• Talent priority: Monday, Aug. 19 from 5:30-7:30 p.m. in the lower level conference room at the county administration building, 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor. The group is led by Conan Smith (D-District 9).
• Civic infrastructure priority: Wednesday, Aug. 21 from 10-11:30 a.m. in the downstairs board meeting room at 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor. The group is led by Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).
• Economic development priority: Wednesday, Aug. 21 from 3-5 p.m. in the lower level conference room at the county administration building, 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor. The group is led by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).
• Human services priority: Friday, Aug. 23 from 1-2:30 p.m. in the lower level conference room at the county administration building, 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor. The group is led by Felicia Brabec (D-District 4). A second meeting for this group is scheduled for Friday, Sept. 6 from 10-11:30 a.m. at the county’s Learning Resource Center (LRC) Room B, 4135 Washtenaw Ave.
• Environmental impact priority: Friday, Aug. 23 from 4-6 p.m. in the downstairs board meeting room at 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor. The group is led by Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8). A second meeting of this group is set for Wednesday, Aug. 28 from 4-6 p.m. at the same location.

At a special meeting on July 24, 2013, the board adopted a set of budget priorities to guide the administration as it works to develop the next budget, which must be approved by commissioners before the end of 2013. Those priorities, listed in order of importance, are: (1) ensure a community safety net through health and human services; (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development; (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for Washtenaw County residents; and (4) reduce environmental impact. [.pdf of budget priorities resolution] [.pdf of budget priorities memo and supporting materials]

County administrator Verna McDaniel is expected to present a budget for 2014-2017 at the board’s Oct. 2 meeting. For additional recent budget-related coverage, see: “County Eyes Slate of Revenue Options.”

Verna McDaniel, Washtenaw County administrator, at the June 1, 2011 board of commissioners meeting. At a June 16 working session, McDaniel updated commissioners on the county's progress in developing a budget for 2012-2013. (Photo by the writer.)

County administrator Verna McDaniel updated commissioners on the budget process, including expedited labor negotiations that began formally on June 9. The county has targeted $8 million in concessions from employee compensation and benefits to help address a projected $17.5 million two-year deficit in 2012-2013.

Also in the works are business plans being developed by the managers of each county department – the goal is to get another $8 million in cuts from organizational changes and departmental reductions. Outside agencies – including human services nonprofits – are targeted for $1 million in cuts.

After her presentation, McDaniel fielded questions that covered a range of issues and concerns. She was asked to provide an update on efforts by former county administrator Bob Guenzel and local health care providers to develop a broad-based health care plan for Washtenaw County. She conveyed few details, but noted that the board would be briefed on the plan – called the Washtenaw Health Initiative – at their Sept. 8 working session.

Related to labor issues, commissioner Dan Smith urged the administration to identify potential layoffs as early in the year as possible. Saying that the board was resigned to the fact that there would likely be layoffs – though they hoped to keep them at a minimal level – Smith said it would be better for affected employees to know sooner rather than later, so that they can plan their next moves.

2012-2013 Budget Update: Presentation

The county works on a calendar fiscal year, from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31. The administration and board develop the county’s budget in two-year periods, with adjustments made at the end of the first year for the following year’s budget. They are currently developing the budget for 2012 and 2013.

McDaniel covered much of the same information she’d presented to the board at its May 4 meeting. The projected budget shortfall for the two-year period of 2012-2013 is roughly $17 million, and the changes they’ll make to address that shortfall need to reflect long-term changes in the organization, she said – it’s a new reality. ”This is a call for us to retool Washtenaw County,” she told commissioners.

She reviewed the strategy for dealing with the projected deficit: (1) an $8 million cut in employee compensation and benefits; (2) $8 million in reductions from organizational restructuring; (3) $1 million in cuts to nonprofits and other outside agencies.

When they started the budget planning process, the county’s financial staff had anticipated lower revenues and a higher deficit – closer to $20 million. Under that scenario, the administration’s plan had called for departments to generate $2 million in revenues as well as additional targeted reductions, McDaniel noted. But because revenue projections were later revised – following completion of the county’s annual equalization report, which is the basis for determining the taxable value of property in the county – the administration is no longer asking departments for that $2 million in new revenue, she said.

