keep them for five years?” [The reference to five years is an allusion to the need for current art projects funded through the program to be "permanent," because the funding comes from capital projects. The timeframe for what constitutes permanence has been somewhat fluid over the years.]

Public Art Millage: Deliberations – Commissioners Weigh In

John Kotarski read a prepared statement expressing his support for the millage to be placed on the Nov. 6 ballot. It will strengthen public art, and if it passes, it could be the start of expanded support countywide for public art. It appears it might have support even from councilmembers who oppose the current funding mechanism, he said. The current funding arrangement doesn’t allow for things like performing arts and artist-in-residence programs. Art monuments are important and Ann Arbor should have more of them, he said, but temporary art is also important, adding to the creative energy of the city. He cited Christo’s installation in New York City’s Central Park (The Gates) as an example of temporary art that generated more than $250 million in the local economy over the 14 days that it was in place.

From left: AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin, who also is president of the Ann Arbor Art Center; Shary Brown, former executive director of the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair; and Mark Tucker of FestiFools and FoolMoon.

Kotarski also said that the millage would allow the public art program to be more accountable, and give the commission a chance to explain what they do. He might be naive, he said, but he takes councilmembers at their word when they say they’d support a millage and campaign for its passage. The art commissioners aren’t politicians, he said, so they need to trust that these seasoned politicians mean what they say. He thanked Taylor for giving Ann Arbor a chance to weigh in on this issue.

Theresa Reid began by noting that she’s a member of the countywide Cultural Leaders Forum. The CLF has talked about a possible countywide millage to support arts and cultural organizations, she said, but there are still a lot of questions. There isn’t a consensus yet on important issues like the timing and amount of that possible millage, she said, and how it might affect funding for local arts and cultural institutions.

Reid said she understood the concern of some CLF members and the Arts Alliance about putting forward an Ann Arbor-specific millage. But Kotarski had assured her, she said, that in the experience of other communities, passage of a city millage later ended up helping pass a broader millage, too. She was concerned about the 11-week timeline, but felt it would take the CLF and Arts Alliance a long time to bring forward a countywide millage proposal, and she didn’t think the Percent for Art program could wait. If it doesn’t hurt the countywide effort, she thought they should move forward quickly. She “cautiously trusted” the council’s sense that the millage would pass. So the next 11 weeks would be spent on educating the public and moving this forward, she concluded.

Connie Brown spoke next, saying that the millage proposal is an improvement, and there are a lot of good things about it. She was concerned about the timing – she’d been surprised by that. But now she’s leaning toward faster movement. Her biggest concern is for the educational campaign to be effective, and so far, for the current program, it hasn’t been, she said. You want to have informed voters.

Cathy Gendron agreed with what others had said. She’s also concerned about the timing, but said she’s willing to dig into it.

Wiltrud Simbuerger said there’s no question that a millage would be a better funding mechanism. She just wondered how they can do it in such a short time. She still didn’t know how that would work out, but she would love for it to pass so it would resolve the whole question about how the public feels about funding public art.

Kotarski said the commission wasn’t going to do a millage campaign alone. They need the support of all arts and cultural organizations in the county, and he encouraged everyone to support it. There’s a synergy that everyone can build on, he said. If it passes, it will be a start. They’ll learn how a cultural millage campaign can work locally, and use that knowledge to support a larger, more vibrant cultural community. They want to raise everyone’s boat, he said, and this is an easy start. The city is willing to support it, and if they can present a united front and pass this millage, it will bode well for everyone.

Kotarski said he enthusiastically moved to recommend that the city council put a public arts millage on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Malverne Winborne entered the meeting just as a roll call vote was beginning on this resolution. He asked for clarification about what exactly he would be voting on.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend that the council place a public arts millage on the Nov. 6 ballot. Two commissioners – Bob Miller and Tony Derezinski, who also serves on city council representing Ward 2 – were absent.

Public Commentary: Post-Vote

Four people addressed commissioners after the vote.

Russ Collins pulled out one of his frequent observations – that politics is the art of the possible. The commission had spoken very strongly about its intent, he said. He appreciated Taylor’s intent, but said there are a lot of unknown dynamics in politics. He guessed they should all keep their fingers crossed and see what happens on Monday, when the council votes. He hoped councilmembers would think clearly about how things play out in the November election, in the press, and what the long-term benefits and liabilities might be. In 1982, citizens voted to support the Michigan Theater [by voting for funds to pay off its mortgage], but that didn’t include any operating funds, he noted. The theater has been supported through private giving, he said.

City leaders and the electorate need to be encouraged to think carefully about the role of government funding in supporting the arts, he said. Currently, community values aren’t reflected, and this proposed narrow millage doesn’t change that in any significant way. It’s a start, he said, and he hoped it could be built into something more dynamic. “Hope is something we should always have,” he concluded.

Margaret Parker told commissioners that she was proud of them, of the arts community and of city council. It’s tremendous that there’s so much more discussion about the arts. Artists are being looked at as adults who should be paid, and who live all over the county – it’s a much broader conversation, she said. It’s important to see each of these actions as a building block, Parker said. The Percent for Art program was a tremendous accomplishment, Parker said, because it showed the community how public art funding could be allocated in a targeted way. That narrow focus was used to accomplish a lot of things, she said. And now there’s further planning at the county level. In Seattle, which was used as a model for the Ann Arbor program, Parker said there are many different groups that fund public art. It’s always been known that the Percent for Art program couldn’t provide all the funding, she said. In addition to grants and private giving, the millage is just another, larger building block. People have expressed the wish to support more Michigan artists, too, Parker noted: “I say yes!”

Deb Polich introduced herself as president of the Arts Alliance. Based on discussions about the millage since it was proposed on Aug. 9, everyone thinks that a millage is a good idea, she said, but the timing of it is a great concern to leaders of cultural institutions and members of the Cultural Leaders Forum. For one thing, there are a lot of other issues on the Nov. 6 ballot. Also, the CLF has been quietly talking about a possible countywide millage, but one of the concerns about that has been the impact on private contributions to arts and cultural organizations that wouldn’t get funding from a public arts millage. That remains a great concern, she said. The messaging for a millage is critical, and many people don’t believe 11 weeks is sufficient time for an effective millage campaign. A millage, and the ability to fund a broader range of projects, could be a very positive thing, Polich said, so it’s important that it’s successful.

Another concern is whether the city is “leaving money on the table,” Polich said. It’s not clear how the amount of the proposed millage was determined, she said – some people believe that voters would support a higher millage. But the real concern is whether there’s enough time to make this happen. The proposal is well-intended, and the Arts Alliance supports a millage. But they encouraged Taylor to withdraw the current proposal to allow time for a more fully-developed, comprehensive strategy to be prepared. More time is needed for a well-conceived, comprehensive, sustainable public arts funding plan that’s worthy of support from the city council and local citizens.

Mark Tucker said that as an artist, he’s pleased about the direction of this discussion. He noted that there’s the expectation that you’ll hit a home run, but as artists know that it’s rare to hit a home run. You rarely come up with fantastic pieces, he said. So the risk of not moving forward is that it will make the commission’s job more difficult, because people will expect home runs from the projects that are funded. If the millage fails, the only thing worse is to walk around and see a lot of disappointing public art.

Meeting Coda

Marsha Chamberlin concluded the meeting by noting that they now have their work cut out for them. They’ll begin at AAPAC’s next regular meeting, she said, on Aug. 22. [The meeting starts at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room of city hall, 301 E. Huron.]

Speaking personally, she said, her career has been in the visual arts and she’s been torn on this issue. Professionally, she felt caught in the middle. If she didn’t support the millage, it would run counter to her day job [as president of the Ann Arbor Art Center]. She said she’d heard encouraging things that evening, and she urged people to attend AAPAC’s Aug. 22 meeting too. Assuming that city council votes to put the millage proposal on the November ballot, “we’ll need help in keeping the ball rolling,” she said.

Margaret Parker added that if anyone is interested in speaking to the city council at its Aug. 20 meeting, they’ll need to call the city clerk’s office first thing on Monday morning to sign up for public commentary. There are only a limited number of speaking slots, she said. [Ten spots are reserved for people to speak on agenda items. The clerk's number is 734-794-6140. Additional public commentary, with no sign-up required, is available at the end of the council meeting.]

John Kotarski asked whether there will be a public hearing on the millage. Taylor indicated that there won’t be a formal public hearing.

Meeting Coda: Post-Meeting Actions

The day after the AAPAC vote, the Arts Alliance sent out an email announcing a special meeting to talk about the millage. The meeting is set for Monday, Aug. 20 from 2-3:30 p.m. at the second floor south conference room of the NEW Center, 1100 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

From the email: “We know we want to make sure the messaging is clear. What else do we want? Please invite anyone who has a stake in this conversation! During this meeting we will also begin to look at how we position and leverage this millage to the advantage of the whole creative sector.” The alliance also has posted a position statement about the millage. [.pdf of Arts Alliance position statement]

Also on Thursday, Margaret Parker sent out an email to her distribution list of arts supporters, saying that she now supported putting a millage on the Nov. 6 ballot. [In an earlier email, sent before AAPAC's meeting, Parker had lobbied against the millage.] Part of her reasoning in support of the millage seems linked to Taylor’s intimation that the risk to the current program is growing, though he did not explicitly tie that risk to a turnover on council in November. New councilmembers will be replacing Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who did not seek re-election, as well as Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who was defeated in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary by Sally Petersen. It’s expected that Chuck Warpehoski and Sumi Kailasapathy, who won the Democratic primary in wards 5 and 1, respectively, will also prevail in the general election.

“The big picture is that the new council will not have the votes to continue support for the Percent for Art funding,” Parker contended. “Setting aside 1% of funds from capital improvement lines in the budget proved to be complex and difficult to implement. It also restricted the use of funds in many ways, excluding temporary projects and events. So a millage looks like the next step to continue and broaden public art funding in the city,” she wrote.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, John Kotarski, Theresa Reid, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Malverne Winborne (who arrived at the end of the meeting). Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Bob Miller.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The meeting is being called in response to an unexpected proposal by Ann Arbor city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).  At the council’s Aug. 9 meeting, Taylor put forward a resolution that would place a question on the Nov. 6 ballot, asking Ann Arbor voters to pay a 0.1 mill tax for four years to support public art. The public art commission, which oversees the current Percent for Art program, had not previously been consulted about the proposal, and AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin had only been informed of it a few days prior to its presentation to council. [See Chronicle coverage: "Public Art Millage Mooted, Postponed."]

Taylor presented the resolution on Aug. 9, but then sought its immediate postponement until the council’s Aug. 20 meeting. A council decision on Aug. 20 would allow for some public discussion before taking action to put the proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot, while still meeting the statutory deadline for delivering ballot language to the Washtenaw County clerk.

The ballot question would read: “Shall the Charter be amended to limit sources of funding for public art and to authorize a new tax of up to one-tenth (0.10) of a mill for 2013 through 2016 to fund public art, which 0.10 mill will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $459,273?”

The public art millage would at least temporarily replace the city’s current Percent for Art program, which was approved by the council in 2007, but has been controversial. The program requires that 1% of the budget for any capital improvement project be set aside for public art – up to a cap of $250,000 per project. For the current fiscal year, it’s estimated that $320,837 in new revenues will be made available through this funding mechanism. That’s in addition to about $1.367 million in unspent funds that have accumulated from previous years.

