Streetlight locations are mapped in the joint Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system. Data available by clicking on icons includes ownership as well as the lighting technology used. Green indicates city ownership. Red indicates DTE ownership.

How? At its May 7 meeting, the board voted to postpone until June 4 a resolution authorizing a $101,733 payment to DTE to convert 212 non-LED streetlights in downtown Ann Arbor to LED technology. But the resolution did not appear on the board’s June 4 agenda.

Instead of voting on the previous month’s resolution – to approve it, reject it, postpone it again or table it – the board listened to an update from executive director Susan Pollay. Pollay told board members that they should assume that the issue is tabled – but possibly not permanently. That decision to table the resolution appears to have been made between board meetings.

The DDA board’s inaction on the funding means that the downtown LED conversion won’t happen in this year’s cycle – because the deadline to apply for a project this year is June 30. So for this year’s program, the city’s energy office will ask the city council – at its June 16 meeting – to authorize money to fund a different project that converts some lights outside the downtown. DTE does not necessarily offer the conversion program every year.

A decision on expending funds is an effectuation of public policy – thus a “decision” under Michigan’s OMA. Even though the decision by the DDA on the streetlight conversion allocation had the practical impact of not expending funds, that should still be analyzed as an effectuation of public policy. And that public policy decision appears to have taken place between board meetings, which is a violation of the core requirement of Michigan’s OMA: “All decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting open to the public.”

As a practical matter, the only consequence of a court’s finding that the DDA violated the OMA would be to invalidate the DDA’s decision not to expend funds. Why bother to drag the DDA board into court over that? Invalidation of the decision not to expend funds would not force the DDA to go ahead and spend the funds. It would leave things exactly as they are now.

A more economical and time-effective way to address this specific issue would be for DDA board members to publicly recognize and acknowledge their commitment to abide by the OMA – by simply taking a vote on the LED conversion resolution from May 7 at their next meeting, on July 2. It’s surely just as important as the board’s scheduled social gathering at Bill’s Beer Garden on that same day.

That’s also the day when the DDA board’s annual meeting takes place. The annual meeting is when new board officers are elected and committees are appointed. So the annual meeting this year could be an occasion for the DDA to flip a switch, and light itself up with civic tech better than any LED. It would be a chance to re-establish itself as a public body that is committed to rigorous governance – based on strict adherence to its bylaws and the state statute that enables the existence of the DDA.

Presented below are some recommendations for specific actions the DDA board should consider, starting at its annual meeting. The recommended actions would provide an agenda for board work that needs to be done in the coming year.

Here’s a summary of those recommendations: establish strong committees; strictly follow the board bylaws or else change them; consult the archives; and create a development plan that meets state statutory criteria.

Establish Strong Committees

Many governing bodies establish committees to handle some of their work. One example of a public body with a reasonably well-functioning committee structure is the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority board of directors. The minutes of two standing AAATA board committees – with a record of votes by those committees to recommend resolutions to the full board for consideration – are part of board meeting information packets.

By comparison, the DDA’s committees are not as rigorous in their adherence to basic principles of governance.

Strong Committees: Current DDA Bylaws, Custom

DDA board bylaws describe one specific committee – the executive committee – which consists of the board chair, vice chair, treasurer and recording secretary. The most recent former board chair and the executive director are non-voting members of the executive committee.

The bylaws further describe other committees in terms of two types – board committees and advisory committees. Board committees are constrained in their membership to DDA board members. Advisory committees are not constrained in that way. The DDA currently has one board committee and one advisory committee – the operations committee and the partnerships committee, respectively.

The bylaws highlight the importance of the board’s committees like this:

As the work of the DDA is done primarily through Committee, it is expected that each Board member will actively serve on at least one committee, and will attend a minimum of 70% of the committee’s meetings per year as a condition of remaining on the DDA Board.

Based on the bylaws, one example of the work that is supposed to be done by committees is to make recommendations on funding requests for consideration by the full board:

Section 10 – Requests for Funding. The Board may not act upon a request for funding unless the request has been referred to a committee of the Board for review and recommendation. In the event that a committee has not made a recommendation to the Board within 60 days from the time that the request was first presented to the Board, the Board may, by majority vote, bring the proposal to the Board for consideration without benefit of the committee recommendation.

The committee vetting process described in Section 10 of the bylaws does not appear to have been followed at all for the May 7, 2014 streetlight conversion funding resolution. But it’s somewhat difficult to say for sure: It’s possible that the executive committee, which met just before the full board meeting on May 7, explicitly discussed and achieved a consensus that the streetlight conversion resolution should be recommended to the board for consideration. From the minutes of the May 7 executive committee meeting:

Committee actions and discussions
Other. Review of the board meeting agenda for the May 7, 2014 meeting.

The fact that no vote is recorded in the minutes doesn’t preclude the possibility that a consensus was achieved that the item should appear on the agenda. Indeed, based on minutes of DDA operations committee and partnerships committee meetings – as well as my own attendance at some of these meetings over the last half decade – the custom of DDA committees is not to express their recommendations in the form of votes. That leaves any action by a DDA committee subject to interpretation.

On the positive side, the minutes of the May 7, 2014 executive committee meeting reflect 100% attendance. So if committee members had been inclined to take a vote, they could have done so – because they clearly achieved a quorum. That’s not been the case for some recent meetings of DDA committees.

By way of background, the board’s bylaws set forth the definition of a quorum for committees:

A majority of the committee will constitute a quorum. A majority of the members present at the meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the action of the committee.

The minutes of the April 30, 2014 operations committee meeting show exactly half of the committee members present – thus not a quorum. In attendance at the meeting, according to the minutes, were: Robert Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat, Keith Orr and John Splitt. Yet, according to the minutes of the meeting, the committee made a decision – to have the board vote at its next regular meeting, on May 7, to establish a project budget of $5 million for the Fourth & William parking garage renovation. From the April 30 committee meeting minutes [emphasis added]:

4th & William stair/elevator replacement. Mike Ortlieb, Josh Rozeboom, Carl Luckenbach presented design images. It was decided that a project approval resolution would be brought to the DDA. …

How did the operations committee wind up making a decision on that occasion without a quorum being present? Did operations committee members consciously flout a basic rule of governance? I think that’s pretty unlikely. Instead, I think two different factors may have contributed to the committee’s failure to adhere to rigorous standards of governance.

First, because DDA committees by custom don’t follow rigorous procedural requirements – like taking votes – it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that the meeting is not just a chat among friends at a social club, but rather a business meeting. So it’s easy to overlook basic considerations associated with a business meeting – like whether the committee even has a quorum for conducting business.

Second, when six out of 12 board members are present, that might feel intuitively like there’s surely a sufficient number of members for a committee to conduct business. But for the last couple of years, the result of the annual meeting committee appointments has been to appoint all DDA board members to both the operations and partnerships committees. That means that either of those committees needs at least seven members to conduct business. Why have all DDA board members been appointed to both committees in recent years? I think it’s because the board has lacked the leadership of a chair who is willing and capable of selecting only some board members for appointment to some committees and not for others.

An additional wrinkle for the partnerships committee membership is that it includes two members of the city council – appointed by the council – currently Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Based on its minutes, the DDA partnerships committee also appears to include other non-DDA board members as well, for example Charles Griffith, AAATA board chair, and Jason Morgan, director of government relations for Washtenaw Community College. It certainly makes sense for those two to be members of the partnerships committee – because both of the entities they represent have some of their taxes captured by the DDA.

But it’s not clear that the procedure in the DDA bylaws was followed to add those two people to the committee: “The chair shall select, with the advice and consent of the board members, the members of each advisory committee.” The DDA board has not, as far as I can tell, ever voted to admit Griffith or Morgan as members of the partnerships committee. It would be better to have documented the path to membership, in case anyone asks: How did Charles Griffith and Jason Morgan become members of the DDA partnerships committee? And why isn’t there representation from other taxing entities – like the Ann Arbor District Library and Washtenaw County?

Further, it’s hard to tell from the minutes who is actually a member of the partnerships committee. DDA board members who are absent are recorded as absent. But the custom for documenting non-DDA members who are absent seems to be not to mention them at all. The April 9, 2014 DDA partnerships committee minutes don’t mention Lumm, for example, when it seems like she should have been recorded as absent.

Knowing exactly who is a member of the partnerships committee is important for determining whether a quorum is present for conducting committee business. But that’s only important if the partnerships committee is conceived as an entity that conducts business – as opposed to serving as a casual social gathering with no actual governance function.

Strong Committees: Establish Five

At their annual meeting, set for July 2, 2014, DDA board members should elect a chair who is willing to select just a subset of DDA board members – say four to five members – who have interest and expertise to serve on the following five committees, which the board should establish.