McDaniel then laid out a budget timeline for the remainder of the 2011 calendar year:

• June-July: Labor negotiations.
• July-August: County board holds working sessions on budget, administration develops draft budget.
• September: Administrator presents draft budget to the board.
• September-October: Board reviews draft budget.
• November: Board adopts budget for 2012-2013.

Decisions are being guided by priorities and principles set by the board, McDaniel said. Priorities are to support programs that: (1) help residents feel safe and secure; (2) address the basic needs of children and families; and (3) increase economic opportunity for residents. Other priorities are to partner with other entities to meet these goals, and to ensure the county’s fiscal responsibility by focusing on long-term institutional stability.

McDaniel also reviewed six principles that the board has identified to guide budget decisions:

1. Impacts and outcomes drive investment priorities.
2. Services are delivered optimally by the right provider – not necessarily by the county.
3. Social and financial returns on investment are calculated, articulated and balanced.
4. Both immediate needs and root causes are strategically addressed.
5. Programs are evidence- and performance-based.
6. Mandates that support outcomes and impacts are better funded.

As an example of service delivery by the “right” provider, McDaniel pointed to the Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled. It was previously run by the county, but was transferred to the Ann Arbor District Library in early 2009 – that was a move that made sense for everyone, McDaniel said, and has resulted in better services for library patrons.

McDaniel next gave an overview of budget-related initiatives that are in progress:

• The merger of the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), the Washtenaw Health Plan and the county’s Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) department is underway. The WCHO is a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan that provides services for people with developmental disabilities, emotional problems, mental illness or substance abuse. Many of those same services are provided by CSTS. The board was briefed on the merger in September 2010, and will be updated again at its July 7 working session.
• A county building/space plan is being developed in conjunction with the organization’s overall restructuring, McDaniel said, because space needs will likely change. A briefing on the topic is set for the board’s July 21 working session.
• The move of the county’s juvenile court division – from its former Platt Road site to the downtown Ann Arbor courthouse – is complete. The move came in under its $300,000 budget, McDaniel said. It included renovating the second and third floors of the courthouse. Renovation of the courthouse’s first floor isn’t finished, she said – much of the work will be done in-house to keep costs down. [Board members had been briefed on these efforts by Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenew County Trial Court, at their Jan. 19, 2011 meeting.]
• The administration is exploring next steps in moving ahead with collaboration among other local units of government, McDaniel said. The board held a working session on that issue on March 17.
• The board will be asked to give initial approval at its July 6 meeting to a merger of three county departments: the office of community development (OCD), ETCS (the employment training and community services department) and the economic development & energy department. [For details, see Chronicle coverage: "Three County Departments to Merge"] The move is expected to save $500,000 annually, McDaniel said. A final board vote on the merger is set for Aug. 3.
• The Michigan State University Extension program is restructuring statewide – the county is working with MSU on an updated memorandum of understanding regarding the Washtenaw extension services, McDaniel said. MSU has asked the county to indicate what levels of service they’d like, she said – that work is ongoing, and will be presented as part of the draft budget.
• Other ongoing work includes pursuit of new revenue sources and grants, updates on the county’s cash management policy, and a look at revising the policy regarding the county’s cost allocation plan (CAP). [The CAP sets a charge that’s levied on each county unit and designed to cover general costs like administration, technology, building use, and insurance, among other things. It’s intended to reflect the county’s true cost of doing business.] McDaniel said it might be time to “unfreeze” the CAP for the coming budget cycle.

Organizational changes at the departmental levels are being planned, McDaniel told the board. Originally, a target of $8.5 million in total departmental reductions had been set, coupled with a goal of increasing revenues by $2 million. But when the county’s equalization report was released in April, property tax revenues had declined by only 2.7%, rather than the projected drop of 8.5%. This lowered the projected deficit and allowed the county to consider the $2 million revenue increase as completed, she said. The targeted reductions were also lowered to $8 million.

Each department had been provided with a summary of its budget reductions over the past 4-5 years, McDaniel said, including a report on whether the reductions were structural or one-time cuts. The department heads have been given targets for reductions in 2012-2013, and have three weeks to complete a business plan and list of outcomes, as well as an assessment of how their plan will impact FTEs (full-time equivalent employees). It’s possible that some programs will be eliminated. The department heads will then need to work with union leaders to work out details – that’s the heart of the collective bargaining process, she said.