Supporters of public art have mobilized in the past when some councilmembers previously proposed reducing the amount collected for the Percent for Art program, and similar efforts have launched against the current millage proposal. On Monday, Aug. 13, former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker sent an email criticizing the effort: ”No sooner were the City Council primaries over, losing one strong public art supporter and gaining two negative votes, than the five year old Percent for Art program is up for grabs. Years of planning, community surveys, peer community research, and city and community input are now to be swept aside.”

Parker’s allusion to city council changes refers to Tony Derezinski, a Ward 2 incumbent who lost the primary to fellow Democrat Sally Petersen. Derezinski serves on AAPAC and has been an advocate of the Percent for Art program.

At this point, Taylor’s proposal does not eliminate the Percent for Art program or its funding. While the proposed millage would temporarily replace the Percent for Art funding mechanism, it would continue to exist if the millage referendum failed on Nov. 6, or if the millage were not renewed in four years. That could change if the council decides to eliminate the Percent for Art funding prior to the Nov. 6 election. If the Percent for Art funding mechanism were to be rescinded before the millage vote, then the millage vote would be just about the question of support for public funding of art, not a choice of mechanism.

AADL board member Jan Barney Newman reads the resolution regarding bond language for the Nov. 6 ballot. (Photos by the writer.)

Earlier this month, the board had voted to move forward on this bond initiative. If approved by voters, it would fund a new downtown building at the current site. At Monday’s meeting, AADL director Josie Parker stressed that the $65 million covers the cost of the entire project, not just the building itself. Other costs include demolition of the existing structure, moving costs and leases for temporary locations.

Passage of the bond proposal on Nov. 6 would result in an initial bond millage levy in July of 2013. It’s estimated that 0.56 mills would be levied in the first year, with an average annual rate of 0.47 mills over the 30-year period.

The new building would be on the downtown library’s current site at 343 S. Fifth Ave., on the northeast corner of Fifth and William. Parker gave a brief history of the site, to explain why that location is preferred. One major factor relates to the site’s previous ownership by the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Until 1995, the library was part of the AAPS.

A separation agreement with the school system gives AAPS the right of first refusal if AADL decides to sell the site. If the school system decides to buy it, AAPS would pay only 65% of the market value. If AAPS doesn’t buy the property and AADL sells it to another entity, AAPS gets 35% of the net sale proceeds. All of that factored in to the board’s decision to stay on the site, Parker noted.

Two advisors to AADL on this bond issue – James P. Kiefer of Dykema and Paul R. Stauder of Stauder, Barch & Associates – attended the July 30 meeting and answered questions from the board. Board members asked only a few clarificational questions, including some related to the millage rate, use of bond proceeds, and the possibility of local downtown development authorities capturing a small portion of the bond millage.

After the meeting, the library immediately posted a six-page information sheet with frequently asked questions about the project. The FAQ includes a chart showing estimates of how much individual property owners will pay. For example, the owner of a house with a market value of $200,000 is expected to pay $56 annually, based on a levy of 0.56 mills.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “AADL Board: Renovation Not the Best Option” and “Campaign Launches for Library Bond.”

Bond Ballot Language

At its July 16, 2012 regular meeting, the AADL board had discussed and ultimately voted to put a 30-year, $65 million bond proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot to fund a new downtown library at its current location. The board also set a special meeting for July 30 to vote on specific ballot language for the proposal.

The sole resolution on the July 30 agenda related to the bond proposal question and informational language to be included on the Nov. 6 ballot.

This was the ballot language presented to the board for approval:

Shall the Ann Arbor District Library, formed by the Ann Arbor Public Schools and the City of Ann Arbor, County of Washtenaw, State of Michigan, borrow the sum of not to exceed sixty-five million dollars ($65,000,000) and issue its general obligation unlimited tax bonds, in one or more series, payable in not to exceed thirty (30) years from the date of issuance of such bonds, for the purpose of paying all or part of the costs of constructing, furnishing and equipping a new main library building to be located at the current site of the downtown library building, including costs related thereto?

The board’s resolution also included the following informational text to be included on the ballot:

The estimated millage to be levied in 2013 to pay the debt service on such bonds is 0.56 mills ($0.56 per $1,000 of taxable value) and the estimated simple average annual millage rate required to retire the bonds is 0.47 mills ($0.47 per $1,000 of taxable value). In accordance with State law, a portion of the revenue collected may be subject to capture by the City of Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Scio Township Downtown Development Authority.

Two advisors for AADL on this bond issue – James P. Kiefer, an attorney with Dykema’s Lansing office who specializes in public finance, and Paul R. Stauder of Ann Arbor-based Stauder, Barch & Associates – were on hand to answer questions from the board.

Bond Ballot Language: Public Commentary

Public commentary at library board meetings occurs at the start of each meeting.

On Monday, Lyn Davidge told board members that she was still trying to get more people to show up for public commentary. [This was a theme of her speaking turn at the board's July 16 meeting, too. Although a few members of the public attended the July 30 meeting, only Davidge spoke during public commentary.] She thanked the board for including the ballot language in the board packet, which was available online prior to the meeting. Her question related to words within the phrase “…for the purpose of paying all or part of the costs of constructing, furnishing and equipping a new main library building…” Davidge asked for clarification of the words ”or part of.” She hoped that clarification of that could be provided.

Bond Ballot Language: Board Discussion

Jan Barney Newman began the discussion by asking about the two millage rates mentioned in the ballot language – 0.56 mills and 0.47 mills. She wondered why there was a difference. Paul Stauder of Stauder, Barch & Associates responded that the rates are calculated in accordance with state law. The law requires an estimate of the first year that the millage would be levied, as well as an average millage rate over the entire 30-year period. To do that, certain assumptions are made, he said, such as an assumption that the overall tax base will grow. As the tax base grows, the millage rate is expected to diminish.

From left: James Kiefer of the law firm Dykema and Paul Stauder of Stauder, Barch & Associates. They are advising the library on its $65 million bond issue.

Newman clarified with Stauder that the calculation is made based on the number of properties that will be assessed.

Margaret Leary asked for clarification of the point raised during public commentary, related to the phrase “or part of.” James Kiefer of Dykema told the board that the phrase gives AADL flexibility. While AADL could spend the entire $65 million on the project, he said, if there is unexpected revenue from other sources – a grant, for example, or money bequeathed to the library in someone’s will – then the library wouldn’t be bound to spend the entire amount that could be raised from the bonds.

Leary noted that the language implies the bond proceeds can be used to pay for demolition of the current building. Kiefer confirmed that assumption – construction costs include demolition costs. AADL director Josie Parker added that the bond also covers the cost of moving and operating the library elsewhere during the construction period.

Rebecca Head wanted to clarify that the bond proceeds will be used for the new downtown library, not for other purposes. She said she wanted to emphasize that in the context of the earlier statement that only part of the bond proceeds might be used. If other revenue comes in and the entire bond amount isn’t needed for the new library, the bond funds wouldn’t be used for other projects.

Bond Ballot Language: Board Discussion – DDAs

Nancy Kaplan asked for explanation about the reference to the two downtown development authorities.

It’s very complicated, Kiefer replied. State law allows the a DDA to establish a baseline property value for its district, then capture taxes above that baseline on the increase in property values. A small amount of the library bond might be subject to that tax increment finance (TIF) capture, he said. State law requires the statement about DDA tax capture as part of the bond ballot language, he added, but he hadn’t researched the specific DDA plans to see how the TIF would affect the AADL bond. He noted that the library doesn’t control the amount that might be captured by the DDAs.

Prue Rosenthal asked who does control the amount? Kiefer said the county treasurer and local assessing units implement the TIF. To get more information about how the TIF would apply to the AADL bond, he would need to look at details of each DDA plan in terms of its baseline, duration and amount of tax capture, he said.

Barbara Murphy wanted to know about other types of TIFs, such as brownfield TIFs. Will those also affect the bond? No, Kiefer said. Under state law, only certain types of TIF districts are permitted to capture debt retirement taxes. In this case, only the Ann Arbor and Scio Township DDAs might be allowed to capture a portion of the AADL bond millage revenues.

By way of additional background related to TIFs, AADL director Josie Parker wrote an essay in July 2010 titled “Tax Increment Financing Development Erodes Library Millages.” And a TIF issue related specifically to the Ann Arbor DDA emerged in 2011, following a DDA board decision regarding “excess” taxes captured in its TIF district. See Chronicle coverage: “Library Weighs DDA Excess Tax Decision.”

Bond Ballot Language: Board Discussion – Site History

Margaret Leary asked AADL director Josie Parker to explain the history of the 343 S. Fifth Ave. site, saying it was indirectly related to the bond issue and that a question about whether to locate on the same site had been raised.

Parker replied that it’s actually directly related to the bond, because state law – the District Library Financing Act (Public Act 265 of 1988) – requires that the ballot language state how the library district was formed.

In 1994, Proposal A changed the state law so that public school systems could no longer operate public libraries using the school millage. When that happened, the Ann Arbor Public Schools and city of Ann Arbor moved to form the Ann Arbor District Library as a separate entity. In 1995, voters approved the establishment of the AADL with an independent governing board. At the same time, voters authorized a 2.0 mill tax in perpetuity to operate the library system. [Due to the state's Headlee Amendment, that 2.0 mills has been rolled back over the years to about 1.92 mills, which is now the maximum amount that AADL can levy each year. However, the library currently levies only a portion of that amount – 1.55 mills.]

As the library separated from the school system, Parker said, there were assets to consider, including land and buildings. Those issues were dealt with in a separation agreement between the AADL and the AAPS. The library system took ownership of the Loving branch on Creek Drive, which was later replaced by the new Malletts Creek branch on Eisenhower. The AADL also took over the lease of the branch at Westgate shopping mall, which was subsequently expanded and renovated.

For the downtown building, the separation agreement acknowledged the investment that AAPS had made, Parker said. The school system had taken on debt in 1991 to double the size of the downtown library. The library agreed to lease the downtown building from AAPS for $1 per year for 10 years, with the deed then transferring to AADL. The library took ownership of the building and land in December 2005.

But as an acknowledgement of the AAPS investment, the separation agreement included stipulations related to the sale of the downtown site, Parker explained. If AADL decides to sell the building and land, AAPS has the right of first refusal, and gets a year to make that decision. If the school system decides to buy it, they would pay only 65% of the market value. If AAPS doesn’t buy the property and AADL sells it to another entity, AAPS gets 35% of the net sale proceeds.

Parker noted that these factors had been considered by the special facilities committee in making its recommendation to build on the current site, rather than sell the site and build a new library elsewhere. [The details that Parker explicated about the downtown site were not mentioned in the six-page memo from special facilities committee that was submitted to the board, nor was the issue discussed explicitly during the board's public deliberations at its July 16 meeting.]

Parker said another consideration is the fact that the current site is larger than any other available parcels nearby. The size of the site is important because libraries in urban settings have certain security needs, she said. Having a larger building footprint means that each floor can be designed to give staff better lines of sight. The AADL’s new branches were constructed in this way. The alternative of building a taller structure would increase operating costs, because more staff would be needed on each floor. The goal is to have the safest environment for everyone, Parker said.