Strong Committees: Establish a Parking Operations Committee

This “new” parking operations committee is needed in order for the DDA to develop a quantifiable understanding of how well Ann Arbor’s public parking system supports three different key user groups: (1) downtown employees; (2) retail/transactional customers and visitors; and (3) downtown residents.

In April 2014, structures generally showed less revenue per space than in the previous month. One exception was Maynard, which showed a slight increase – possibly attributable to the opening of Knight’s restaurant at Liberty & Maynard that month. The Brown block surface lot – bounded by Ashley, First, Huron and Washington Streets, continued to be the top-performing facility in the public parking system on a revenue per space basis. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the DDA.)

The only statistics the DDA board currently requests on a routine basis from its parking subcontractor – Republic Parking – are total revenues by facility (which includes revenue from monthly permit holders) and the total number of patrons by facility who pay by the hour.

Based on that data set, it’s easy to come up with folk theories about what causes perceived patterns and trends. But it’s difficult to assess quantitatively how well the parking system supports the needs of the three user groups.

Among other information, the DDA should start asking Republic Parking to provide data by facility on the number of hours parked by monthly permit holders and the number of hours parked by patrons who pay by the hour. Further, the board should request routine reports about on-street metered parking usage, translated into hours parked, geocoded for each meter. Zipcode data from credit cards used for the on-street metered transactions should be analyzed to get some insight into the origin of motorists who park in particular areas.

This committee should also study high- and low-tech ways to help motorists find open parking spaces quicker and more efficiently.

Strong Committees: Establish a Development Plan Committee

This “new” development plan committee would focus on future capital projects using tax increment revenue as well as the maintenance of parking facilities, which should ideally tap only parking revenue. This committee is needed because the DDA does not currently have a TIF (tax increment financing) plan that meets state statutory requirements.

The state enabling legislation for DDAs includes a requirement for a development plan that lists out specific projects with estimated cost and timeframe for completion. The original Ann Arbor DDA TIF plan that was adopted in 1982 included such a development plan. But the 2003 revision to the plan replaced the development plan with a document that was vague with respect to specific projects, costs and timeframes. So this committee could expect to work through the year to draft a new development plan that meets the statutory criteria.

A 3-D model currently displayed on a table just outside the second-floor elevator landing of Ann Arbor city hall. It reflects the work of University of Michigan students in a course taught by Doug Kelbaugh, a professor of architecture and urban planning. This view is looking north, with the conceived development for the Brown block in the left of the frame.

This committee should also focus on developing packaged real estate transactions that would promote the public interest. For example, First Martin Corp. owns the Brown block, which the DDA leases to operate a surface parking lot. If the DDA would like to see that parcel developed into something more interesting than a surface parking lot, then a step in the right direction would be to stop leasing the lot from First Martin and accept the loss of those spaces in the public parking system.

A different First Martin property should be considered by the DDA as a possible purchase: the surface parking lot behind the Michigan Square building next to Liberty Plaza. Public ownership of that parcel would mean public control of the diagonal connection from the corner of Liberty and Division (Liberty Plaza) across to the Library Lane lot and South Fifth Avenue. Whatever the future of the Library Lane lot is, public control of the diagonal connection would increase the chances of success.

Strong Committees: Establish a Budget/Finance Committee

This “new” budget/finance committee would provide oversight and review of regular financial transactions and budgeting. One long-term challenge that this committee needs to confront are payments the DDA has obligated itself to make in support of the city’s police/courts facility, which entail roughly $500,000 in annual contributions through 2038. That’s five years past the life of the DDA, which is currently set to expire in 2033. It’s probably too soon to contemplate whether the DDA should be extended any longer than that. But the current board should at least consider in its financial planning how to incorporate the $2.5 million obligation that will be faced in 2033, without assuming any additional TIF revenue past 2033.

On a much shorter timeframe, this committee could consider converting the DDA’s check register to a digital, database format, so that it can be posted routinely to the DDA’s website, where it could more easily be subjected to public scrutiny. Other local public entities that are supported with tax dollars – including the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor District Library – disseminates this information through routine releases to the general public.

Strong Committees: Maintain a Partnerships Committee

For the last five years, the partnerships committee has handled miscellaneous topics – essentially those that DDA board members want to work on but that don’t fit naturally into the work of the one other board committee, the operations committee.

The partnerships committee has in some ways served as the “grant committee” – responding to requests from community partners for grant support. That’s why, for example, the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s executive director Jennifer Hall has appeared before the partnerships committee requesting funds for capital improvements to AAHC properties.

Based on the current state of its TIF plan, I don’t think the DDA is in a position to make any grants of TIF dollars – because by statute, TIF money can be spent only pursuant to the TIF plan, and the DDA TIF plan doesn’t include any specific projects with cost estimates or timeframes. More on that below. To the extent that the DDA partnerships committee receives proposals for ways to spend TIF money, those proposals should be about altering the TIF plan to include a particular project.

I think the partnerships committee should continue to exist – mainly so that the DDA has a natural mechanism by which it can keep community stakeholders up to date on the work it is doing, and receive input from obvious stakeholders about what should be in the DDA’s development plan.

Strong Committees: Establish a Bylaws Committee

This committee would review the bylaws for clarity of language.

DDA board committee structure in 1986: five committees. (Document retrieved from the University of Michigan Bentley Library, the collection of papers from former DDA board member Eunice Burns.)

In several places the bylaws refer to “the corporation” – an apparent reference to the Ann Arbor DDA. In other places, reference is made to “the Authority.” It would be best to make uniform any reference to the entity throughout the bylaws. In other places, the bylaws are antiquated: “The recording secretary or a designee shall attend all meetings of the Board and record all votes and the minutes of all proceedings in a book to be kept for that purpose.”

But the bylaws committee needs to review the current bylaws also to ensure that they enforce rigorous governance procedures – by the board and by the committees. For example, one issue that would be worth clarifying in the bylaws is how the agenda for board meetings is set.

The current bylaws state: “Any member of the board may request any item to be placed on the agenda.” Of whom is the request made? Does that person or persons have the option of declining the request? Instead of describing what board members are allowed to do, a reasonable approach would be to describe exhaustively how an item can appear on a board meeting agenda. For example, the bylaws could be revised to read:

Items can be placed on a regular DDA board meeting agenda in any of three ways:

1. through a majority vote of a DDA board or advisory committee.
2. by an individual DDA board member.
3. by the DDA executive director.

The method used to place an item on the board meeting agenda shall be specified on the agenda as follows. For committee-sponsored items, the name of the committee, the date of its vote and the voting tally placing the item on the agenda shall appear on the agenda with the item. For items sponsored by individual board members, the name of the board member sponsoring the item shall be included. For items sponsored by the executive director, the notation “Sponsored by DDA executive director” shall be included.

Follow the Bylaws, Or Change Them

According to the bylaws, it would require board action to establish new committees. That action could come at the board’s upcoming annual meeting on July 2. But who should appoint the members of the committees recommended above? If those appointments come at the annual meeting, then the short answer, according to the bylaws is: Any committee appointments should be made by current chair Sandi Smith – even after the election of a new chair.

By way of background, the prevailing DDA custom has been to elect the current vice chair to the position of chair. This year, that custom would elevate John Mouat to the position of chair. Mouat, a partner in the architectural firm of Mitchell & Mouat Architects, has served on the DDA board since first being appointed in 2007.

Regarding Mouat’s time of service on the DDA board, the city council resolution confirming Mouat’s reappointment in 2011 indicated a term ending in 2014 – this year. That would have made Mouat’s chairship contingent on being reappointed by the city council. But the term end date was an apparent mistake, because DDA board member terms are by statute supposed to last four years, not three.

Councilmember Stephen Kunselman has worked over the last month to push the city attorney’s office and clerk’s office for clarification of DDA board member term end dates. And as part of that effort, Kunselman retrieved some old DDA records from the early 1980s, held as part of the University of Michigan Bentley Library’s collection of papers from Eunice Burns, a former DDA board member and former city councilmember. Kunselman told me in a June 9 interview that he has not yet shared with the attorney’s office what he found in the archives. However, the city’s online Legistar records now show corrected term dates for five different DDA board members.

Mouat’s corrected current term ends in 2015. So if Mouat is elected chair, he would not be at the same risk that Gary Boren was in 2011. Boren was elected DDA board chair in July 2011, but then was not reappointed to the DDA board that year by mayor John Hieftje when his term expired – which meant that his service as chair of the DDA board lasted about one month.