The equalization department has already completed its plan – McDaniel provided a copy to the board. [.pdf of equalization department business plan and "dashboard" metrics]

Another $8 million in cuts is targeted from employee compensation and benefits. That’s “not an easy target to achieve, but that’s what we’re going after,” McDaniel said. Formal negotiations began on June 9, and they’re working in an expedited process with the goal of reaching a deal by July 1. Union leaders have been given sample scenarios that McDaniel said commissioners had vetted in executive session earlier this year. [The scenarios describe different possible ways to address the $8 million in cuts.]

Finally, the administration has set a target of $1 million in cuts to funding for outside agencies over the next two years – currently the county budgets about $3 million annually to nonprofits and other outside agencies, including membership dues to organizations like the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG).

By way of background, membership/dues for 2011 total $795,551. The highest amount in this category – $500,000 annually – is paid to the Humane Society of Huron Valley. In other categories, an additional $1.46 million in funding is budgeted to human services agencies in 2011, and $660,000 is categorized as “special initiatives” – including $200,000 to the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK. [.pdf of 2011 outside agency funding]

A board working session on outside agency funding is set for Sept. 22.

Finally, McDaniel provided a list of topics for budget-related working sessions in the coming months:

• July 7: Updates on the WCHO split from the county, the Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority, and the Ann Arbor Skatepark
• July 21: Head Start
• Aug. 4: Retirement funding, unfunded accrued liabilities, debt, and time owed to employees
• Aug. 18: County building/space plan, county/city of Ann Arbor dispatch consolidation
• Sept. 9: Health care reform, tax increment financing (TIF)

The remainder of scheduled working sessions for September, October and November will be budget-related, but specific topics have not been identified at this point.

McDaniel emphasized the need to be nimble and responsive in this process, and said that with the board’s direction and support, the administration can be successful in addressing the projected budget deficit.

2012-2013 Budget Update: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Conan Smith began by complimenting the new business plan that departments will be completing, saying the format made the information much more accessible.

2012-2013 Budget Update: Juvenile Detention

C. Smith then asked McDaniel to talk more about plans for the county’s juvenile detention program.

McDaniel reported that several meetings have been held regarding juvenile detention services and facilities – the group at the table includes representatives from the Washtenaw Trial Court and District Court; sheriff Jerry Clayton; Lisa Greco, director of the county children’s services department; and county commissioner Barbara Bergman, among others. The discussions have been robust, McDaniel said, focusing on whether to continue services at the juvenile detention center, or to move to an outplacement model.

Greco is drafting a report with recommendations, which will be given to the board later this year, McDaniel said. The group has decided it wouldn’t be prudent to close the center, she added, saying they’d just be shooting themselves in the foot. Instead, they are working on other strategies related to court sentencing, and possibly transferring some of the younger jail inmates to the 40-bed juvenile detention facility, to abate jail overcrowding.

Bergman noted that the facility is also being used as more of a community center – details about that will be included in Greco’s report.

2012-2013 Budget Update: Revenues, FTEs

Kristin Judge referred to a point that McDaniel made about completing the $2 million in revenue generation. Judge said she was uncomfortable with stating that it’s done, and noted that she’d made this point before.

From The Chronicle’s report of the board’s May 4, 2011 meeting:

Kristin Judge also weighed in against taking new revenue generation off the table. She reported that Macomb County has hired a grant writer who’ll be paid only based on the grants that person is able to bring in to the county. [Judge later learned that the grant writer hadn't been hired for Macomb County.] There’s revenue to be had from aggressively seeking grants, she said. If they take revenue generation off the table because there’s some good news in the short term, they’re missing the long-term view.

At the budget working session, Judge reiterated her concerns, and asked McDaniel to convey to department heads that they need to be continually seeking ways to raise revenue. ”Don’t take that off the table, please.”

Judge also asked if the administration was on track to give the board an update about the number of county FTEs (full-time equivalent employees). Such updates had been requested every six months, she said, and the next one is due July 1. McDaniel said she’d remind Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, about the report.

Later in the meeting, Wes Prater asked for more details about the budget’s targeted revenue number – what was the administration expecting for 2012? McDaniel said that for the current year, the county’s total general fund revenues are about $99 million, including $61 million in property taxes. They’re anticipating a 5% decline for 2012 – so revenues will likely total $94 million in the 2012 budget, she said.