Bond Ballot Language: Board Discussion – General Information

Barbara Murphy asked whether the general information provided in the board’s resolution would also go on the ballot, in addition to the actual ballot question. James Kiefer replied that the informational language is also required by state law. The library will work with the Washtenaw County clerk’s office to finalize what goes on the ballot.

Murphy pointed out that there’s no indication in the informational paragraph that states why the AADL needs to build a new downtown library. Kiefer noted that some people would say it’s already a long run-on sentence, without including more information.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved ballot language to be placed on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Library Bond Proposal: Information for Voters

After Monday’s board vote, AADL director Josie Parker reported that the library staff had prepared a six-page information sheet with frequently asked questions about the project, called The Vision/The Vote. Questions that are addressed include:

• What will a new downtown library offer our community?
• What will the new library look like?
• Is $65 million enough?
• Why can’t you just renovate the existing facility?
• Why hasn’t the library board chosen to build the new library on the top of the underground parking garage on Library Lane?
• Why doesn’t the library board sell the property at Fifth and William and build elsewhere?
• Are libraries needed in the age of eBooks and the Internet? How many people use the downtown library?
• Why does the board think the public is interested in a new downtown library?
• What is wrong with the current building?

The handout also provides information about how residents can give feedback to the library – questions can be emailed to downtown@aadl.org. Another section of the handout addresses issues related to the Nov. 6 bond proposal, including the ballot language, rationale for the decision to pursue a bond proposal, and a chart showing how much taxpayers will pay based on the value of their property. For example, the owner of a house with a market value of $200,000 is expected to pay $56 annually, based on a levy of 0.56 mills.

Millage information for AADL bond proposal.

If voters approve the ballot proposal on Nov. 6, Parker said, the tax would be levied for the first time in July of 2013.

Parker stressed that the handout isn’t an advocacy document – the library is prohibited by law from asking people to vote in a certain way. Rather, it’s intended to be informational and as conversational as possible, she said. It’s posted online and will be available in printed form throughout the downtown library and the AADL branches.

Although this was not part of Parker’s report, a separate campaign by community leaders to support the bond proposal was officially launched last week. The Our New Downtown Library campaign committee has been working informally for several weeks. Some of its members had attended the July 23 board meeting, when the AADL board voted to put the bond proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Campaign committee members include Ellie Serras (chair), Mike Allemang, (treasurer), Sally Allen, Janis Bobrin, Leah Gunn, Debbie Herbert, Norman Herbert, Pat McDonald, Paul Morel, Omari Rush, Paul Saginaw, Ingrid Sheldon and Robin Wax. The group has already launched a website, Twitter account (@OurNewLibrary) and Facebook group. According to a press release issued by the group, they intend to hold public forums, use social media, speak at community meetings and mail information to residents in support of the bond proposal.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Absent: Ed Surovell.

Next meeting: Monday, Aug. 20 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. 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!

From left: Stephen Kunselman and Mike Anglin congratulate each other on winning their respective Democratic primary elections two days earlier. Kunselman represents Ward 3. Anglin represents Ward 5. Both are incumbents. (Photo by the writer.)

That assurance was enough for now to hold off a council discussion of an explicit restriction on the street/sidewalk repair tax – a restriction that would prevent those tax monies from being used to pay for public art under the city’s Percent for Art program. At the meeting, the council approved ballot language for Nov. 8 that will ask voters to renew the street repair tax (at a rate of 2.0 mills) as well as to approve an additional tax to repair sidewalks (at a rate of 0.125 mills).

But no discussion took place on a possible restriction on those monies in connection with public art. It’s technically possible for the council to revisit the issue at its next meeting, on Aug. 15, which falls one day before the ballot language must be filed, according to the state election statute.

If the discussion of appropriate funding mechanisms for public art is pushed to September, it will join another topic the council voted at its meeting to postpone for two months – termination of the city’s contract with RecycleBank. That company administers a coupon-based incentive program in connection with the city’s new single-stream recycling program.

It was a year ago, in July 2010, that the new single-stream system replaced Ann Arbor’s decades-old dual-stream system. Councilmembers questioned the evidence that RecycleBank’s program had any significant impact on residents’ recycling behavior. The measure needed an eight-vote super majority of the 11 councilmembers, and based on deliberations, there were only seven clear votes to terminate. But instead of voting, the council postponed the issue.

The council did take action on a related recycling issue, voting to increase its annual contract with Recycle Ann Arbor, which empties the curbside recycling carts set out by residents. The increase was set for $107,000 a year and was meant to offset diminished revenue that Recycle Ann Arbor was getting under the contract, due to a smaller number of carts being deployed in the city.

In other business, the council gave final approval to changes in employee benefits. It also approved terms of a contract with Steve Powers, who on Sept. 15 will become the city’s newest employee as city administrator. Highlights include a $145,000 base salary and participation in a 401(a) plan instead of the city’s pension system.

Allen Creek was the geographic focus of two items on the agenda. The council approved another extension to the purchase option agreement with Village Green – for the City Apartments project to be located at First and Washington. The council also approved a general expression of support for the idea of constructing a greenway in the Allen Creek corridor.

The council also approved revisions to the proposed Burton Commons housing development, located on Burton Road near Packard and US-23. And receiving initial approval were changes to the boundaries for the city’s five wards.

Highlights of council communications came from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Smith alerted her colleagues to possible legislation she’d be bringing forward in the future that would restrict video surveillance. Kunselman announced that he would eventually be bringing forward possible revisions to the city’s ordinance that governs how its downtown development authority operates.

A highlight from public commentary was praise heaped upon the Ann Arbor police chief, Barnett Jones, by a representative of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights (WICIR).

Public Art Commission, Percent for Art

At the Aug. 4 council meeting, mayor John Hieftje nominated Ward 2 council representative Tony Derezinski to replace Jeff Meyers on the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission. The nomination will require confirmation by the city council at its next meeting.

Meyers resigned in June of this year, mid-way through his three-year term, partly over frustration that the mural project he’d championed kept hitting bureaucratic roadblocks. In an interview with The Chronicle, Meyers had suggested that one way to improve the situation is for a city council representative to be appointed to AAPAC – it seems especially appropriate since AAPAC makes recommendations for the Percent for Art budget, he said. [Chronicle coverage: "After Resignation, Who Leads Mural Program?"]

What made Derezinski’s nomination somewhat unusual was the timing of Hieftje’s announcement. It came during a communications slot on the agenda, towards the start of the meeting. Nominations are a standard part of every meeting agenda template, and appear towards the end of the meeting.

Hieftje said he’d been looking into the art commission, and had met and talked with various people. The feedback he’d heard is that people support the public art program, but want to know where the art is. A profusion of art in the city hasn’t happened as a result of the program, he said. This is not the same situation as with the housing commission, he added. [In March 2010, the city council undertook the wholesale replacement of the city's housing commission. Derezinski was the city council liaison to the housing commission.] Hieftje said that Derezinski was willing to be appointed to the public art commission, if someone else would step forward to become the liaison to the housing commission.

The mayor continued by saying he wants to pause in September to take a look at why there isn’t more art in the city. He acknowledged that there’d been a proposal by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) [in connection with the past year's budget discussion] to reduce the percentage allocation to art. The council might decide to do that, he said, but he wanted to bring that discussion forward for September.

With that, the mayor effectively headed off debate later in the evening about the public art ordinance in connection with the street and sidewalk millage ballot language. Some councilmembers had been interested in altering the proposed millage charter language to specify that the street/sidewalk millage funds should not be used for public art.

It’s technically possible for the council to revisit the issue of revising the millage language and the corresponding ballot language at its next meeting, on Aug. 15, which falls one day before the ballot language must be filed, according to the state election statute.

The Percent for Art program is enabled by a city ordinance that allocates 1% of the budget for all city capital projects – up to a limit of $250,000 per project – to the city’s public art program. The street reconstruction millage will expire this year, unless it is approved by the general electorate on Nov. 8.

Although some councilmembers went to the Aug. 4 meeting prepared to argue for a restriction on the street/sidewalk millage – preventing it from being used to acquire public art – the issue was not explicitly floated.

Street, Sidewalk Millages

The council was asked to approve language for the Nov. 8 ballot that would renew the street and bridge reconstruction millage, at a rate of 2.0 mills. It was last approved by voters in November 2006 – for five years beginning in 2007 and ending in 2011. A tax rate of 1 mill is equivalent to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

Also before the council was language for a separate proposal: Voters will be asked if they support an additional 0.125 mill to pay for sidewalk repair. Up to now, sidewalk repair has been the responsibility of property owners.

The ballot language for the street repair millage will read:

“Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax up to 2 mills for street and bridge reconstruction for 2012 through 2016 to replace the previously authorized tax up to 2 mills for street reconstruction for 2007 through 2011, which will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $9,091,000?”

The ballot language for the sidewalk portion of the street repair millage will read:

“Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax increase of up to 0.125 mills for 2012 through 2016 in addition to the street and bridge resurfacing and reconstruction millage of 2 mills for 2012 through 2016, which 0.125 mills will raise in the first year of levy the estimated additional revenue of $563,000, to provide a total of up to 2.125 mills for sidewalk trip hazard repair in addition to street and bridge reconstruction and resurfacing? This Charter amendment shall not take effect unless the proposed Charter amendment to authorize the levy of a tax in 2012 through 2016 of up to 2 mills for the purpose of providing funds for the reconstruction and resurfacing of streets and bridges (Proposal 1) is approved.”

If both millage proposals were to be approved by voters, the money would be collected under a single, combined millage – but accounting for reconstruction activity would be done separately for streets and sidewalks.

The separation of the question into two proposals can be explained in part by a summary of responses to the city’s online survey on the topic of slightly increasing the street repair millage to include sidewalk repairs. The city’s survey reflects overwhelming sentiment from the 576  survey respondents (filtered for self-reported city residents) that it should be the city’s responsibility to repair the sidewalks.

But the survey reflects some resistance to the idea that an increase in taxes is warranted. From the responses: “Stop wasting taxpayer money on parking structures, new city buildings, and public art. You are spending money like drunken sailors while we’re in the worst recession since the Great Depression.” Balanced against that are responses like this: “I strongly endorse the idea of the city taking responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks and am certainly willing to pay for it in the form of a millage in the amount cited in this survey.” [.pdf of survey response summary]

A millage levy is a change to the city’s charter, and the procedure for changing the city’s charter is set forth in Michigan’s Home Rule City act, which reads in relevant part:

117.21 Charter amendment; procedure. Sec. 21.
(1) An amendment to an existing city charter, whether the charter was adopted under this act or formerly granted or passed by the legislature for the government of a city, may be proposed by the legislative body of a city on a 3/5 vote of the members-elect or by an initiatory petition.
… The purpose of the proposed charter amendment or question shall be designated on the ballot in not more than 100 words, exclusive of caption, that shall consist of a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the amendment or question in language that does not create prejudice for or against the amendment or question. The text of the statement shall be submitted to the attorney general for approval as to compliance with this requirement before being printed. …
(3) A proposed charter amendment shall be confined to 1 subject. If the subject of a charter amendment includes more than 1 related proposition, each proposition shall be separately stated to afford an opportunity for an elector to vote for or against each proposition. …

Sidewalk/Street Millage Ballot Proposal

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked assistant city attorney Abigail Elias to describe the city’s progress so far with the attorney general review of the ballot language, as required under the Home Rule City Act. Elias explained that the AG had expressed some concerns, but that it was not yet the final review. She stated that she was “baffled” by the AG’s analysis, which she attempted to lay out for the council. On the first proposal, if someone votes for the street millage for up to 2.0 mills, and if voters then approve the second proposal, which is to allow use of up to 2.125 mills for both streets and sidewalks, then that negates the vote for 2.0 to be used just for streets – according to the AG. Elias said she felt that “voters are smarter than that.”