In addition to electing the current vice chair to be the new chair, another custom of the DDA board’s annual meeting is for the newly elected chair immediately to assume office, appoint the membership of committees and to name the chairs of those committees. From the July 3, 2013 annual meeting minutes:

Ms. [Leah] Gunn ceremonially passed the meeting gavel to Ms. [Sandi] Smith. … Ms. Smith reviewed the members and chairs of the Operations Committee. Mr. [Roger] Hewitt, Mr. [John] Splitt & Mr. [Keith] Orr will serve as committee chairs, the remainder of the DDA board members will serve on the committee. … Ms. Smith reviewed the members and chairs of the Partnerships/ Economic Development Committee. Ms. Smith and Ms. [Joan] Lowenstein will serve as committee chairs, the remainder of the DDA board members will serve on the committee. …

That custom flouts the DDA board bylaws in two ways.

First, the board chair has the right to appoint the chair of the operations committee – because it is a board committee. However, an advisory committee like the partnerships committee is supposed to elect its own chair, according to the bylaws: “The advisory committees shall elect their own officers and establish rules governing their actions.”

Second, even though the annual meeting is an occasion for election of board officers, including the chair, the bylaws are explicit about the fact that the newly elected chair does not actually become chair until the end of the meeting: “The term of office shall be for one year and begin at the close of the annual meeting at which they are elected.”

So the July 2, 2014 meeting would be a good occasion for the DDA board to just follow the bylaws with regard to these two points. Assuming the existing committee structure, current board chair Sandi Smith should name any committee members she would like to appoint to the operations and partnerships committees and name a chair of the operations committee. But the partnerships committee should be left to elect its own chair.

If that process does not suit the board, then the board is free to change its bylaws – which is an argument for establishing a bylaws committee.

Consult the Archives

Stephen Kunselman’s visit to the Bentley Library was prompted by his interest in establishing the correct term end dates for DDA board members. In somewhat more detail, when the DDA was first established, the 12 members were supposed to have staggered term lengths. Under the statute, an equal number of members (3) were to have had one-year terms, two-year terms, three-year terms and four-year terms. After the initial appointments, all the terms are supposed to be four years long. The effect of the initial staggering is that in any given year, the board would potentially have a maximum of three new members join the board.

But Kunselman found more than just records showing board membership.

Leafing through the Bentley’s collection of Eunice Burns’ papers, Kunselman also noticed some old budget documents, which would have been relevant to an issue that was finally settled in November 2013 – the question of how the DDA’s TIF capture is regulated. The council finally concluded that nine-month debate about the DDA’s TIF capture on Nov. 18, 2013 – by revising the existing ordinance regulating DDA TIF to remove some of the perceived ambiguity.

The point of controversy involved the TIF plan projections of growth for the tax-increment value in the DDA district. In its original form, enacted when the DDA was founded in 1982, here’s how a key clause of the ordinance read [emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. …[.pdf of Ann Arbor city ordinance establishing DDA]

The life of the DDA’s tax increment finance capture would have ended after 30 years – in 2012. But in 2003, a new TIF plan was established with a new 30-year life. In the new plan, the projected annual percentage increase in value of the increment on which the DDA captures taxes was lower than in the original TIF plan.

The applicability of the ordinance to the DDA’s tax capture since 2003 was pointed out in 2011 by the city treasurer in an email he sent to DDA staff [emphasis added]:

It is a bit ambiguous, but I think the intent is that the DDA should not get any more tax revenue than was anticipated by the plan. From 1982 to 2002, the original plan had very high estimates of capture, and so this clause was far from being triggered. In the new plan, the estimates were reduced significantly. From 2003 until now, the capture has exceeded the plan. … We have had preliminary consultation with the attorney’s office, but have yet to obtain an opinion as to whether our interpretation is correct. [.pdf of Horning's May 2, 2011 email]

I think the city treasurer’s characterization – that the clause in question had never before been triggered – was widely accepted as plausible and true. But based on my own review of documents among Eunice Burns’ papers, it now looks to me like the clause was triggered in the very first year of the DDA’s existence, as well as in subsequent years.

DDA FY 1984 draft budget summary from University of Michigan Bentley Library collection of paper contributed by Eunice Burns.

The projected valuation of the increment in the original TIF plan for the first year was $2,000,000. But a fiscal year 1984 draft budget put the actual expected valuation of the increment that first year at $2,957,000, which exceeded the projected amount by $957,000. The draft budget calculated a return to the other units from which the DDA captured taxes exactly as specified in the city ordinance – half the excess times the millage rate on which the DDA captured taxes. More precisely: ($957,000*0.5)*0.006 = $28,710. (The draft budget appears to incorporate an arithmetic error, and gives an amount $30 less than that.)

Based on subsequent documents, the actual valuation that first year turned out to be less than the value expected when the budget document was prepared.

The actual valuation of the increment was $2,154,000 – which was less than expected in the draft budget, but still $154,000 more than anticipated in the TIF plan. A 1986 document from Burns’ archived papers show that the total amount of excess TIF returned to the other governmental units that first year was $3,629.

How did the DDA arrive at the $3,629 figure? I don’t know. In previously published columns on this topic, I’ve laid out the difference between a year-to-year approach and a cumulative approach to calculating the excess. But both methods yield $4,549 – which is more than a rounding error off from $3,629.

April 21, 1986 past valuations of increment with projections. In the first year, 1984, the valuation of the increment was $2,154,000 – which was less than expected in the draft budget, but still $154,000 more than anticipated in the TIF plan.

Further, the same 1986 document calculates a return of TIF revenue to other taxing units in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 – but neither the cumulative nor the year-to-year method would indicate that any return was due.

The key here might be the column heading [emphasis added]: “Payments to Taxing Units Per Agreement.” Unless there was some other “agreement” between the taxing authorities, it would have been more natural to use the word “ordinance.” So that indicates the taxing authorities came to some agreement that superseded the ordinance. My initial foray into the Bentley archives didn’t turn up such an agreement.

If there was such an agreement, it could have conceivably been prompted over a dispute about how to interpret the so-called “debt clause” in the original TIF ordinance: “Tax funds that are paid to the downtown development authority due to the captured assessed value shall first be used to pay the required amounts into the bond and interest redemption funds and the required reserves thereto.”

The more recent wrangling between the city council and the DDA definitely featured a contention by the DDA that the “debt clause” should be interpreted to mean that so long as the DDA’s debt obligations exceeded TIF revenues, no TIF should be returned to the other taxing units. But as the documents from the Bentley archive make clear, back in the early years of the DDA, the debt obligations of the DDA were planned to exceed TIF revenues. It’s not clear from initial examination of the documents whether there’s evidence that the DDA paid excess TIF to other units in years when debt obligations exceeded TIF revenue.

A logical next step in pursuing this issue would be to look for the “agreement” to which the 1986 document’s column heading refers.

Develop a Development Plan

In describing the development plan committee that I think the DDA board should establish, I wrote above: “This committee is needed because the DDA does not currently have a TIF plan that meets statutory requirements.”

I want to explain that claim in more detail.

Downtown development authorities in Michigan do not levy taxes of their own, but rather “capture” taxes levied by other entities within a specific geographic area – the TIF district. The “increment” in a tax increment finance (TIF) district refers to the difference between the initial value of a property and the value of a property after development. The Ann Arbor DDA captures taxes from the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library.

The state’s DDA statute makes clear that the tax increment financing plan is not optional. More specifically, it makes clear that no TIF revenue can be expended except to the extent that the expenditure is made pursuant to the tax increment financing plan. From the statute [emphasis added]:

125.1665 Transmitting and expending tax increments revenues; reversion of surplus funds; abolition of tax increment financing plan; conditions; annual report on status of tax increment financing account; contents; publication.
Sec. 15. (1) The municipal and county treasurers shall transmit to the authority tax increment revenues.
(2) The authority shall expend the tax increment revenues received for the development program only pursuant to the tax increment financing plan. …

The statute also lays out in explicit detail the components of the required tax increment financing plan. The required components of a tax increment financing plan include a development plan [emphasis added]:

125.1664 Tax increment financing plan; preparation and contents; limitation; public hearing; fiscal and economic implications; recommendations; agreements; modification of plan; catalyst development project.
Sec. 14. (1) When the authority determines that it is necessary for the achievement of the purposes of this act, the authority shall prepare and submit a tax increment financing plan to the governing body of the municipality. The plan shall include a development plan as provided in section 17, a detailed explanation of the tax increment procedure, the maximum amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, and the duration of the program, and shall be in compliance with section 15. …

And finally, the statute lays out in detail the required components of a development plan. The statute makes clear that the development plan is more than a set of guidelines, parameters and goals. From the statutory requirements, it’s clear that the development plan is meant to include a set of projects that can be described with enough specificity to identify a specific location, cost, and construction phasing – all of which is required to be included in the development plan [emphasis added]:

125.1667 Development plan; preparation; contents; improvements related to qualified facility.
Sec. 17. (1) When a board decides to finance a project in the downtown district by the use of revenue bonds as authorized in section 13 or tax increment financing as authorized in sections 14, 15, and 16, it shall prepare a development plan.
(2) The development plan shall contain all of the following:
(a) The designation of boundaries of the development area in relation to highways, streets, streams, or otherwise.
(b) The location and extent of existing streets and other public facilities within the development area, shall designate the location, character, and extent of the categories of public and private land uses then existing and proposed for the development area, including residential, recreational, commercial, industrial, educational, and other uses, and shall include a legal description of the development area.
(c) A description of existing improvements in the development area to be demolished, repaired, or altered, a description of any repairs and alterations, and an estimate of the time required for completion.
(d) The location, extent, character, and estimated cost of the improvements including rehabilitation contemplated for the development area and an estimate of the time required for completion.
(e) A statement of the construction or stages of construction planned, and the estimated time of completion of each stage.
…

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment financing plan, modified in 2003, does include many of the required components of a development plan as specified in Sec. 17 (2). However, by any objective standard, some of those components are completely absent. Among those absent components are those described in Sec. 17 (2)(c), Sec. 17 (2)(d), and Sec. 17 (2)(e).

Excerpt from the development plan in the 1982 DDA TIF plan.

The Ann Arbor DDA’s 2003 tax increment financing plan includes a development plan that identifies eight general strategic areas for investment: identity, infrastructure, transportation, business encouragement, housing, development partnerships, community services, sustainability. These strategies and principles are outlined in a fair amount of detail, but nowhere with enough specificity to determine an exact location, cost estimate, or construction timeline explicitly required in the statute.

There is a sharp contrast between the tax increment financing plan that was originally adopted in 1982 and the revised 2003 plan. The 1982 plan includes a development plan that appears to have been drafted using the statute as a literal outline. [.pdf of 2003 renewal plan] [.pdf of original 1982 plan]

The lack of a statutorily compliant development plan has put the Ann Arbor DDA at a disadvantage over the last year in the politically-charged wrangling with the Ann Arbor city council. That wrangling grew out of the pursuit of a non-political issue raised by the city treasurer in 2011 – enforcement of the city’s ordinance that regulates DDA TIF capture.

By 2013, a majority on the council began to take an interest in seeing the TIF capture ordinance strictly enforced. The DDA’s initial response was to raise the specter of projects that the DDA would not be able to undertake – if the TIF ordinance were enforced in the way some councilmembers were suggesting. Pressed for examples, the initial response from the DDA appeared to be limited to a single specific project – the replacement of rusted-out streetlight poles on Main Street.

Subsequently, the DDA scrambled to compile a five-year plan of projects – a draft that the DDA board has since continued to revise over the past year. [.pdf of DDA 5-year capital plan as of May 2014] But the DDA board has not yet ratified that list of projects in a formal way. One formal way to ratify that five-year project list would be to incorporate it into the development plan component of the TIF plan.

An approach to the topic of the development plan from the perspective of the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council – a body that can be established to give input on the development plan to the DDA – is included in a comment I wrote earlier this year on a DDA board meeting report: [March 7, 2014 comment]

I imagine that some DDA board members will perceive the call for a statutorily-compliant development plan as mere pedantry – or else as a way to heap gratuitous criticism on the DDA. But in fact, a statutorily-compliant development plan could serve as a shield against unwelcome attempts to exert control by a city council eager to see the DDA pay for projects the DDA might not want to support. If the city council wants the DDA to pay for a project that the DDA does not want to fund, then this response should end the conversation:

We’re very sorry but that’s not a project included in our development plan and we cannot violate the statutory requirement that TIF expenditures be made pursuant to that plan.

With a compliant development plan to back its play, the DDA could have used that argument to avoid committing TIF funds for the police/courts facility back in 2008, or the Main Street light pole conversion project in 2013.

In the same way, the streetlight LED conversion project that the DDA board was asked to fund at its May 7 meeting – the resolution that ultimately prompted this column – could have been rejected just on the grounds that the project does not appear in the DDA’s development plan.

Instead, the argument made by board member Roger Hewitt was really just a complaint – that funding the streetlight conversion amounted to another instance of making a transfer payment to the city of Ann Arbor. That’s because the energy savings from the LED conversion would accrue to the city’s bottom line, not the DDA’s.

In its current state, however, I think the DDA’s “development plan” would preclude any TIF expenditure – because there are no specific projects listed with budgets or timelines.

In sum, I think the DDA’s independence as a governmental unit depends on its willingness to be fettered by the statutory requirements enabling its existence.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. 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!

Tappan Middle School orchestra students performed for the board.

Four community dialogue meetings the board held regarding the budget were summarized by board president Deb Mexicotte and treasurer Glenn Nelson. The trustees will be working to divide some of the suggestions they heard from the public into short-, mid-, and long-term action items.

The board also met during a study session before the regular meeting to address some of the most pressing needs of the superintendent search: identifying a salary, determining a superintendent profile, confirming the superintendent search timeline, and approving an advertising schedule.

The trustees hope to have a candidate in place by the end of July. They decided on a salary range of $180,000 to $220,000, commensurate with experience.

Also at the meeting, Mexicotte made standing committee appointments. The trustees recently moved away from a committee-of-the-whole structure to planning, performance, governance, and executive committees.

Additionally, the board heard first briefings on paving contracts, tech bond purchases, and the Freeman School lease renewal. Trustees voted to approve the 2013 spring grant awards.

2013-14 Budget: Overview

District superintendent Patricia Green led off the presentation on the district’s expenditure report and budget proposal by saying that “none of the potential reductions are without a significant amount of pain.” The projected budget deficits for the 2013-14 school year are at least $8.67 million, following five years of “already massive cuts,” she said. The district’s foundation allowance [per pupil allowance from the state of Michigan] is $9,020 – an amount less than the foundation allowance in 2001-02.

The board had asked Green and the administration to make a best estimate to prepare a list of potential budget cuts, which were presented at its Feb. 27, 2013 meeting. Since then, the administration has continued to cost out potential reductions, and “the picture is not pretty.” Until something changes in the revenue stream from Lansing, these cuts won’t be the end of it, said Green.

The proposal the administration presented was, as Green described it, the beginning of “some serious deliberations that need to take place.” She reiterated that the administration wanted to work with the board to balance the budget. But she noted that if one cost savings could be taken off the list, it would have to be replaced by an equivalent.

2013-14 Budget: Expenditures

Nancy Hoover, AAPS director of finance, first gave a brief overview of how AAPS spends its money.

AAPS director of finance Nancy Hoover.

The majority of the general fund budget is spent on instruction and instructional support (80%). The rest is spent on operations and maintenance (10%), athletics (2%), transportation (3%), and central administration (5%).

To illustrate the increasing problem of funding the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS), Hoover then presented an analysis of MPSERS pension costs per pupil. While the state has worked to contain the costs in recent years, since 1994 the pension cost per student has steadily risen from $280 in 1994 to $1,366 in 2012. Subtracting out the pension cost from the foundation allowance leaves the district with $7,654 per pupil.

Before walking the board through the budget proposal, Hoover listed out the assumptions used for the expenditure projections. The projections assume:

• district enrollment remains flat
• an annual cost increase of 5% over the next three years for health benefits
• an increase in the retirement rate
• an annual cost increase of 4% for transportation costs

Taking into account basic expenditures, as well as step and fringe increments, the district’s projected expenditures for 2013-14 total $192.66 million. Given $3.4 million in staff concessions, the district needs to make $8.67 million in reductions to balance the FY 2013-14 budget.

2013-14 Budget: Proposed Cuts to Instructional Services

Hoover presented the following proposed reductions to the budget for instructional services, totaling $6,264,068:

• Reduce teaching positions by 32 full time equivalents ($3.2 million);
• Eliminate reading intervention teachers ($1 million);
• Reduce Fine Arts/PE positions through attrition ($200,000);
• Reduce counselors to the ratio specified in the AAEA contract ($300,000);
• Reduce theatre funding ($77,068);
• Eliminate one theatre technician position at Pioneer to provide equity with the other comprehensive high schools ($50,000);
• Eliminate 7th hour ($500,000);
• Reduce noon hour supervision ($71,000);
• Move Skyline High to semesters from trimesters ($300,000);
• Freeze library material purchases for one year ($100,000);
• Eliminate high school transportation ($466,000).