Prater clarified that the board would be seeing a draft budget for 2012-2013 in September. He asked that it also include audited financials from 2010, as well as estimated actual revenues/expenses from 2011.

2012-2013 Budget Update: Courts

Alicia Ping thanked McDaniel for a private tutorial she’d given Ping on budget issues – as a new commissioner, it had been extremely helpful. [Ping was first elected in November 2010 and took office in January 2011. Other commissioners elected to their first terms are Yousef Rabhi, Dan Smith and Rob Turner.] Ping noted that they were already looking ahead to 2013-2014, and specifically at costs associated with courts and the jail. Those are two pieces of the same pie, she said.

Ping related an anecdote that her husband, an attorney, had conveyed: A man had been given a jail sentence and a $1,000 fine, but told the court he didn’t have the money to pay; the judge said that would extend his sentence. Ping pointed out that in this case, the county not only didn’t get revenue from the fine, but it also incurred more expense by keeping the man in jail longer. Is there a solution to this? she asked. Are the courts working to address this issue?

McDaniel reported that the county’s criminal justice collaborative council (CJCC) – a group of elected and appointed representatives working in the criminal justice system – had developed a jail management plan, which in part addressed the situation that Ping described. McDaniel said she’s also been talking personally with court administrators and judges, and knows that they’re working aggressively to collect fines. In some cases, they’re using collection agencies – they know that those revenues are needed to keep the courts functional, she said. Revenues have dropped sharply for all the courts over the last three years, she said.

Turner said he’d met with Kirk Tabbey, the judge who presides over the 14A-2 District Court in Ypsilanti. It’s routine for people to tell the court they have no money, Turner said. Now, a new program is researching financial records, and finding that in fact many people do have the ability to pay. Once people are confronted, Turner said, they usually agree to pay the fines.

Bergman, who’s a member of CJCC and the community corrections advisory board, said the community corrections staff is working on that issue, too. It might be time to consider a work release program, she said – people could go to their jobs during the day, and return to jail at night and on the weekends. ”It may not happen immediately, but it’s certainly in the thinking stages,” she said.

Bergman also criticized the state Dept. of Corrections, saying it didn’t provide enough funding for the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI), a program to help prisoners transition back to the community. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Panel: MPRI Transforming State Corrections"]

2012-2013 Budget Update: Principles

Turner asked McDaniel what kind of feedback she was hearing about the budget principles that the board had developed. McDaniel said the other elected officials she’d met with were pleased with the board’s principles and priorities. [Other elected county officials include sheriff Jerry Clayton, prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie, treasurer Catherine McClary, clerk Larry Kestenbaum, and water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin.] Kelly Belknap, the county’s interim deputy administrator, has met with appointed officials about the budget plans, and those meetings also have been positive, she said.

Turner confirmed that it would be worth developing budget principles and priorities in future years as well.

2012-2013 Budget Update: Future Challenges

Leah Gunn pointed out that in the future, the county – like other local governments in Michigan – will face two major challenges. First, as of Oct. 1, 2011, people who’ve been receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) will be cut off from funding, if they’ve been getting it for the past four years. [This change would occur assuming the current proposed budget for the state is passed. Its fiscal year begins Oct. 1.] This change will be a major challenge for local communities, Gunn said, as families turn to other resources for help, including many of the services that the county provides. This has been a safety net, she said, and it will no longer exist.

Secondly, the county’s state revenue-sharing trust fund will be depleted, Gunn noted, and she doesn’t expect there will be more funds forthcoming from the state. The county needs to plan for both of these challenges, she concluded. ”The economy may recover, but things are not looking good.”

Bergman also expressed concern regarding the housing market, and the number of people facing foreclosure. She said she didn’t really know how the county could prepare for this “perfect storm.” ”To me it becomes daily more scary,” she added.

Bergman then noted that former county administrator Bob Guenzel is working on a plan to bring broader health care coverage to Washtenaw County. She asked McDaniel for an update.

McDaniel reported that Guenzel is working with Ellen Rabinowitz, executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan; Doug Strong, CEO of the University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers; executives of St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and others to prepare for federal health care reforms – specifically, the Affordable Care Act – that take effect in 2014 and that will expand Medicaid significantly. It’s a systemwide approach, she said, and the board would be briefed on details at their Sept. 8 working session.