Some back and forth between Elias and Briere established that if there’s a negative response from the AG, then it comes back and the council can make a revision or can approve the original. Elias said that it’s the AG’s view that he doesn’t like the ballot language. But Ann Arbor has overridden the attorney general opinion on ballot language in the past – this wouldn’t be the first time. The last time that had been done, Elias said, was in connection with the city’s charter amendment on medical marijuana. Briere said she thought that was a charter change initiated by a citizen’s referendum, so that put it in a different category. Elias insisted that it had been language that the city of Ann Arbor had prepared and submitted.

Briere brought up the issue of how accounting would work for sidewalk funds and street funds. Elias stated that it’s a segregation of funds issue – that’s not a legal issue.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) noted that in the past, it’s been a subsequent policy decision made by the council as to how the millage is administered. [Rapundalo was alluding to the administrative policy on use of the park maintenance and capital improvement millage.]

Homayoon Pirooz, head of the city’s project management unit, was called to the podium. He said the result of the city’s public engagement process on the issue of a sidewalk repair millage was a clear message from residents that they wanted the city to take responsibility for sidewalk repair. But residents also want the city to keep track of expenses to show what work has been done. There is no formula for figuring out how many sidewalks need to be replaced, he said. In the first year there might be $300,000 worth, but what happens if more work is needed? Do we stop work at that point? What if it’s an unsafe condition and the city waits until next year, leaving it unsafe?

In response to a question from Briere, Pirooz estimated that about $1.4 million had been spent annually by property owners in the last five years, as the city has administered a sidewalk repair program in which property owners are responsible for repairing sidewalks. That totaled around $7 million. However, the city assumes that in the last five years the unsafe sidewalks will have been repaired, so the $500,000 that the millage would generate each year should be enough to get the program going, he said.

If passed by voters in November 2011, taking effect in January 2012, Briere wondered when the city could start spending the money on sidewalk repairs – in the spring or in July? Pirooz answered that the $500,000 would pay for roughly 2.7 miles of sidewalk and that could be completed in a few months – plenty of time before the end of the 2012 construction season.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d be supporting putting the sidewalk millage on the ballot. The quality of work done by resident-hired contractors had varied tremendously, he said. Kunselman stressed that many residents need more assurance there’ll be a more vigorous response to ensure that property owners who have been notified under the current program that their sidewalks need repair are actually held accountable for that. He wanted to make sure that if a property owner has been notified that their sidewalks are in need of repair, then the expense – if now performed by the city – is not charged to the millage. Sue McCormick assured Kunselman “there’s no escape.” The city has GIS records and photographs as documentation, and property owners who have not repaired their sidewalks as required over the last five years will not avoid paying for the repairs.

Mayor John Hieftje said that some voters will reason that they themselves have repaired three sidewalk slabs in front of their own house and don’t want their vote to bail out others, who have been notified of sidewalk slabs in need of repair but have not taken action. McCormick said that typically it’s some specific property that such a voter has in mind, and it always turns out that the non-compliant property is on the city’s list.

[By way of example, a Tweet sent out by Trevor Staples noted that sidewalks adjacent to railroad property are in disrepair. Brad Kluczynski, who oversees the city's sidewalk repair program, wrote in an email to The Chronicle that the location is known to the city, and the city of Ann Arbor is actually Ann Arbor Railroad's contractor for sidewalk repair – it's on the list.]

Briere then offered an amendment to the resolution that directs the city attorney to prepare an ordinance revision changing the responsibility of sidewalk repair from adjacent property owners.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wondered if the amendment to the resolution was even necessary – wouldn’t that happen anyway? Elias confirmed that it would be done anyway, but that she did not have a problem with the amendment language. She told Derezinski that the state AG would not be reviewing any ordinance change, but rather only the ballot language.

Outcome on amendment: The council voted unanimously to amend the resolution on the sidewalk repair millage.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved, on separate votes, to place on the ballot two separate proposals – a street repair millage (2.0 mills) and an additional sidewalk repair millage (0.125 mills) to be added to the street repair millage.

Recycling

Two items on the council’s agenda related to recycling. First was an increase by $107,000 of the city’s contract with Recycle Ann Arbor (RAA) for curbside service of the city’s single-stream recycling carts.

Also before the council was a proposal to terminate its contract with RecycleBank. RecycleBank is a company that administers a coupon-based incentive program to encourage residents to recycle.

Recycling: Background

The Recycle Ann Arbor contract change reflected the council’s choice to revisit a decision it had made at its July 5, 2011 meeting to reject that contract change. The decision to reconsider the July 5 vote came at the council’s July 18 meeting, which the council then postponed until Aug. 4.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is interviewed by WEMU's Andrew Cluley after the city council's Aug. 4 meeting.

The change reflects a bump from $3.25 to $3.55 per month per cart, for a total of $107,042 annually. The city council had voted on March 15, 2010 to adopt the single-stream recycling program, which began a little over one year ago, on July 5, 2010.

At that time, the city approved a contract with RAA that called for a payment of $3.25 per month for each cart that is deployed in the city (whether it is set out for collection or not), plus a per-ton payment of between $18.74 and $30.00. The amount of revenue RAA has received through these two kinds of payment was less than projected for the last fiscal year. Specifically, the tonnage payments received by RAA for fiscal year 2011 (which ended June 30) for recyclable material were projected to be $406,332 but in fact only generated $187,560 for RAA – only 46% of what was expected. The shortfall was $218,772.

Also, the city expected to distribute 32,779 carts, but it turned out that only 29,734 carts were deployed, or 9.3% fewer than planned. A staff memo accompanying the July 18 resolution explained the reduced number this way: “… many of the smaller multi-family residential units that were previously using the 11-gallon recycling ‘totes’ are able to share recycle carts, resulting in a smaller number of deployed carts.” In terms of revenue, the reduced number of carts meant that RAA received only $1,159,626 compared to the projected $1,278,381 – for a shortfall of $118,755.

Summing the shortfalls in the two kinds of revenue ($118,755 + $218,772), RAA received $337,527 less than it expected for FY 2011. The increase in the monthly per-cart service fee – approved by the council for all five years of the five-year contract – works out to nearly cover the annual shortfall that was due only to the decreased number of carts: $107,042 versus $118,755.

The overly-optimistic projections were made by the city’s recycling consultant Resource Recycling Systems based on data provided by RecycleBank. During public commentary on Aug. 4, a representative of RecycleBank objected to the fact that RecycleBank data on single-family households had been used, without its knowledge, to make projections about multi-family households.

When the council approved the single-stream recycling contract with RAA last year, it also struck a 10-year deal with RecycleBank to administer a coupon-based incentive program to help boost recycling rates in conjunction with the single-stream rollout.

Also before the council at its Aug. 4 meeting was a resolution giving direction to city staff to give RecycleBank 30-days notice of cancellation of its contract with the city. The resolution indicates termination would give savings to the city of $149,167 per year on that contract. RecycleBank would be entitled to $120,000 for the depreciated cost of equipment in recycling trucks as part of this program. RecycleBank also has claimed that it would be entitled to an additional amount up to $80,000 due to the timing of the cancellation. The council’s resolution stipulates that city staff are to proceed with termination of the contract only if the cost of termination is $200,000 or less.

Of 624 respondents to an online survey conducted by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), only 11% said they opposed canceling the coupon contract and allocating the funds to Recycle Ann Arbor’s contract instead. Only 13% said that they’d both signed up for the coupon program and felt like it had increased the amount that they recycle. Of those residents responding to the survey, 99% indicated that they recycle.

Recycling: Public Commentary

Atul Nanda spoke on behalf of RecycleBank. He noted that a month ago [July 5, 2011] the council had been presented with a report requesting additional funding for Recycle Ann Arbor based on shortfalls of revenue in their contract for the number of carts set out and for tonnage collected. The report had suggested that the tonnage projections were based on information provided by RecycleBank, Nanda said. During the development of the partnership between RecycleBank and the city, RecycleBank was asked to provide data about their program in other cities where it’s been implemented in single-family households only. Outside of RecycleBank’s knowledge, Nanda said, the data was used to make projections for both single-family and multi-family households.

Nanda said the resolution asking for additional funding for Recycle Ann Arbor acknowledges that: (1) the projected number of single-family and multi-family units was inaccurate; and (2) multi-family units were assumed to recycle more than single-family households. While he understood the impact on Recycle Ann Arbor, RecycleBank should not be penalized, said Nanda – the data RecycleBank had provided was clearly for single-family households. The goal in the first year was to implement the RecycleBank program in single-family households, measure the impact, adjust accordingly and then expand to multi-family units.

Nanda noted that RecycleBank had forwarded a report to councilmembers on July 29, highlighting key benefits of the partnership. One benefit is a 36% increase in recycling in single-family households. He said that RecycleBank acknowledges that 20% of it was just due to the implementation of the single-stream system. The other 16%, he contended, was due to RecycleBank. Nanda noted that residents registered with the RecycleBank program set out their carts far more frequently, compared with those who are not registered.

Nanda also claimed a financial impact of $160,000 from avoided landfill costs, increased commodity revenues and savings to residents. RecycleBank has also invested in the community by hiring local staff. From the first 10 months, he said, RecycleBank’s program has demonstrated both economic and environmental benefits. RecycleBank has also provided the city with better recycling data than it has ever had access to in the past, he said.

Nanda said it’s hard to understand that even though the results of the program are positive, RecycleBank is not being recognized for that. RecycleBank has also not been asked to sit down with its partners to address the shortfall that Recycle Ann Arbor has experienced. Instead, the media has been used to evaluate the program, he said, without the typical dialogue that would take place between two business partners.

Recycling: Council Deliberations – Recycle Ann Arbor

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations on the Recycle Ann Arbor contract, saying the council had initially voted against it [5-4 on July 5], but councilmembers had not discussed it. Briere said her logic at the time was that by allotting $107,000 to Recycle Ann Arbor, the fund balance for the solid waste fund would take a significant hit. It would take the anticipated deficit by 2017 from $0.5 million up to over $1 million. And that was more than she’d be willing to support, she said. She was really uncomfortable with the idea of approving this expense and then having to reassess how trash pickup is done in the city. [She was alluding to possible ideas floated by city staff at a recent work session that ranged from altering how carts are set out to franchising out trash collection.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) echoed Briere’s comments. He also voted against the contract revision the first time around, but had supported bringing it back up. He stressed the need to hold city staff and the city’s consultants accountable. There’s no need to point fingers or assign blame, he said, but there needs to be accountability. He hoped that other councilmembers would support both resolutions.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she hoped that the two resolutions are unbundled in everyone’s mind. She said she was not as concerned about the projected long-term deficit in the solid waste fund, because the city had not yet begun to look at implementing various cost-saving measures. [Potentially among those measures are placement of recycle and trash carts on alternating sides of the streets in some locations, to reduce the number of miles driven on a particular route.] Smith said that in her opinion, there are opportunities to do pilot programs. She said she hoped that the vote to adjust Recycle Ann Arbor’s contract is not hinged on eliminating RecycleBank’s contract.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) also hoped that other councilmembers would look at the two resolutions as separate. She said she was thankful the Recycle Ann Arbor contract is being brought back. [Teall was absent for the first vote on July 5, as was Smith.]