Nelson said he was concerned about the scale of what they had to do. He asked how many retirements had already been handed in to the district. Hoover said that on average, between 40 and 50 instructional staff retire every year. Currently, they have 12 notifications. She said the smaller number could be a reflection of the reduction in the early notification incentive that was made last year.

Mexicotte asked about the timing of layoff notices. Comsa said that if it involves the Ann Arbor Educational Association (AAEA), they would have to make a determination the last day of the school year. If they are looking to reduce 30 positions, Mexicotte said, they would have to notify approximately 200 staff members by the end of the year.

Trustee Susan Baskett was concerned about the implication of cutting staff. If the district were to cut 7th hour, as well as the reading intervention teachers, that would mean cutting services that have taken a lot of time to build up. She asked how they would compensate for the loss of services provided. AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye said that they would like to partner with the community to make up for the cutting of services. Trustee Andy Thomas suggested telling the high schools that if they wanted to keep things like 7th hour or trimesters, they would need to do it with fewer teachers, then let the building administrators figure out how to make that work.

The trustees also talked briefly about the issue of transportation. Thomas noted that in the proposal, the Roberto Clemente Student Development program would remain as it is, but high school transportation would be cut. Because Clemente was not located on an AATA bus route, he wondered how students would be able to get to the remote location. Randy Trent, AAPS executive director of physical properties, acknowledged that if the district were to eliminate high school busing, it could not discriminate between schools. Green noted that transportation must include special needs and homeless students. Forty-two percent of Clemente students are classified as special education.

Mexicotte questioned how they were able to supply provide to Clemente but not to Community High.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot asked if the number of common bus stops could be increased. Liz Margolis, AAPS director of communications, said that this school year, the district started off with fewer common stops, but ended up adding more for safety reasons, especially for students who lived in the more rural areas of the district. Margolis said the district will continue to have the conversation about transportation.

Margolis also noted that three AAPS routes at the high school level have been replaced with Ann Arbor Transportation Authority routes. So far, they’ve heard positive responses about the augmentation of service with the AATA. While the consolidated bus services “haven’t worked perfectly for everyone,” Margolis said that anecdotally, the district hadn’t seen an increase in tardiness or absenteeism due to the changes made to busing last year.

2013-14 Budget: Proposed Cuts to Athletics

Instead of the $1 million cut to athletics that was in the initial costing out phase of the budget’s preparation, Hoover presented a more granular proposal for athletics with a reduction of $512,685:

• Increase ice hockey rental fees to $600 per student ($36,000);
• Increase golf course rental fees to $225-$400 per student ($21,000);
• Reduce equipment purchases ($30,000);
• Eliminate transportation for games outside of Washtenaw County ($120,000)
• or eliminate all transportation to any athletic event ($300,000);
• Reduce middle school clubs by 16% ($18,989);
• Eliminate middle school baseball and softball ($31,000);
• Eliminate 7th grade basketball ($30,696);
• Increase pay-to-participate fee at the middle schools to $100 ($75,000);
• Increase play-to-participate fees to a one-time fee of $250 for all high school sports ($150,000)

Several district athletic directors were on hand to answer questions from the trustees. Rusty Fuller, Slauson’s athletic director (AD), said that they worked to make incremental cuts to the athletic program instead of the million dollar cut that was initially proposed. He emphasized that the ADs would like to work with the district more – because they did not realize that the cuts to the middle school baseball, softball, and basketball would be on the budget list.

Slauson Middle School Athletic Director Rusty Fuller.

The pay-to-participate fees generated some discussion among the trustees. Baskett asked how the increase in pay-to-participate would impact the number of students who participate in district sports.

Fuller said that Dexter Public Schools had significantly increased their fees and had subsequently seen a huge increase in scholarship requests. He said that because of the number of programs AAPS has already cut, they’ve seen a decline in participation, especially with girls.

Dottie Davis, Huron High AD, said that the district hasn’t raised its pay-to-participate fee in three years, saying “we’re the cheapest in town.” Fuller said that the ADs were comfortable with the middle school increase, as the issue at that level isn’t as big as it is with high school athletics.

2013-14 Budget: Proposed Cuts to Operations

Hoover also walked through reductions to operations totaling $1.23 million.

• Freeze furniture/fixtures purchases ($200,000);
• Reduce natural gas purchases by negotiating a lower price ($100,000);
• Realizing energy savings through a sinking fund investment ($200,000);
• Reduce grounds personnel by one FTE ($50,000);
• Restructure custodial services ($600,000);
• eliminate one crew chief ($80,000)

2013-14 Budget: Proposed Cuts District Wide

Hoover also presented several items that would have a district-wide impact for a total of $682,540:

• Reduce food costs ($70,000):
• Reducing conference and travel expenses ($50,000);
• Close middle school pools ($70,000);
• Suspend table rentals ($15,000);
• Reduce central office positions and restructure ($477,540)

Thomas asked that if there were any discussions about savings coming from reductions in the administrations’ salaries. He acknowledged that they were in negotiations with AAAA, and that any voluntary reductions in salary among the senior administrative staff had not been included in the budget proposal – because nothing was finalized. As the contract negotiator, Comsa said the board had given him direction on the amounts. While he couldn’t give trustees a number just yet, he said they had given him direction and, as the negotiator, he was working towards that.

2013-14 Budget: Outside Funding Options

The trustees spoke in depth about the role the Ann Arbor Public Schools Education Foundation (AAPSEF) could play in generating private giving from the public. Green noted that the AAPSEF has not been making any grants to the district since their executive director resigned at the start of the school year. They haven’t been able to fundraise this year, but will be working to improve upon that this next year.

Trustee Christine Stead said that while she understood the foundation’s circumstances, “we need them more than ever.” She wanted to encourage people to donate directly to APSEF with the assumption they’ll be looking aggressively at the district’s budget. Or the board needed to explore other options for people to donate. She said she would like to get an update on the AAPSEF fundraising.

From right: Irene Patalan, Christine Stead, and Deb Mexicotte.

Mexicotte noted that the topic of targeted funding came up over and over in the dialogue meetings. She expressed her desire for the community to have “a clear couple of paths” to donation. Thomas suggested the Karen Thomas Memorial Fund as an excellent conduit for making up a cut to the media purchases. The memorial fund was established in 2008 following the death of Karen Thomas, a local writer and Thomas’s wife. He acknowledged that they wanted to capitalize on the “sense of urgency” that has been created by the budget dialogues and board discussions.

Mexicotte suggested having a smaller, more widespread donation process by which the community could express their “$20, $30, or $40 desire” to help the district. Trustee Irene Patalan wondered if they could have a fund-drive similar to the public radio stations.

After acknowledging how awful the cuts were, Nelson said all the trustees would, if they could, choose to fund all the programs. During the community dialogues, over 100 people offered to help with raising revenue. The district needs to work on specific channels to help mobilize those people, Nelson said.

2013-14 Budget: General Commentary

Hoover noted that the proposed cuts eliminate 75 FTEs total $19,293 more than the amount that is needed to balance the budget. For any additional shortfalls that might occur, Hoover said, the recommendation is that they be paid for out of the fund balance.

Stead asked how much money the district needed in its fund balance to cover summer payroll costs. Hoover said she wasn’t sure – because they had never needed to do that. Stead said that it could be important: If the district had less in its fund balance than it needed to cover payroll, the district would need to borrow the money from the state, which would mean interest fees would be incurred.

Green highlighted some of the changes that were now “off the table” compared with the initial set of proposed cuts. Elementary principal sharing was determined to be a safety risk, especially in light of the recent Sandy Hook Elementary (Newtown, Connecticut) shooting. Several items, such as elimination of media specialist positions, could not be implemented because of contractual issues. Theatre funding was reduced instead of eliminated. It has been decided that the administration will be conducting a more thorough review of all alternative programs in the district – so the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center and Community High School were maintained as is. Middle school transportation was also recommended to be maintained.

Lightfoot reiterated her call to “amend, rather than end.” She said she wanted to make sure the administration was talking to the people in the trenches rather than the people at Balas – so that they are really looking outside the box. Green said that administration has done that, giving as an example the trimester scheduling at Skyline High School.

Mexicotte noted that this was the board’s first conversation about budget reductions, but it would not be the last. The administration has conceived what could be considered a draft budget at this point, said Mexicotte, and the board will be working under this framework.

Outcome: No action was required by the board, as this was a first briefing. The trustees will continue to have budget update discussions until they finalize the budget. The 2013-14 budget must be finalized before June 30, 2013.