Rabinowitz later told The Chronicle that the collaboration is called the Washtenaw Health Initiative and is being led by Guenzel and Norm Herbert, a retired UM finance executive who’s active on several community boards. She said a July 7 press conference is being planned to reveal additional details.

According to the group’s website, the initiative is “a voluntary, county-wide collaboration focused on how to improve access to coordinated care for the low income, uninsured, and Medicaid populations. The work of this group is on both how to improve care today for these priority populations and on 2014, when federal health care reform is expected to be more fully implemented.” The effort is exploring how to deliver primary care, mental health care, substance abuse services and dental care.

2012-2013 Budget Update: Handling Layoffs

Dan Smith asked when the board would see the results of structural changes that the administration is planning. He said the commissioners have all resigned themselves to the fact that there will probably be layoffs at some point, though they hope there will be as few layoffs as possible. His own workplace had layoffs in 2009, he said – one wave in June, and another in January. The people laid off in June were at least able to enjoy the summer and regroup. He hoped the county could let employees know as soon as possible if they are going to be let go, rather than to do it during the holidays late in the year.

McDaniel told the board that expedited negotiations with labor unions are intended to push the budget process ahead as quickly as possible. It’s complicated, she said, because there are 17 bargaining units representing county employees. The administration won’t know the full impact of restructuring until multiple pieces are in place, including labor concessions and departmental reductions. She also noted that they’re not just focused on FTEs. They’re looking at program changes and enhanced services in some areas too, as part of the restructuring.

D. Smith confirmed with McDaniel that the impact of restructuring won’t likely be known until the fall.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Kristin Judge, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, and Dan Smith. Rob Turner was absent for most of the meeting, arriving after the start of the board’s executive session.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

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

Also related to parking, the author of a recent letter from the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, which raised the possibility of an environmental lawsuit based on the planned underground parking structure, came to caucus to respond to any questions councilmembers might have. And the developer for City Apartments, a residential and parking project approved for the First and Washington site, attended caucus to ask for an extension to the option agreement.

In the course of the evening’s conversation, council heard again the criticism from a resident that the focus on smaller budget items costing as little as $7,000 distracted from the focus on the bigger picture.

Councilmembers had no issues among themselves they wanted to discuss publicly at caucus.

Senior Center

Several people spoke in support of the Ann Arbor Senior Center, which is to be closed in summer 2011 according to the current budget plan. After one woman had said her piece calling upon council to replace the current shabby facility with new construction similar to the senior center in Plymouth, she got no substantive response from councilmembers. That led her to express a certain amount of apparent frustration: “I take it there are no answers?”

In the last several weeks since the budget proposal for FY 2010 was announced, several speakers at public forums have made reference to the aging population as an argument for maintaining the senior center. At caucus Sunday night that generalization was given quantitative form. A former demographic forecaster for SEMCOG appeared before caucus to walk councilmembers through an analysis of the 2035 forecast for Ann Arbor [SEMCOG 2035 Forecast for Ann Arbor]. He noted that the forecast for total population in Ann Arbor was essentially stable from 2005 through 2035. In 2005 the total population of Ann Arbor was 113,275 with a projection of 115,218 people in 2035. In absolute numbers that’s a 1,943 gain or 1.7%.

But it wasn’t the essentially flat projections for total population that were the focus of the discussion. He asked council to reflect on the breakdown of that total by age. Every age bracket under the age of 65 showed projected decreases from 2005-2035 ranging from 11% to 20%. The one category showing a robust increase was that of age 65 and over. That population is expected to grow from 10,050 in 2005 to 15,209 in 2035. He compared the rising number of seniors to a rising river. If the river is rising, it doesn’t make sense to lower the dike, he said.

One woman who spoke in support of the senior center is a relatively new resident in Ann Arbor who moved here in 2007 from Rockville, Md. She reported that she paid more taxes for a two-bedroom house here in Ann Arbor than she did for a four-bedroom house in Rockville and had received more services in Rockville. Something she got in Rockville was a senior center, she said. Part of the reason she moved to Ann Arbor was that it appeared to have all the ingredients, including a senior center. She urged council to really think about the aging population. “Is there a director of elderly affairs?” she asked. She also wanted to know if there was someone looking at ways to make the senior center more viable.