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) clarified with Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, that there are two pay elements in the Recycle Ann Arbor contract: (1) number of carts; and (2) tonnage. Hohnke confirmed that in contract negotiations with Recycle Ann Arbor, the city provided an estimate for the carts in the field and that’s the number that partly determined revenue.

McCormick also confirmed that the city had worked with its consultant on the projected tonnage and had suggested the economic model for the contract. Hohnke asked for some clarification on why a smaller number of carts ended up being deployed. McCormick told Hohnke it was really a matter of working with multi-family households as the city went through deployment – “They told us what they wanted.” The consultant’s estimate was not based on contacting the occupants of multi-family units, she said. McCormick said that what the city is seeing is a lot of sharing of carts.

Hohnke said he supported reconsidering the issue. He’d voted no previously, because the council had identified a problem without a solution. The council was simply asked to provide additional funding. At the time, the council didn’t have enough information to address the problem. However, he continued, it’s much clearer now. A significant portion of the shortfall is outside Recycle Ann Arbor’s ability to affect – the number of carts deployed. While any vendor should anticipate some variation, a 10% difference is significant, Hohnke said. He called Recycle Ann Arbor a long-time partner and home-grown contributor to solid waste efforts. He noted that Recycle Ann Arbor had done some painful work to reduce its own expenses, so he was willing to meet them part-way.

Hohnke concluded by saying he hoped the council would consider the second resolution that would terminate the RecycleBank contract. “They are related, in my mind,” he said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked what role Recycle Ann Arbor’s Calvert’s Roll-off Containers played. McCormick told him the issue is not related to that. Anglin also asked why the revenue the city gets from the operation of the materials recovery facility (MRF) is higher for city tonnage compared with non-city tons. Anglin ventured that it could be because the materials coming in from outside Ann Arbor are contaminated. McCormick explained that it’s not an issue with contamination, but rather that it reflects the contract with FCR, which operates the facility. The city gets a higher percentage when its recycled materials are sold. The city gets a smaller percentage of profits when non-city tons are sold.

Anglin also wanted to know why for fiscal years 2005-10 the audited spreadsheets don’t match up. McCormick explained that there is a difference between cash flow representation versus audit reports. The city’s financial plans are not audit sheet forecasts, she said.

For his part, mayor John Hieftje said it’s an issue of fairness. Recycle Ann Arbor actually founded recycling in Ann Arbor, he said. Recycle Ann Arbor had won this contract, and was in the middle of that contract when it had accepted the single-stream system and a revenue reduction. Recycle Ann Arbor deserves our support, he said. It’s a home-grown company and a nonprofit.

Hohnke asked how $107,000 impacts the budget for single-stream recycling. McCormick responded to Hohnke by saying that if they look at the projections and timeframe for the payback [on investments in the automated carts and improvements to the materials recovery facility], then the $107,000 is all well within those forecasts. Hohnke confirmed that the total amount of the contract for Recycle Ann Arbor would still be less than the contract Recycle Ann Arbor had prior to implementation of the single-stream system.

Outcome: The council vote unanimously to adjust the contract with Recycle Ann Arbor by $107,000 annually.

Recycling: Council Deliberations – RecycleBank

To parse the council deliberations, it’s useful to understand that Recycle Ann Arbor empties the curbside single-stream carts for both single-family residences and multi-family residences. However, the RecycleBank program is currently available only to residents of single-family homes. Much of the recycling tonnage data is an agglomeration of single- and multi-family residences, making it difficult to discern what if any effect RecycleBank is having on the recycling behavior of residents who are eligible for the program.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) again led off deliberations, saying that the assumption was that the RecycleBank program would increase the number of people participating in the recycling program and the amount of material that is recycled. It’s difficult to see that either goal has been met, she said.

She then described the results of her own online survey she’d conducted, to which over 600 people responded. [.pdf of recycling survey results, including free-form responses]

Highlights of the survey results include the fact that 70% of those who’ve signed up for RecycleBank have not actually used coupons. Around 40% of respondents haven’t signed up for RecycleBank. Of those who responded, 99% recycle. Briere reported that many people responded saying they’re so grateful for the single-stream system. Some people say they put out their cart, if it’s empty or not. Some people said, if the city shaves something out of the budget, then shave RecycleBank.

Briere told her colleagues she wanted them to think about whether RecycleBank is meeting its goals and the needs of the community. She noted that if the council was asking the city staff to look at creative solutions to save money in the solid waste fund [like different schemes for trash/recycle cart set out], the council itself could not pass up an opportunity to realize savings. City staff could address the other challenges with a lower burden, she suggested, if the RecycleBank contract were terminated. She concluded by saying it’s not the right program for Ann Arbor.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he appreciated a communication the council had received from RecycleBank, but what was missing and still vague was the financial impact. He asked RecycleBank’s Atul Nanda about the total dollars that homeowners had received in rewards.

Nanda told him there are three areas of financial benefit. First there is the incremental impact of a 36% increase in recycling for which RecycleBank won’t take full credit. Of that increase, 20% is allocated just to the effect of the new single-stream system. But a 16% increase was claimed for RecycleBank. From that perspective, he said the city had avoided landfill costs of $55,000 in the first 10 months of the program (which is $75,000 per year).

The second component, Nanda said, is just from the coupon rewards ordered – that reflected an $80,000 savings. Finally, said Nanda, there was a positive impact on 39 local businesses with a economic co-spend of $250,000. Rapundalo asked Nanda to break down the total savings per household. Nanda provided an estimate based on the $80,000 in rewards and the roughly 10,000 households that are participating in the RecycleBank program: $8 per participating household, Nanda said.

Rapundalo asked what revisions had been made to the program in the last 10 months. Nanda explained that the reward offerings are reviewed at 6-month or 12-month intervals to see what is resonating well with residents. Rapundalo ventured that no changes have been made since the inception of the program. Nanda said he thought some changes had been made, but could not give exact examples.

For his part, Rapundalo said Nanda’s answer to the second question about value per homeowner was significant. He said he thrived on data and numbers – he appreciated Briere’s data. He said that as he was walking around Ward 2 during his Democratic primary election campaign, he’d heard comments that validated Briere’s survey results. He said there was a lot of sentiment that residents didn’t need an incentive – the switch to the single-stream carts was more than enough incentive. He also said he’d heard that the value from the coupons is fairly minimal. Those were comments he’d heard rather consistently, he said. When the council approved the program a year ago, at the time RecycleBank seemed like a program that would be beneficial, but it didn’t seem to have measured up, Rapundalo said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d voted against the contract when it first came before the council last year. He reminded his colleagues of his strong connection to Recycle Ann Arbor as a driver in 1987 – before the city had any kind of totes or bins. Ann Arbor has been recycling diligently and cooperatively for decades, he said. A coupon program was not going to help it. He noted that RecycleBank claims credit for only a 16% increase. There are a lot of other opportunities for coupons, he said, so canceling the contract would from that point of view not be a detriment to friends, neighbors, or families.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she was not quite ready to terminate the contract for a number of reasons. If the average household is benefitting by $8, that means there are some households that are benefiting by much more, who balance out those who are not benefiting at all. She concluded that some people are spurred by the incentive program.

Smith noted that part of the reason for the incentive program was a desire to reach the student population and those who are more recent arrivals in Ann Arbor, who don’t yet have that “Ann Arbor influence.” A 16% increase is still an increase, she said. The reason for the increase is nebulous, she said. Do people recycle more because it’s more convenient? Or maybe people are responding to the coupon incentive? She said she was against terminating the contract that night for two reasons: (1) It was put on the agenda very late and she had not gotten enough resident input; and (2) she was willing to give the program another year before evaluating it.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she not ready to terminate the contract for similar reasons to Smith’s. The city still needs to reach multi-family houses. Teall asked what information the RFID tags in the carts provided. Sue McCormick explained that the RFID tags allow tracking which carts are set out. Weight is tracked by route, not by cart. McCormick said there has not been a lot of data yet. They’ve been at it only for 7 months – Recycle Ann Arbor changed how they track the data. The single-stream system had begun in July 2010, two months later was RecycleBank’s official start, then in February Recycle Ann Arbor had changed its routes. The data was hard to interpret and it was hard to be definitive, McCormick said.

Later in deliberations, Briere confirmed with McCormick that cancellation of the RecycleBank contract would not eliminate the city’s ability to continue to gather data via the RFID tags.

Teall asked when the data would be definitive. McCormick said the city’s solid waste coordinator, Tom McMurtrie, would like to see the RecycleBank contract continue through the fiscal year to get another six months worth of data. Teall wanted to wait until the program was extended to multi-family households. Teall concluded that she’d like to postpone the vote, saying that it’s much too soon.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) stated that the council had this conversation a year ago – they’d talked about coming back in a year to evaluate the program, and that was now. It’s a little upsetting not to have the data, she said. Speaking to her own household’s experience with the RecycleBank program, she said it’s fun to look at how many points you got, but she wondered what determines that. McCormick clarified that to earn points you have to have set out your cart, and weight is assigned by route.

Higgins concluded that the rewards program is not really individualized. She’s been disappointed in the range of rewards offered. She said only in the last three weeks had she seen a change. She was not in favor of continuing the contract.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he would go along with Teall’s view. He thought it might be premature to terminate now, and was willing to go to the end of the fiscal year [June 30, 2012].

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that RecycleBank has described allocating 2o% of the 36% increase to the overall single-stream system generally and the remaining 16% to RecycleBank. Taylor asked McCormick how confident she was in that assessment. McCormick attributed the estimate to the vendor, based on what RecycleBank has seen in other communities. McCormick said that Ann Arbor has a very high percentage of multi-family units in the mix – that can skew things.

Taylor then asked about costs incurred due to termination of the contract. The back and forth between Taylor and McCormick drew out the fact that if the contract were left in place until the end of the fiscal year, the cost of the depreciated equipment installed in trucks would drop from $120,000 to $90,000, and eliminate the potentially $80,000 contested by RecycleBank for early termination of the contract. But McCormick said that according to the city attorney, the early termination cost is not an issue. Taylor concluded that by waiting until the end of the fiscal year, the city would save $30,000 and eliminate the risk of a contested claim. McCormick concurred with Taylor’s assessment, but noted that there would also be the ongoing cost of the contract – roughly $12,500 per month through the remainder of the year.

Taylor asked how the city staff proposed to produce additional information get a clearer idea of RecycleBank’s actual effect. McCormick replied that the approach would be to mine other communities’ data to get an idea of how justified the 20% allocation is.

Another approach is to go back to Recycle Ann Arbor and try to separate multi-family collection from single-family collection. Melinda Uerling, executive director of Recycle Ann Arbor, was asked to the podium to explain that the collection routes currently used by Recycle Ann Arbor contain a mix of multi-family and single-family residences. It would be possible to look at reconfiguration of the routes. In response to a query from Taylor, Uerling said that reconfiguration would not be impossible, but it would be challenging. Recycle Ann Arbor was willing to look at route reconfiguration, she said.