2013-14 Budget: Community Dialogue Meetings

On Saturday, April 20, the trustees completed the last of four community dialogue meetings on the budget. Mexicotte and Nelson reported out on some general findings at the April 24 board meeting. Nelson thanked the nearly 300 members of the public who showed up for the four dialogues. He said that he gained a lot in listening and talking with people, and that it was truly a two-way dialogue.

AAPS trustee Glenn Nelson.

Mexicotte said she and Nelson had compiled the sentiments expressed by the public. They will also be separating the items out into short- and long-term items. The documents Mexicotte created was divided into four different areas: (1) themes arising from questions and comments; (2)specific suggestions and ideas for alleviating financial stress; (3) strategies and questions that are useful guides to future work; and (4) reflections of Mexicotte and Nelson.

During the April 24 meeting, the trustees talked over how the specific suggestions from the community could be added to the budget discussion. Nelson said that they needed to assess how best to approach some of the suggestions. Some of them could be explored through committee process, and some of them – such as illustrating the extent of cuts already made – could be immediately implemented.

Thomas asked if there could be a tracking mechanism so that the suggestions made didn’t go into “a black hole.” Such a mechanism would allow the public to see that their suggestions were considered. Lightfoot asked if there was a place for additional comments and ideas from the community. Baskett asked if any of the ideas could be acted on for this year’s budget.

Mexicotte responded by saying that while some of the topics, such as redistricting, would not be acted upon for the next year, the dialogues helped inform her about what was most important to the community. Because maintaining a smaller class size was a consistent theme at the community dialogues, it will be a lens through which she now looks when faced with budget cuts.

Nelson noted that some of the suggestions, such as eliminating half-day professional development days, needed to be worked through by a combination of board, administration, staff, and the public.

Patalan was grateful for the work Nelson and Mexicotte put into compiling the data. The dialogues, she said, left her with the feeling that the community absolutely values its schools. She noted that the district website was a valuable resource for finding information.

2013-14 Budget: Community Dialogue – Next Steps

Moving forward, the trustees will work to identify the issues as: short-term suggestions that can be easily implemented; mid-term items that will need to be addressed in committee and with the administration; and long-term items that “need long-term work by the staff.” Green and the cabinet were an “integral part of the process,” said Nelson.

Outcome: Because Mexicotte and Nelson are both part of the governance committee, it was decided that they will schedule a committee meeting to begin identifying the short-, medium-, and long-term items. A governance committee meeting is scheduled for May 3, 2013 at 9 a.m. at the Balas Administration Building.

2013-14 Budget: Public Commentary

Eleven members of the public spoke to express their support of programs the board has identified for possible reductions.

2013-14 Budget: Public Commentary – General

Christa Moran asked that the board make it so the budget cuts are felt across the district, not just by any one group. She asked that the programs themselves decide how they were going to have to tighten their belts.

2013-14 Budget: Public Commentary – Roberto Clemente

Several students spoke in support of the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center. Tevin Cole said that many doors wouldn’t have been open for him without Clemente. While there, he was taught: Anything is possible with self-determination. Karrah Weeder expressed her concern over what would happen to “all of us” if Clemente was moved or shut down.

Anyse Malcolm, a Community High School student, spoke in support of Clemente. She said she was saddened at the lack of sympathy and empathy from the board. While she was grateful to attend Community, she said she saw that the relocation of Clemente would only devastate the students who attend the program.

Nancy Kupina said that she couldn’t have been more wrong in her initial impressions of Clemente. Repeatedly using the phrase “you don’t know what you don’t know,” Kupina said the public entrusts the board of education to find out what the public doesn’t know. And she asked them to do that when it came to the “poorly researched recommendations” about Clemente.

Clemente teacher Mike Smith asked that the board to imagine it was their sons and daughters who didn’t succeed in a traditional high school and who needed another option. He said that because of decisions the board may make, the program might not be there in the near future.

David Malcolm said that the students of Clemente didn’t want to go through a “back door” of Pioneer. [This was an allusion to the possibility that the program would be relocated physically to the Pioneer High School building, with a separate entrance.] They wanted to stay where they were. In addition, Malcolm also recognized the Clemente and Community students who assisted with St. Mary’s Lodge #4 Adopt-a-Highway clean-up.

Joe Merrick asked that the board not to make the proposed cuts to Clemente. It was a program his son was succeeding in, and it should be kept intact, he said.

2013-14 Budget: Public Commentary – Community High

Parent Ed Borbely argued for maintaining block scheduling at Community High because it allows for more in-depth coverage of the curriculum and it produced results.

Student Carson Borbely spoke in favor of maintaining block scheduling at Community High School.

He said the school draws students into the district who would otherwise attend private schools, so it should be left intact.

Carson Borbely also spoke in favor of keeping block scheduling and forum at Community. Those two pieces were integral to the success of students at Community. “While there is a dollar amount attached to block scheduling,” she said, “the education is priceless.”

2013-14 Budget: Public Commentary – Athletics

Parent Mark Vorobiev said that while he was not born in America, he recognized that high school sports were as American as apple pie. Cutting funding to athletics and other areas like theater and the arts will take away the district’s competitive advantage, he said.

Superintendent Search

Earlier this month, superintendent Patricia Green announced her resignation, effective in mid-July. The trustees began discussing the search process at a study session on April 17, 2013.

Before the regular meeting on April 24, the trustees met again for a study session to take steps to address some of the most pressing needs of their superintendent search: identifying a salary, determining a superintendent profile, confirming the superintendent search timeline, and approving an advertising schedule.

Superintendent Search: Salary

The trustees were in agreement on posting a salary range, rather than a set number. After some wrangling about the top levels of such a range, they decided on $180,000 to $220,000, commensurate with experience. [Green began her tenure on July 1, 2011 with a five-year contract and a starting salary of $245,000.]

Justifying her desire for a higher top number, Patalan said she interpreted the money differently. The money they have to manage is important to her, she said, and so she would like someone who has had experience in successfully managing expenditures. Nelson and Stead also believed $220,000 was too low. Stead said she was interested in “hiring high,” knowing they would have to cut because it was not likely they were going to have more money in the near future.

During the last superintendent search, Thomas recalled, they decided they wanted to offer a high salary to get a very experienced, very accomplished superintendent. While they did that, he said, from the moment the salary was announced, it became a sore point in the community. He would like to be able to tell the community they were bringing in the superintendent for less than $200,000. Lightfoot said she was interested in incentives that could be added to the base salary as reward for things that were “profound and permeated the district.”

Baskett said that while experience matters, “longevity is the key.” The community was willing to take a less experienced superintendent, so long as there was longevity in the position.

Mexicotte summed up their position by saying that the board was in the same dilemma as it was last time. Their work was to do the best thing for the community by getting “the best candidate we think we can bear.” So they need to balance the demands of the job and the job market with what the community believes the salary should be. That’s why the low end is important, she maintained, because that number told the community where the board thought a superintendent might come from.

There was some additional discussion about how the fringe benefits match up to comparable districts. David Comsa, AAPS deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel, said the current superintendent package includes the salary, life insurance, reasonable expenses, and vacation days, with a value of about $50,000. Some other districts include benefits such as annuity and car allowances, which AAPS does not have.

Superintendent Search: Profile

The board also decided on a list of 14 characteristics for the superintendent profile, which will be used during the search. The trustees amended and added to the profile they had used during the 2010-11 superintendent search. [.pdf of amended superintendent search profile]

Because Nelson came to the study session with an adjusted profile already written up, the trustees used his as a “straw man” and amended it as needed.

The trustees added to Nelson’s list. Stead focused on stressing the financial duress the district is under, saying the district needs a superintendent who understands Michigan’s financial plight – and specifically Ann Arbor’s situation. The idea of “a visionary” was repeated by several trustees. Mexicotte asked for the inclusion of media savviness. The ability to build relationships was also highlighted.

Superintendent Search: Advertising

The board also adjusted the advertising of the job opening to include some outlets that weren’t already listed by Ray and Associates – the search firm the board is using – and also to eliminate some places that didn’t have wide enough reach. Mexicotte noted that Ray and Associates had added LinkedIn as a new venue this time round.

The trustees decided not to advertise the position with the Broad Center. Lightfoot raised concern about the implication of a Broad Center trained superintendent, saying that the leadership of the Education Achievement Authority (EAA) was heavily Broad trained. It was “antithetical to the basic tenets of public education,” Lightfoot contended. Stead agreed, saying that some of the political agenda behind the Broad Center was to work to privatize public education.

At least two public forums will be held in the future to get community input on the superintendent search. Baskett reiterated that she wanted the community to be made aware that the board had discussed longevity, and was aware of what the community was saying. Trustees are looking for feedback from the community dialogues and from individuals, she said.