Mayor John Hieftje, responding to the support expressed for a senior center, said that the city was planning something like a committee or a task force to look at ways to keep it open. He said that after the budget for 2010 is adopted, council would begin to look at a way forward. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) declared, “The door hasn’t been closed on the senior center.”

During caucus, The Chronicle attempted to elicit from council members what the status of the FY 2011 budget planning doccument was.

A bit of background. Council will be voting Monday night, May 18, just on the formal budget for FY 2010. The plan that has been presented by the administration for FY 2011 will not be addressed in the budget resolution they pass on Monday – assuming they finish their work that evening. If council fails to pass a resolution, the budget proposed by the city administrator would, per city charter, automatically be adopted.

The city of Ann Arbor budgets in two-year cycles. It’s worth clarifying that the two-year chunks of the city’s budget process don’t overlap. That is, one could imagine a process that every year would provide a budget plus a plan for the next year. That’s not the case for the city’s budget.

So every two years, a budget plus a plan for the following year is presented to council. The council then adopts the first-year budget. In the following year, the budget proposed is based on the plan already outlined. After the caucus meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) told The Chronicle that based on her experience dealing with adoption of the budget for FY 2009 – which was planned at the same time the FY 2008 budget proposal was made – very little discussion took place for the second year of a two-year cycle. That was Briere’s first year on council, thus she did not deliberate on the FY 2008 budget.

What The Chronicle wanted to know was: What is the formal status of the planning document for the second year of the budget cycle? Why that question? The FY 2011 plan calls for the elimination of the senior center. The senior center would have been proposed for closing in fiscal 2010, but once a decision is made to close the facility, it would take about a year to transition the seniors who use the facility to other options. This has been explained by the city’s director of community services, Jayne Miller, at multiple public meetings.

So if the idea is to use the rest of the summer and fall of 2009 for task-forcing and to come to a final decision in the spring of 2010, implicit in the strategy is a decision not to close the center in FY 2011 – because of the year it would take for the transition of center users. A decision made in spring 2010 to close the center would mean a closure in FY 2012. Given that the budget planning document for FY 2011 specifies closure of the senior center, the intention to task-force and study the issue for as long as a year reflects a deviation from that budget planning document. Our more specific question then, was: Would there be any amendment undertaken by city staff or council to the budget planning document?

Higgins maintained that no one had said there was a need for a one-year transition, despite the fact that Miller has given this characterization at multiple public meetings. Briere clarified that point for Higgins. Then, in summarizing the nature of The Chronicle’s questions for a resident across the chambers, Higgins characterized what we said as suggesting that we wanted council to make a decision now. In fact, our point is that there’s an implicit decision being made now to keep the senior center open until FY 2012 – unless by “study and task force” the council means “transition to closure.” And that could be clarified with an amendment to the plan – perhaps through council direction to staff to take the center’s closure off the table for FY 2011.

Commentary from other councilmembers on the possible revision to the budget plannng document for FY 2011 seemed not to recognize the possibility of revising that document at this time, instead focusing on the fact that they would not adopt the FY 2011 budget until this time next year. The answer to the question seemed to be: No revision to the budget planning document for FY 2011 will take place.

Parking

Noah Hall, who wrote a notification letter on behalf of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center in Detroit alerting city council to a possible lawsuit about the underground parking structure, appeared at caucus to make himself available for an open dialogue. He stressed that his goal was not just to get the situation resolved but to try to take advantage of a missed opportunity to demonstrate environmental leadership on Ann Arbor’s part. Hall mentioned the upcoming federal cap-and-trade bill, which calls for a 17% reduction in CO2 emissions by the year 2020, with respect to which the underground garage represented a possible financial liability. He said that his group was asking for the city to engage in a reason-based process to address questions. Examples of such a questions: To what extent would the proposed underground parking structure increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT)? Would the new parking structure undermine the city’s own goals or the federal goals to be introduced in the cap-and-trade legislation? In light of the major investment being made by the city, he said, the concern by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center is that the investment is not consistent with the direction coming from Washington D.C. In response to his invitation to questions, councilmembers had none.