Responding to further queries from Taylor, McCormick reported that the city’s solid waste coordinator, Tom McMurtrie, is “absolutely convinced” that there’s been a benefit from RecycleBank, and that the city needs some time to align the data with the analytical methods.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) weighed in, saying that he had been a strong proponent of single-stream recycling, and of adding the coupon rewards. He called the operational efficiencies of the single-stream system and its positive reception among residents a win for the city. He said he’d spent a lot of time with the data and concluded that he was “about 50% wrong” on his view last year. He said he could not see the benefit of RecycleBank. He allowed it might be there, but he could not see it.

Hohnke suggested there was value in “pivoting quickly.” He said that when the city experiments, they have to anticipate that they don’t always get it right. He drew a comparison to the city council’s decision to reduce street lighting in some areas. [The council quickly backpedaled on that decision last year, when reception among residents was negative.] He allowed that there is always a benefit from additional data, but a year is enough time. He said he shared Higgins’ frustration.

Hohnke said it did not seem difficult to him to provide some clear data about whether RecycleBank was having a positive effect. He noted that city staff had suggested doing some surveys, but called that approach unhelpful in determining if there’s a specific effect from RecycleBank. Hohnke stressed that overall, the shift to single-stream has been a success.

Mayor John Hieftje repeated Hohnke’s point that it’s important to remember that single-stream recycling is an unqualified success in Ann Arbor. He said he did have a concern about whether there is a savings by making a decision to terminate the RecycleBank contract now, compared to waiting until the end of the fiscal year. He also said he thought the contract termination might not achieve the eight votes it needed to pass. Hieftje did not see any harm in waiting, though he came prepared to vote for termination. But he didn’t see how it hurts anything to delay. [At that point, based on deliberations, there were three clear votes against terminating – Smith, Derezinski and Teall. Taylor appeared dubious.]

The council then considered a motion to postpone until the second meeting in September – that was the result of much discussion about the date when the council would again take up the matter.

Hohnke noted that the longer the city stays with the contract, the longer it pays on the contract, but said he had no particular problem with postponing.

Briere allowed that some data might be gained through a postponement, but it’s hard to judge if it will be informative. Spending the additional $25,000 for two months on the contract is a concern, but not a devastating concern. The real issue, she said, is whether the council can benefit on any level from the postponement. In the last month, she said she’d spent a lot of time working on the issue and had seen emails flying to councilmembers from the city staff with spreadsheets and data.

Briere said that with respect to the late placement on the agenda, the actual numbers didn’t get to the council until that day. The city had done an experiment, and it was interesting experiment, but they sometimes have to say they made a mistake, she concluded.

Kunselman said he accepted some blame for the late addition to the agenda. He did not want RAA to separate routes just to try to get cleaner data. He said he was willing to placate members of council who are hesitant about terminating the contract and vote to postpone. But he felt that an incentive program is not enough to make people add another yogurt cup to the recycle bin.

Anglin said the purpose of recycling is to generate less waste, not more. He felt the RecycleBank program incentivized more trash – the person who gets the reward is the person who puts out more. Asked by Hieftje to speak to the issue of postponement, Anglin said he didn’t really care, but he supported postponing.

Outcome: The postponement to the council’s second meeting in September (Sept. 19) was approved with dissent from Hohnke, Hieftje, Briere and Rapundalo. Hieftje said he voted no because he hoped that it would fail and a postponement for a shorter timeframe would then be approved.

New City Administrator Pay

The council considered approval of a contract with Steve Powers, the newly hired city administrator, who will start on Sept. 15, 2011.

The council’s search committee had accepted a staff recommendation to target recruitment in the $145,000-$150,000 range. The committee was presented with comparable data in three different sets: Link to Google spreadsheet with data from Michigan cities, Big Ten cities, and midwestern cities. Some kind of vehicle allowance appears standard for the comparables used to determine compensation.

New City Administrator Pay: Background

The Ann Arbor city council chose unanimously to offer Steve Powers the job of city administrator at its July 18, 2011 meeting. The decision for Powers over another finalist, Ellie Oppenheim, came after two rounds of interviews on July 12-13, including a televised session on the morning of July 13. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Search Concluding for Ann Arbor City Admin"]

The city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, has been serving as interim city administrator since April 28 – he was appointed to that position at the city council’s April 19, 2011 meeting. He will continue to serve in that capacity until Powers begins work on Sept 15, making his tenure in that job four and a half months, or 140 days. Previous city administrator Roger Fraser announced his resignation at a Feb. 28 city council working session. Fraser took a job with the state of Michigan as a deputy treasurer.

New City Administrator Pay: Council Deliberations

The city administrator search committee was chaired by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and members of that committee also took part in the negotiations on the contract. At Higgins’ request at the Aug. 4 meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ticked through the main features of the contract.

Highlights include a $145,000 base salary to be paid in weekly installments. His relocation expenses from Marquette will be reimbursed up to $30,000. His health insurance will be equivalent to other non-union employee plans. He’ll have 10 sick days accruing annually and 20 days of vacation accruing annually. He’ll begin with 10 vacation days in the bank. He’ll have a cellular allowance and data stipend. He will not participate in the city’s pension program. Instead, he will be in a 401(a) plan. The city of Ann Arbor will match Powers’ contribution 2-1 up to 15% of his annual salary. That is, if he contributes 7.5% percent of his salary to the 401(a), the city will contribute 15%. He will have a retiree health care reimbursement account accessible on retirement, and the city’s initial contribution to that will be $2,500.

Higgins and Taylor both praised Powers for a smooth negotiation. The work that Crawford has done as interim city administrator since Fraser’s departure was acknowledged.

Mayor John Hieftje called on the community to welcome Powers and offer assistance in the transition. Powers will have a lot to learn about what a wonderful community Ann Arbor is, Hieftje said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the new city administrator’s contract.

Employee Benefits Changes

Before the council was final approval to two separate changes to employee benefits.

The first was a change in the pension system for members of the city’s police service specialist union. The council had approved the collectively bargained changes at its June 20, 2011 meeting. And the council had given initial approval to the ordinance change at its July 18 meeting.

Under the old ordinance, members of that union made a 5% post-tax contribution to their pension. That will change to a 6% pre-tax contribution made by members of the police service specialist union. The change will be effective starting Aug. 14, 2011.

The council also gave final approval to a revision to the city’s ordinance that covers how a city retiree’s health care is paid for. The council had given initial approval to the ordinance change at its July 18 meeting. The revision to the ordinance distinguishes between “subsidized retirees” and “non-subsidized retirees.” A non-subsidized retiree is someone who is hired or re-employed into a non-union position with the city on or after July 1, 2011. In their retirement, non-subsidized retirees will have access to health care they can pay for themselves, but it will not be subsidized by the city.

At its June 6, 2011 meeting, the city council had directed the city staff to prepare an ordinance change along these lines.

During the public hearing on the health care change, Thomas Partridge called himself an advocate for employees, private and public, who are facing cutbacks to their health care and pension benefits. He said the council should come clean on the fact that this is an effort to cut back on benefits at the same time employees are experiencing increased stress through increased workloads. He called on councilmembers as elected Democrats to do the decent thing.

Outcome: On separate votes without discussion, the council voted unanimously to approve both ordinance changes.

Village Green Extension

On the council’s agenda were two items related to an extension of the purchase option agreement with the developer Village Green regarding the city-owned First and Washington site, where the developer plans to build Ann Arbor City Apartments. It’s a 9-story, 99-foot-tall building with 156 dwelling units, which includes a 244-space parking deck on its first two stories.

The first item was the extension of the agreement. The second item was an expenditure for legal work, to be reimbursed by the developer.

Village Green Extension: Background

The delay in the land deal – which was originally set at $3.3 million and reduced by the council at its June 6 meeting to $3.2 million – means that the city’s contingency plan (for the failure of anticipated revenue from the sale to materialize in a timely way) will need to be exercised.

The reduction in price approved at the council’s June 6 meeting was based on a “bathtub design” for the foundation that is intended to prevent water from ever entering the parking structure, eliminating the need for pumping of water out into the city’s stormwater system.

Of the purchase price, $3 million was part of the city of Ann Arbor’s financing plan for its new municipal center, which is currently in the final stages of construction at Fifth and Huron. According to the staff memo accompanying the Aug. 4 purchase option extension, the city council will likely be asked at its Aug. 15 meeting to approve a short-term loan to cover the municipal building construction costs that would have otherwise been covered by the purchase of the land. At a city council work session in April 2010, the contingency plan of taking out a short-term loan – costing $150,000 – had caught the eye of Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who questioned the item in the budget planning for that year.

The additional extension considered by the council on Aug. 4 is through Nov. 3, 2011, and comes at a cost of a $50,000 non-refundable payment by Village Green to the city. The extension approved by the council also allows an additional 30-day extension – to Dec. 3, 2011 – to be made by the city administrator in exchange for an additional $50,000 non-refundable payment.

At the council’s July 18 meeting, interim city administrator Tom Crawford had given the city council a heads up that an additional extension to the purchase option agreement would likely be necessary.

The timeline revised by the council at its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting was put in place on Aug. 5, 2010 – when the city council approved an extension that called for Village Green to purchase the land by June 1, 2011. However, that deadline was subject to an extension of 90 days by the city administrator – an option which Crawford then exercised.

The parking deck portion of the project is being developed in cooperation with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which has pledged to make payments on around $9 million worth of bonds, after the structure is completed and has been issued a permit for occupancy.

According to the staff memo accompanying the Aug. 4 resolution, Village Green still hopes to break ground on the project this construction season.

As a historical point related to the planned use of the sale proceeds for the new municipal center construction, the council defeated a resolution on March 17, 2008 to extend the Village Green purchase option agreement for First and Washington. That was a 5-5 vote (Higgins was absent). Voting to extend the agreement were: mayor John Hieftje, Joan Lowenstein (Ward 2), Leigh Greden (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chris Easthope (Ward 5). Voting against it were: Ron Suarez (Ward 1), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

At the council’s following meeting, on April 7, 2008, Rapundalo brought back the measure for reconsideration, and the council voted unanimously to extend the agreement. The key difference was the addition of a “resolved clause,” which stated: “Resolved, that the proceeds from this sale shall be designated to the general fund, Fund 010.”

Village Green Extension: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) led off deliberations by saying that when the issue had come up before [at the council's June 6, 2011 meeting] he had asked for an environmental impact study, but had not received it. He’d requested that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority make available any information it had about the water table that had been obtained through borings made for other projects. If water is pumped out, other water will flow in to replace it, Anglin said. He expressed concern about a possible connection to the 1,4 dioxane underground contamination. [The contamination came from a former Gelman Sciences manufacturing plant in Scio Township, subsequently purchased by Pall Corp. For recent Chronicle coverage of the cleanup efforts, see "Residents Frustrated by Dioxane Decision"]

Interim city administrator Tom Crawford told Anglin that an exchange of emails, which had included the city’s environmental coordinator, Matt Naud, had led Crawford to believe that Anglin’s questions had been answered. Crawford noted that the Gelman plume is far away from the First and Washington location. Crawford characterized possible pumping (dewatering) required for construction as likely to be short-term.

Mayor John Hieftje chimed in, saying that the reason for the delay was for the “bathtub design” for the foundation, so that no pumping would be required during heavy rains.