Superintendent Search: Timeline

Additionally, the trustees adjusted the timeline suggested by the search firm Ray and Associates to reflect an end goal of a superintendent named by the end of July. The trustees wrangled to align their personal schedules with the needs of the hiring process.

It was determined that the final candidates would participate in a community forum the same week they would be doing the finalist interviews. Right now, that would fall during the week of July 5, 2013.

Superintendent Search: Public Commentary

Victor Stoeffler asked that the board “exercise restraint and thoughtfulness” when choosing the next superintendent. He expressed concern that the trustees had already proposed the parameters for the search, when so little time had passed for introspective conversations.

After listing off some of the characteristics she believed the next superintendent needed to have, parent Jody Huhn endorsed Ben Edmondson, current Clemente principal, as a candidate for the superintendency. It was critical, she said, to find a superintendent who wouldn’t back down from challenge and who understands the needs and perspectives of the students, the staff, and the parents.

Barbara Malcolm said there was a “systemic leadership problem” with the board of education, and specifically Mexicotte, because so many personnel have left under her tenure. She asked for Mexicotte’s resignation.

Briefings

At most regular meetings, the board hears initial briefings on items they will be asked to approve at a subsequent meeting. At the April 24 meeting, the board heard first briefings on tech bond purchases, paving contracts, and the Freeman School lease renewal. The 2013 spring grant awards was presented as a second briefing – for the board to approve the receipt and expenditure of the grant monies. Additionally, the standing committee appointments were finalized.

Briefing: Tech Bond Purchases

Trent briefed the board on bid recommendations for district-wide network cabling and mechanical modifications to support the 2012 technology bond initiatives.

After conducting post-bid interviews, the district’s professional team recommended awarding contracts to Fuller Heating Company for $80,669 for HVAC work, and to Complete Communications Inc. for $386,989 for network cabling. Both companies were the lowest qualified bidders for each job.

Trent noted that the district is opting for CAT 6 in place of CAT 5 cabling. While more expensive, it will take longer to be obsolete, he said. The team also opted for adding a “student drop” because it was cheaper to do two at the same time rather than pursuing a second drop later.

Trent also noted that if trustees approve the bids, they will have approved about 26% of the entire technology bond budget.

Outcome: This was a first briefing item. The board will vote on the bids after a second briefing at the next regular meeting.

Briefing: Paving Contracts

The trustees were briefed on bid recommendations for contractors to perform the 2013 summer paving projects. The first briefing was presented by Randy Trent, AAPS executive director of physical properties.

Trent had interviewed the lowest qualified bidders: Best Asphalt from Romulus, Barrett Paving of Ypsilanti, and Quality Asphalt of Howell. After the time when district conducted due diligence, Barrett Paving withdrew its bid.

Contract awards are recommended for Best Asphalt at $377,535 and Quality Asphalt at $60,208 to perform the paving projects. Trent noted that Best Asphalt previously has done paving projects for the district, and Quality Asphalt has tried to get projects with the district in the past. The projects are funded through the district’s 2010 sinking fund.

The schools where parking lot or sport court paving is being done in summer 2013 are: Allen Elementary, Ann Arbor Preschool and Family Center, Ann Arbor Tech High, Bryant Elementary, Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, Dicken Elementary, Forsythe Middle, Haisley Elementary, Huron High, Northside Elementary, Scarlett Middle, Slauson Middle, Tappan Middle, and Wines Elementary.

Outcome: This was a first briefing item. The board will vote on the bids after a second briefing at the next regular meeting.

Briefing: Freeman School Lease Renewal

Trent briefed the board on a recommendation to renew the district’s lease of Freeman School to Go Like the Wind Montessori School. The district has leased the building to Go Like the Wind since 1987. The building is located at 3540 Dixboro Lane in Superior Township.

If approved, the new three-year lease with one two-year renewal option would begin on July 1, 2014. The new proposed rate is $300,862, with a 3% increase each year. Over a five-year lease period, the district will receive over $1.5 million in rent.

Trent mentioned that the tenants have paid for renovations over the past 10 years, while the district pays for maintenance.

After Thomas asked about the possibility of selling the school, Trent said that as a school building, the property was not very lucrative. When it was last assessed several years ago, it was appraised at $600,000 for the building and the 40 acres of land it sits on. However, if the area becomes more developed in the future, Trent said, it could be an important property for the district to own.

Outcome: This was a first briefing item. The board will vote on lease renewal after a second briefing at the next regular meeting.

Briefing: Spring Grant Awards

As part of the consent agenda, the trustees unanimously approved the 2013 spring grant awards. There was no discussion about the grants at the meeting.

New grants include: $11,332 from the Ann Arbor PTO Thrift Shop for SchoolMessenger, a parental notification system; $15,000 from the Ann Arbor Public Schools Educational Foundation (AAPSEF) for the Community Builders program; and $8,900 from Toshiba America to purchase Lego Mindstorms for Pioneer High School.

AAPSEF is also providing renewal grants for the following: $15,679 for Great Ideas; $4,000 for 5th grade instrumental music instrument repairs; $21,000 for SchoolMessenger; and $22,644 for the Environmental Education Program. Secondary Perkins III is providing a renewal grant of $143,022 for the Career and Technical Education program.

The entire cost of SchoolMessenger will be covered by the two grants from the Ann Arbor PTO Thrift Shop and AAPSEF.

The board had been initially briefed on the grants at its April 10, 2013 meeting.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the receipt and expenditures of the 2013 spring grant awards.

Briefing: Standing Committees

The trustees recently voted to move back to a standing committee structure. There are now four committees: planning, performance, governance, and executive. Planning and performance committees will look deeply into topics, then bring forward to the board an executive summary and recommendations. Governance will look at areas of board policy and boardsmanship. The executive committee, made up of the committee chairs and the president, will set the agenda.

Briefing: Standing Committees – Appointments

After polling the trustees as to where they would like to serve, Mexicotte named the committees.

• Performance: Thomas (chair), Lightfoot, Baskett
• Planning: Patalan (chair), Stead, Nelson
• Governance: Mexicotte, Nelson, Lightfoot
• Executive: Mexicotte, Patalan, Thomas

As all the trustees were amenable to the committee appointments, Mexicotte noted that the executive committee will meet as soon as possible to set the upcoming agenda. She also requested that the committee chairs poll their members to set up a meeting schedule. Other ad-hoc committees that have been formed, such committee formed to look at the district’s contract policy, will continue their work outside the standing committee structure.

Briefing: Standing Committees – Agenda

As the board moves to a standing committee structure, the agenda will need to be rearranged. Many of the items that were scheduled to be presented and discussed at regular meetings or at committee of the whole meetings will be divided up between planning and performance. Mexicotte proposed splitting up six of the topics: special education metrics, Roberto Clemente follow-up discussion, curriculum report, climate survey report, communications update, and preschool and HeadStart report. She recognized that the topics may not necessarily fit into the mission of the committees, but are put there because of the workload.

Association Reports

Five associations are invited to make regular reports to the school board: the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent Teacher Organization Council (PTOC), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA.) The Youth Senate is also invited to speak once a month, alternating with representative groups from each of the high schools.

At the April 24, 2013 meeting, the board heard from AAPAC, PTOC, AAAA, and AAEA.

AAPAC representative Erica Melnykowycz asked that the trustees recognize that students identified as having a disability are legally entitled to receive special education services that are individualized. She emphasized the importance of making sure students’ right to a Free Appropriate Public Education is considered when making budget decisions. AAPAC also asked for the continued support of SISS and the general education administration of the Disability Awareness Workshops, workshops for 4th graders to experience the challenges of living with a disability.

Amy Pachera, PTOC representative, thanked Flye and her team for their presentation to the PTOC on the balanced assessment system. During the presentation, they explained the testing students go through and the reasons for them. Pachera also addressed the public who spoke during public commentary about budget cuts. “When you have to cut a budget $15 million four years straight,” parents must get involved, she said. If the way schools are funded in Michigan doesn’t change, they will have to cut what makes AAPS so excellent.

Kathy Scarnecchia, Haisley principal, represented AAAA. She congratulated Green on her retirement, and asked that the board consider allowing AAAA to be part of the process for selecting the interim and permanent superintendent. She also said that AAAA “remains open to dialoging with you” regarding tough budget cuts.

Linda Carter, AAEA president, said in no uncertain terms: “The AAEA bank is officially closed.” The members of AAEA have sacrificed to keep the quality of education at the highest level, she said, but they cannot continue to see smaller paychecks.

Comm/Comm: Tappan Middle Orchestral Performance

The board meeting was started off with a performance by Tappan Middle School 6th grade orchestra, under the direction of Joe DeMarsh. The group performed two pieces for the trustees. Before the performance, DeMarsh congratulated his colleagues for their work in making AAPS one of the best communities for music education, as listed by the NAMM Foundation.