Ray Detter, who chairs the downtown citizens advisory commission, was also at caucus to discuss parking, but not in garages. He was there to address the proposed installation of parking meters in residential neighborhoods. Parking meters were equivalent to designating an area as commercial, Detter said. Detter agreed with Hall, in saying that parking has something to do with the bigger picture. The city had to examine its need for parking, Detter said. It shouldn’t be based on the need for money.

Hieftje asked Detter if there were motorists who park in the areas proposed for parking now. Detter allowed they did, but said that there were various means to get the cars out of those spaces, though Detter and his neighbors didn’t use them in every instance. It basically entailed calling parking enforcement. There were violations which the neighbors had some time to report, but they did not use that as a systematic strategy. Detter suggested that residential parking permits were a possibility, but not parking meters. Hieftje noted that residential parking permits systems don’t pay for themselves. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) observed that in a residential parking permit area, it becomes a privilege to park on the street.

Detter characterized parking meters as “an affront to the neighborhood character.” To which Hieftje responded, “That’s what I’m trying to get a grip on.” Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) tried to pin down the difference between parking meters in a purely residential neighborhood completely outside of downtown versus residential areas inside the central area. He suggested to Detter that the recognition of the usefulness of residential parking permits in the higher density central area was a recognition that there was a difference between purely residential and central area residential neighborhoods. Detter said that the only reason he  mentioned the central area was the city had not proposed to put parking meters in other areas of town.

Bob Snyder, president of the South University Area Neighborhood Association, appeared at caucus to address the issue of parking meters as well. He said that he always enjoyed following Ray Detter, because Ray usually said everything that needed to be said. Snyder noted that the South University area was not yet on the “hit list” for installation of parking meters. But his specific concern for the South University area was that meters, should they eventually be proposed, would increase the phenomenon of backyard parking. He also stated that based on his gut reaction, introduction of parking meters into an area “cheapens” the area.

Mark Hodesh, owner of Downtown Home & Garden, appeared before caucus to encourage council to focus on the shape of the proposed loading zone ordinance. He said that he had quite a number of small vendors who delivered one or two times a year, or perhaps four times a year. “They make me different from big-box stores,” he said. He contended that these small vendors should not pay the same fee as, for example, Sysco. If they did, he warned, he would have to charge $30 for a bale of straw.

Farmers Market Stall Fees

Peter Pollack, who is chair of the public market advisory commission, appeared at caucus to convey a resolution passed unanimously by the commission, 4-0, expressing the group’s lack of support for the increase in fees for stall rental as proposed in the city budget for FY 2010. Pollack explained that the commission’s lack of support was based on a substantial bank account of the farmers market and the timing of the decision – neither the public nor vendors had had sufficient time to contemplate the fee increase. They’d had to do so within a month.

The resolution states that the commission does not support the fee increases at this time and requests a quarterly financial report of expenses and revenues to be accompanied by an annual review with a cost adjustment up or down based on that review. The idea is to minimize the percentage of any proposed change in any one period. Another goal of the commission is to achieve equity between the farmer stall fees and the rental rates charged to others who use the facility – for example ,as a wedding venue. Sabra Briere asked Pollack to clarify when the fees would go into effect – she had met with Molly Notarianni, the market manager, and had understood that the fee increases would not take effect until next year. Pollack confirmed that bills had been sent out for the 2009-10 season with the existing rates.

The new rate would appear on the next market bill, he said. Pollack said that the commission’s point was that the data did not yet exist to support the proposed fee increase. Hieftje asked Pollack what kind of data he was looking for. Pollack clarified that the additional dollars to be generated through the new fee increases are attached to the full-time position of market manager and a part-time allocation of an assistant manager, so Pollack wanted to see those numbers as they related to the revenues and expenses of the market. “We need to track it,” he said. “We assume staff made the analysis,” he said, “but we haven’t seen it.”

Building

Jon Frank of Village Green, who is building the City Apartments project at First and Washington Street, began by acknowledging that it was not the very best time for him to be addressing council with all of their current focus on the budget in very hard economic times. However, he reported to council, “Sadly, our option agreement is over at the end of this month.” He was there to ask for an extension. One bright spot: Village Green had lined up a construction lender who had signed on to the deal. In addition to the construction lender, Frank told The Chronicle after he addressed council that an equity provider would need to be identified who could make the $3 to 4 million down payment.