Anglin reiterated his contention that he’d made a request but had received no information. Crawford offered to follow up. Anglin replied to Crawford, saying that he thought there would be some kind of timeframe established. Anglin said that anything in the area is a concern to residents of Ward 5. The goal should be to protect people as opposed to the development. Crawford reiterated that if the information that had been provided was not sufficient, he was happy to follow up.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) picked up on the note in the staff memo indicating that with the delay there’s a need to provide short-term financing for the municipal center, and that a recommendation would be brought to the council at their next meeting. Kunselman wanted to know what that recommendation would entail.

Crawford said he was working on it now, but in essence it would use the city’s pooled investment funds. For this amount of money, Crawford said, it’s more expensive to go out to a bank. The money earns about 1.9% right now. Kunselman noted that the Village Green project had been been delayed for many years. If it doesn’t come through, Kunselman wondered, what is the backup plan? Crawford said there was nothing to lead him to believe it won’t proceed, but the city’s general fund ultimately will have to deal with covering the cost, whether it’s financed or not.

At the Aug. 4 meeting, Kunselman characterized the city’s strategy, if the sale did not go through, as borrowing the money for the municipal center. Crawford allowed that borrowing was a possibility, or the city could potentially use part of its fund balance. Crawford said that all the elements of the municipal center financing plan had come to fruition, except for this one.

Kunselman then raised the issue of the Downtown Development Authority’s role in the Village Green project. Kunselman wanted to know essentially how the DDA was going to afford the financing it had pledged. The back and forth between Kunselman and Crawford drew out the fact that the DDA will be paying $1.4 million up front and financing roughly $8 million using bonds. Kunselman wanted to know what the impact would be on the per capita debt for the city.

Crawford stressed that the Village Green project had always been in the 10-year plan for the DDA. He also stressed that the debt was planned to be paid from revenue from the parking system, not with taxpayer dollars. Kunselman countered that this had also been the plan for the financing of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage, but that had changed so that some of the bond payments are to be made with tax increment finance (TIF) dollars captured in the DDA district. Kunselman counted the current extension as the seventh one. He expressed concern about extending the project again.

In 2001, the city had $219 debt per capita, Kunselman said. In 2005, it had dropped to $152 per capita. But in 2010 it stood at $1,106.

By way of background, Kunselman was referring to general bonded debt. [.pdf showing debt per capita from the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report] At a townhall budget presentation earlier this year, city staff presented a comparison of Ann Arbor with other communities showing the total of all kinds of debt, and that presentation showed Ann Arbor with $2,199 per capita debt compared with $3,482 for Detroit on the high end, and $284 for Sterling Heights on the low end. [.pdf of debt per capita slide from city townhall budget presentation comparing Ann Arbor to other cities]

Kunselman then turned to the question of how many of the spaces in the parking deck would be accessible to the public, as opposed to being reserved for residents of Village Green’s City Apartments development. Crawford indicated that of the 244 spaces, 72 will be held for residents – the rest would be public. Kunselman briefly floated the idea of amending the purchase option agreement to give Village Green the responsibility for building and owning the parking structure. Crawford replied that the construction documents are due at the end of the month and that kind of revision couldn’t be done easily at this point.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), responding to Kunselman’s concern about the debt load, asked for confirmation that in exchange for the debt, there would be be assets reflected on the balance sheet. Crawford said that the city doesn’t do “credit card debt.” Instead, he said, the city is more in the mortgage-type of debt business. He noted that the city is still at 2% of its debt limit. He also pointed to the cyclical nature of debt. He said that Ann Arbor is in the range of other communities. In his view, Crawford said, it’s not an inappropriate issuance of debt. He noted that the project would take the parcel onto taxable rolls. He called it an investment in infrastructure and the economy.

Hieftje, responding to Kunselman’s questioning of the need for the parking deck component, said that merchants wanted more parking. He noted that in 2008 the city had received a letter from First Martin, the owner of the Brown Block – a large surface parking lot between First and Ashley streets – reporting it had a client interested in developing that lot. That would be a significant loss of parking, Hieftje said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) picked up on Hieftje’s point about the Brown Block, saying that First Martin is required to give only a 30-day notice of termination of the lease agreement for parking use. Moving forward is essential on Village Green’s First and Washington project, she said. She emphasized that she continues to back the project – a short extension makes a whole lot of sense, she said. She could not think of another way to find $3 million. It makes sense to go with a strong partner with a good design.

As a final question, Anglin drew out the fact that Village Green still hopes to begin construction on the project yet this year, before the construction season ends.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Village Green extension.

Village Green: Legal Work

Also related to Village Green’s project at First and Washington was the authorization of an increase in the contract to $60,000 (previously authorized up to $25,000) with James C. Adams of Ufer & Spaniola, P.C. for legal consulting in connection with the City Apartments/First and Washington parking structure project. The city is to be reimbursed by Village Green for the cost of this legal work.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked that his council colleagues excuse him from voting on the resolution, because his law firm, Butzel Long, has a business relationship with the parties.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize the increase to the contract with Adams. Taylor left the table and did not vote.

Expression of Support for Greenway

Before the council was a resolution added late to the Aug. 4 agenda, on Tuesday, Aug. 2, that expresses general support for the idea of constructing a greenway along the Allen Creek corridor.

Expression of Support for Greenway: Background

The single “resolved” clause reads:

“That the Ann Arbor City Council is fully supportive of the creation of the Allen Creek Greenway, and hereby directs City staff to continue to work with and to assist the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy during the Greenway’s development and implementation phases.” [.pdf of Aug. 4 Greenway resolution]

The resolution comes as the possibility is becoming more real to construct the first section of the greenway. On May 16, 2011, the city council approved neighborhood stabilization funds for the demolition of three houses as site preparation for the Near North project. Adjacent to the Near North site are additional houses that could be demolished and left as open space, which could become part of a greenway. But based on remarks made at the meeting by greenway advocates, it appears that the first segment to be constructed is most likely to be the portion running through 415 W. Washington.

The 18 “whereas” clauses recite history dating back to 2005, when the city council appointed a task force to study the possibility of a greenway. The history recited by the resolution includes a measure approved by the council on July 6, 2009, which rezoned the First and William parcel as public land and set forth the council’s intention that the property (currently a surface parking lot) would eventually become part of a greenway. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "First & William to Become Greenway?"]

As a point of history, the July 6, 2009 meeting was the same meeting when the council authorized the start of a request for proposals (RFP) process for development of the city-owned Library Lot, which was eventually terminated  on April 4, 2011, without selection of a proposal.

Also included in the Aug. 4 resolution’s recitation of history is a Feb. 1, 2010 measure that started a process for re-developing the city-owned parcel at 415 W. Washington. The city had previously initiated an RFP process for 415 W. Washington. An RFP review committee met seven times from May to December 2008 to review and evaluate the three proposals the city had received. The RFP committee offered praise for all three proposals but did not designate any one of the three as preferred.

The committee punted the issue back to the city council, recommending that the council refine the RFP. The council’s Feb. 1, 2010 action did not follow that recommendation, and instead created a working group of city councilmembers, the Greenway Conservancy and the Arts Alliance to explore re-use of the property.

Like the Aug. 4, 2011 resolution, the Feb. 1, 2010 measure was sponsored by mayor John Hieftje, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) and was also added late to the council’s agenda. The July 6, 2009 measure was sponsored by Hieftje and Hohnke.

Expression of Support for Greenway: Public Commentary

Jonathan Bulkley introduced himself as president of the board of directors of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy – his remarks were made on behalf of the board of directors and advisory council. He offered his thanks to Hieftje, Hohnke and Teall for sponsoring the resolution.

It’s timely, Bulkley said, for several reasons: (1) In communicating with the University of Michigan last fall, the university’s representative was interested in a clear demonstration of support from the city of Ann Arbor; (2) the conservancy had been told at a good initial meeting with Ann Arbor Railroad that it needed a strong indication of support from the city; and (3) last December, when the conservancy had made a proposal to the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission for support of the greenway portion of the plan for the city-owned parcel at 415 W. Washington, the conservancy had been told they needed a strong statement of support from the city.

Bulkley told the city council that he hoped that passage of the resolution would provide assurance to those various stakeholders that the city is fully committed to working in support of the greenway.

Ray Fullerton told the council that he serves on the conservancy board with Bulkley. The greenway concept has been around for 30 years, he said. The conservancy was not asking for money, he noted, just a statement of support. Fullerton said that he and Jennifer S. Hall, another conservancy board member, had started in January to put all the bits of the resolution together. [Hall is a former Downtown Development Authority board member as well as former member of the city's planning commission and greenbelt advisory commission.]

In March, the resolution had been presented to their board. Fullerton stated he hoped that in the council’s wisdom it would see fit to go forward. He asked the council to trust the conservancy. A big question is which side of the railroad to put the greenway on. Fullerton said he looked forward to the good times that families can have walking and biking along the greenway.

Expression of Support for Greenway: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) noted that the idea of a greenway has been around for a number of years. The resolution was consistent, he said, with previous city council action on the First and William parcel as well as the 415 W. Washington parcel. He called it a long-term vision on the most significant topological landmarks in the city. It would be a “long walk,” he said, to realize the vision, but the resolution was a step along that way. He thanked the conservancy for its work and hoped that the resolution would provide the formal expression of support that the conservancy needed to move its work forward.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed Hohnke’s sentiments and said she was particularly excited about the portion of the greenway that will go through the 415 W. Washington parcel.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) described the greenway as a great project. He asked what of specific actions the city might have to take in support to “assist” the creation of the greenway. What type of actions would come back to the city council? Does the council have to wait and see?

Mayor John Hieftje described the greenway as a long-term project. As it moves forward there’ll be actions required, he said – for example, city staff time. Hieftje said the city staff would be preparing a grant application from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE), specifically from the MDNRE’s Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. [The city currently has two grant applications pending to that trust fund – for improvements to the Gallup livery and park, and for the proposed skatepark at Veteran’s Memorial Park.]

Hieftje said the progress report from the 415 W. Washington working group indicated that it’ll be possible to move the greenway portion faster than the rehabilitation of the buildings on the site. He noted that the Natural Resources Trust Fund recently received a big infusion of cash, so it’s a natural place to look.

Derezinski noted that the greenway had come up in connection with the Near North affordable housing project on North Main street. He said the greenway at that location was an opportunity to improve the entrance to the city. Hieftje pointed out that 415 W. Washington is an anchor point, along with the city’s property at First and William.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know if the conservancy members are consulting with landowners. Are they talking to UM and the city or to individual property owners? Hieftje replied by saying that the goal of the conservancy is to work with property owners to make the greenway and the resolution is a reaffirmation of the city’s support. Higgins asked Joe O’Neal, a conservancy board member seated in the audience, to come to the podium. As O’Neal approached, he quipped that he’d hoped to go quietly unnoticed.

O’Neal told Higgins that the conservancy had at one time or another talked to every property along the proposed greenway. He said that currently it’s a matter of one particular land owner and one potential dollar donor – if the two can be put together, it would be a great link, he said. He added that the first green segment likely to be constructed would be through the 415 W. Washington parcel.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution of support for the greenway.

Burton Commons Revisions

The council considered three separate resolutions in connection with Burton Commons, a 120-unit, 3-story, 5-building apartment complex with affordable housing, planned for a location on Burton Road near Packard and US-23. The original site plan approvals for the affordable housing project date back to 2007.

On Aug. 4, the council was asked to approve a revision to the design –  the third story on all five buildings will be eliminated, dropping the number of dwelling units from 120 to 80.

The second Burton Commons resolution the council was asked to approve involves details of a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) program that was previously approved. MHT Housing Inc., based in Bingham Farms, Mich., is a nonprofit affordable housing provider that will now be a development partner. In addition, the PILOT will reflect the reduction in the number of units from 120 to 80. And finally, the PILOT requires the project to secure federal or state-aided financing – the original proposal included federal HOME funds from the city of Ann Arbor, but the revised one does not. The PILOT is based on the State Housing Development Authority Act and Chapter 19, 1:651 of the city code, and provides an exemption from all property taxes for the term of the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) mortgage, up to 50 years. The “payment” is a $1 service charge.

The third resolution the council was asked to approve involved footing drain disconnects required by the project. The removal of the third story from each building, reducing the number of units from 120 to 80, also reduced the number of footing drain disconnects from 26 to 17. The cost of disconnecting 17 footing drains is $200,000-$300,000. The council was asked to allocate five footing disconnect credits, thereby offsetting $60,000-$90,000 of the project’s cost.

The council deliberations included questions for the architect on the project, Bradley Moore, who explained that essentially everything about the project remained the same, except for the fact that the buildings are all one story shorter.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved, on three separate votes, the changes to the Burton Commons project.

Ward Boundary Changes

On the agenda was a resolution giving initial approval to minor changes in the apportionment of the five city wards. According to the city charter, city wards must have the general shape of a pie-shaped wedge, with centers of the tips lying at the center of the city.

The council had postponed the issue at its July 5 meeting, but not before unanimously agreeing to alter the timing of the boundary changes, which had originally been recommended by the city attorney’s office to come between the primary elections for city council (which were held Aug. 2) and the general election (to be held Nov. 8).

While the minor changes to the boundaries themselves had not been met with strong objections, the timing had been controversial. So at their July 5 meeting, councilmembers agreed to change the effective date of the boundary changes to Dec. 1, 2011.

The staff-recommended tweaks on the Aug. 4 agenda showed minor differences from the changes recommended on July 5. All changes involve the way the tips of the pie-shaped wedges come together.

In the July 5 version, Ward 5 was bounded by Huron Street to the north and Madison Street to the south as it came towards the city center. In the Aug. 4 version, the Ward 5 northern boundary was dropped to Liberty Street, and to compensate the Ward 5 pie tip extended farther to the east.

In the July 5 version, the boundary between Wards 3 and 4 was aligned to Packard Street. But in the Aug. 4 version, the existing protrusion of Ward 4 across Packard, between Arch and Wells streets, was preserved. And to compensate, Ward 4 was pushed back from South University, with the result that Monroe Street, east of State Street, is a part of Ward 3. [.pdf of staff-recommended tweaks from Aug. 4] [.pdf of staff-recommended tweaks from July 5.]

Because the change to ward boundaries is a change to a city ordinance, the city council will need to give its final approval to the changes at a subsequent meeting, after a public hearing.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously, without discussion, to give initial approval to the ward boundary changes. Final approval will require a second vote and a public hearing at a future meeting.

Annexation-Related Rezoning

On the agenda was the rezoning of a property at 2437 Newport Road to R1A, the designation for single-family dwelling districts.

During a public hearing on the issue, Thomas Partridge said he was there to represent those whose needs have been unmet. There are some on the council who would rather relegate affordable housing to adjacent counties, he said, rather than take leadership that an enlightened university town should have. Ann Arbor should be a national leader in eliminating homelessness, he said. Every rezoning should require an amendment to require an equal number of acres be rezoned for affordable housing.

During the brief deliberations by the council, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) explained that the property is being rezoned, because it’s being annexed into the city – one house on a 1.1 acre lot. It only fits the largest category of residential, R1A, she said. The annexation adds to the city’s tax base and gives the property owners the city amenities they need.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the rezoning of the annexed property to R1A.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Video Surveillance

Sandi Smith said there’d been recent calls in the community for increased video surveillance to increase security. She stressed that it’s important that the city respect the privacy of residential areas. She said she has been working with the city’s human rights commission on a video privacy ordinance. And at the council’s Sept. 6 meeting, the council would have an ordinance to consider. She said she’d get the information out to other councilmembers in a week or so.

Smith had actually given her council colleagues a heads up already in December 2010 that the human rights commission would be working on a video privacy ordinance. [.txt file of draft ordinance from that timeframe]

Comm/Comm: Public Hearings for DDA?

During communications at the conclusion of the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he would eventually be bringing forward a number of possible revisions to Chapter 7, the city’s ordinance governing the operation of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Among the possible revisions, Kunselman indicated he would be suggesting that the appointments and reappointments to the DDA board include a public hearing.

Among the specific concerns about the DDA Kunselman brought to the Aug. 4 meeting, he pointed out that the two years’ prior actuals were included for all other departments in the city’s adopted budget. But the DDA’s part of the budget does not include prior years’ actuals. He cited the state’s statute [Downtown Development Authority Act 197 of 1975]:

125.1678 Budget; cost of handling and auditing funds.

Sec. 28. (1) The director of the authority shall prepare and submit for the approval of the board a budget for the operation of the authority for the ensuing fiscal year. The budget shall be prepared in the manner and contain the information required of municipal departments. Before the budget may be adopted by the board, it shall be approved by the governing body of the municipality. Funds of the municipality shall not be included in the budget.

Kunselman indicated he’d just conferred with the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, and that he hoped next year when the council adopts the budget, the DDA’s portion of the budget will show the prior year actuals.

At right, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) raised issues about the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority again at the Aug. 4 meeting of the Ann Arbor city council. On the left is Ward 3 councilmember Christopher Taylor.

Kunselman then went on to discuss the FY 2010 audit report for the DDA. The auditor had raised concerns about deficit fund balances, which were counter to Michigan’s uniform budgeting and accounting act.

By way of background, the deficits had been for a fund within the DDA’s budget (the parking fund), but taken in aggregate, the DDA’s budget was not in deficit. However, the required adjustment to the accounting, to show positive balances for all the funds, meant that the accounting showed clearly that TIF tax capture would be used to help pay for the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage. That meant that mayor John Hieftje’s claim during his 2010 primary election campaign – that parking revenues, not tax money, would be used pay for the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage – was not accurate. [For a discussion of DDA finances during the time when the DDA was using negative fund balance accounting see: "Impact of City-DDA Parking Deal"]

Kunselman went on to talk about another concern he had regarding the DDA’s TIF capture. He noted that the city council had passed a resolution [on May 30, 2011] that waived the excess TIF capture, which the DDA had calculated at the time that it owed to the city of Ann Arbor. Kunselman noted that he’d asked the assistant city attorney that evening to identify who was responsible for the tax calculations. And on that occasion, assistant city attorney Mary Fales had said it was the DDA’s responsibility. Kunselman said that based on a copy of a letter the DDA’s executive director had recently sent to other taxing authorities, the DDA’s view was different. In that letter city staff are portrayed as conveying to the DDA that the city staff had “neglected to implement” the city ordinance on TIF capture.

“It’s pointing the finger back at city staff,” Kunselman said. He stated: “I’m disturbed by this.” So now he wanted to get some clarification: Who is at fault? If the city is responsible for checking the math, they should be forthright, Kunselman said.

The various revisions to the city ordinance on the DDA would not be something he wanted to address quickly, Kunselman said, but he wanted to bring it to the council’s attention that he intended eventually to bring those revisions forward.

Comm/Comm: Immigrant Rights

Laura Sanders addressed the council representing Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights (WICIR). She asked the members of WICIR’s teen group to stand.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) greets Laura Sanders (right) of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights, before the start of the Aug. 4 city council meeting.

They came in praise of the Ann Arbor police department and leadership of chief of police Barnett Jones. The group had advocated for repeal of Arizona’s anti-immigrant bill and thanked the Ann Arbor city council for passing its resolution opposing Arizona’s law about a year ago. That put Ann Arbor on the map as a city that upholds the rights of all residents, she said.

Since passage of that resolution, the group has noted no cases of profiling by AAPD or assistance to immigration officials, Sanders said. She cautioned that there are many anti-immigrant bills lurking in several states – the climate for immigrants is worsening. She called Ann Arbor’s resolution an example of how local governments can take a stand against unjust legislation. And Ann Arbor’s police department was a model of police work. She thanked Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) for their work on the topic.

Comm/Comm: CUB Agreements

Interim city administrator Tom Crawford alerted the city council that in July, state legislation had been passed preventing CUB (Construction Unity Board) agreements. In response to a request from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Crawford sketched out that a CUB agreement essentially requires the awardee of a construction contract to negotiate with organized labor. Crawford said the city staff is working on an revision to address the city’s inconsistency with the new state law. It would likely be in front of the council at its next meeting, he said.

Comm/Comm: King Elementary Crossing

Kathy Griswold appeared before the council with a roughly 3-foot-tall doll version of Dora the Explorer to illustrate an elementary school child trying to cross the street. She noted that she’s spoken about the need to move the crosswalk at King Elementary School, located at 3800 Waldenwood Lane.

[The crosswalk issue was raised by Griswold over a period of more than a year, starting in the fall of 2009 – she unsuccessfully lobbied the council and Stephen Rapundalo as Ward 2 representative to move the mid-block crosswalk in front of King Elementary School to the end of the block, where cars must already stop for the 4-way stop intersection.]

Griswold said she wanted to look at the issue from a financial standpoint. The recurring cost of a crosswalk guard, split 50-50 between Ann Arbor Public Schools and the city, Griswold said, would fund the sidewalk path extension. The sidewalk path would need to extend from the point where children would cross to the school property. Griswold said that two curb cuts and ramps have to be upgraded anyway to meet ADA requirements. It doesn’t make sense to spend money on a crossing guard, she said, when that funding could be used to pay for police, who fight crime.

She concluded that it’s the right thing to do it for the safety of children and for city finances.

Comm/Comm: Hieftje on Crime

Mayor John Hieftje took umbrage at the implication made by Kathy Griswold during public commentary that Ann Arbor was experiencing an increase in crime, and gave a lengthy defense of Ann Arbor’s record on crime. The recent attacks of women have nothing to do with crime, he said. Crime comparisons are quite remarkable, he said. Compared with other Big Ten cities, he contended, Ann Arbor has less crime than all of them except for State College, Penn. and West Lafayette, Ind.

Crime in Ann Arbor was down 18% since 2002 and 2003, Hieftje contended. To say that there’s a serious crime problem is a stretch, he said. There is a perpetrator out there, maybe two of them, who are attacking women, he said, and the FBI has been brought in. Women are being cautioned not to walk by themselves late at night and early in the morning.

Comm/Comm: Recall of Snyder

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for the disadvantaged. He addressed the council on the matter of the petition drive to oust Gov. Rick Snyder, to prevent him from doing any more damage to local governments by diminishing expected support from the state in terms of revenue sharing. There’s a case to be made for recalling Snyder, he said, along with the majority of the members of the senate. He asked that the councilmembers help in the petition drive by signing and circulating petitions. Partridge also called on the council to enact protections to expand access to Internet technology at no cost to residents.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, Aug. 15, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]