Comm/Comm: Administrative Professionals Week

The trustees formally recognized the district’s administrative professionals by approving a proclamation in acknowledgement of administrative professionals week.

Executive assistant to the board of education Amy Osinski. The board recognized administrative professionals week.

Mexicotte thanked the administrative professionals for their day-to-day work, as well as for their “sacrifice to the district.” As part of the AAEA office administrators bargaining unit, administrative professional now have mandated furlough days in 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Mexicotte also singled out “the tireless work” of Amy Osinski, executive assistant to the board of education.

Comm/Comm: District Accolades

In her superintendent report, Green highlighted several achievements: student accomplishments in art and music; a Gates Millennium Scholar finalist; success in the TeamWorks competition; Carpenter Elementary’s 175 anniversary; the Washtenaw Elementary Science Olympiad (WESO); and accomplishments of several teachers.

Green also acknowledged the “tremendous job” done by AAPS administrative professionals.

During public commentary, Stephen Barrett of St. Mary’s Lodge #4 spoke to recognize the efforts of Clemente and Community High students who assisted with the Lodge’s Adopt-A-Highway clean-up.

Stephen Barrett of St. Mary’s Lodge #4.

When students do something positive, they need to be recognized, he said.

During “items from the board,” Nelson reported that he had attended both the Choral Cavalcade and an event at the Neutral Zone. He said he was always impressed by the leadership of the Neutral Zone.

Stead also recognized WESO, saying it was a “high energy event” that she was very proud of. Stead, Lightfoot, and Baskett all thanked Patricia Jenkins, the Skyline Communication, Public Policy, and Media Magnet lead teacher for work she and some of her students had done.

Agenda Setting

As the board considered the May 8 agenda, priority was given to “a continued discussion of the budget.” A budget discussion update was added. A University of Michigan student presentation – about the ways student voices can enhance and improve the district – was referred to a committee. While Mexicotte noted the students had been working hard to meet her requests of relevancy and efficiency in presentation, the trustees decided their focus should be on the budget. They also voted to schedule an executive session on May 8 before the regular meeting for the purpose of labor negotiations.

Outcome: The agenda, with the above changes, was unanimously approved.

Items from the Board

Several trustees reported on various meetings and conferences they had recently attended.

Stead, Lightfoot, and Baskett attended the Pioneer PTSO, which Stead said ended up being like a pseudo-community budget dialogue. At that meeting, Baskett said, she connected with a parent who was interested in helping write grants for the district.

Patalan noted her own and Stead’s attendance at the Governor’s Education Summit. She said that she was proud that AAPS has already had conversations about a strategic plan, part of which other districts are only now just beginning to do.

Thomas noted he and Stead were part of a panel at University of Detroit Mercy Law School, which focused on the interaction between all levels of government.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Christine Stead, treasurer Glenn Nelson, secretary Andy Thomas, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Irene Patalan.

Next regular meeting: May 8, 2013, 7 p.m., at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library’s fourth floor meeting room, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

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

After some discussion, the trustees decided to return to two standing committees: one for planning and one for performance, with the addition of a governance and an executive committee.  Committee membership will be determined after trustee interest has been solicited. Appointments will be made as soon as possible.

The trustees also voted to impose a five hour time limit on regular board meetings. Committee meetings will “strive to be no longer than two hours.”

The change came after board president Deb Mexicotte introduced policy changes to address board meeting times, the process for adding items to the agenda, and the committee structure at the March 27, 2013 meeting. Concerns surrounding these issues have been raised by the trustees, the administration, and the community.

This brief was filed from the board room of the Ann Arbor District Library in downtown Ann Arbor at Fifth and William. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

From left to right, outgoing AAPS superintendent Todd Roberts, board president Deb Mexicotte, treasurer Irene Patalan, vice-president Susan Baskett, and Robert Allen, who will assume command of AAPS as interim superintendent on Oct. 9. (Photos by the writer.)

AAPS is hosting a public farewell reception for Roberts at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, Oct. 7, at Skyline High School. Board president Deb Mexicotte quipped that the reception would be an opportunity for everyone to express good wishes or condolences to Roberts “as he moves on to accept a not-as-good position in North Carolina.” At Wednesday’s meeting, the board chose Ray & Associates, an executive search firm from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to help them recruit and select a new superintendent.

The meeting also served as the annual organizational meeting for the board, during which trustees elected three new officers, changed the composition of their standing committees, and set their meeting dates for the remainder of the school year.

The board also heard a first briefing on yet another high school option being developed county-wide – an international baccalaureate program.

Trustee Tributes to Roberts

Trustees shared personal memories and stories about their work with Roberts over the years, and expressed that he would be greatly missed.

Todd Roberts at his last AAPS board meeting.

Andy Thomas praised Roberts for being incredibly engaging and respectful, even toward people with whom he does not agree.

Christine Stead credited Roberts with being inspiring during the strategic planning process, and for always thinking about how schools could be improved. She also noted that his relatable and accessible personality made it easy for the community to engage with him.

Glenn Nelson related a story about a 21-year-old who stopped Roberts on the street to thank him for being the man’s grade school principal, and used that story to stress how strong of an impression Roberts leaves on those with whom he works. Nelson said he will never forget the spirit and humanity that Roberts brought to his work here, and that he hopes to run into him in the future.

Simone Lightfoot thanked Roberts for his help when she was getting acclimated to the board, and for being so understanding. She praised his willingness to respond to the board, and his focus on getting problems fixed.

Susan Baskett thanked Roberts for his years of service. “You will be a name that will always come up,” she said, noting that he had helped the district weather some tough storms. She also thanked him for leaving AAPS “in good hands” and implored him not to forget them.

Irene Patalan said she wished she could lasso North Carolina and bring it here, and that she will miss Roberts terribly. She extolled his “egoless” nature, and affirmed that many people have been inspired by his leadership.

Deb Mexicotte said simply that Roberts had done everything AAPS has needed, and thanked him for being a “servant leader.” She also presented him with a plaque on behalf of the board.

Roberts responded with humility, saying that he hardly deserves all the compliments, and noting that he has learned a lot from a lot of people here about how to be successful. He praised the community, saying: “The person who comes to serve as superintendent will be lucky … I just feel that I’ve been the one to be really fortunate.”

Roberts thanked the board for selecting him four years ago, and giving him the opportunity to serve this district in this capacity. He thanked the board, and AAPS staff – especially his cabinet members, who he praised as “outstanding people and professionals.” He saved his anchor acknowledgment for his executive assistant Joann Emmendorfer and executive secretary to the board, Amy Osinski, saying “Those of us who work in Balas [administration building] know that they are the ones who really run the district.”

Search Firm Selection

Mexicotte reviewed the process the board was using to select a search firm to assist with filling Robert’s superintendent position, which will be handled on an interim basis by current deputy superintendent Robert Allen. Allen has declared that he will not be a candidate for the permanent job.

Mexicotte reported on the reference checks done on the two final firms – Ray & Associates and McPherson & Jacobson. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "AAPS Search Firm Choice: Down to Two"] She reported that references for Ray & Associates were uniformly positive. On the other hand, the references on McPherson & Jacobson had caused enough concern that the reference committee of Mexicotte, Stead, and Baskett recommended only Ray & Associates for the board’s consideration.

Lightfoot asked Mexicotte to elaborate on the concerns regarding McPherson & Jacobson. Mexicotte said that other clients had listed concerns regarding multiple items, including the firm’s attention to detail, its commitment to community engagement, its ability to attract a strong and diverse pool of candidates, and its reference check process. Baskett noted that the second reference for McPherson was so negative that it was truly surprising, and suggested that Mexicotte pass on the feedback to McPherson. Mexicotte agreed to do so.

Outcome: The board approved the selection of Ray & Associates in a roll call vote.

After Ray & Associates was officially chosen, Mexicotte reiterated that Ray’s references were glowingly praising, and gave some examples. In all areas of the rubric the board used for the search firm selection, Ray strongly demonstrated success, she said.

Baskett noted that some of Ray’s references, while extremely pleased with their overall service, did make some suggestions to AAPS about how to have the best experience possible working with them. Mexicotte elaborated that some individuals in the firm came especially recommended, and that the board might want to request they are included on the AAPS team. She also said that based on the references, it seems like Ray might not be as good as AAPS at creating advertising materials, so the district may want to take the lead on that.

Stead added that it’s important to think about the importance of following the search firm’s advice, based on their experience and the outcomes they’ve had. “Ray’s references were phenomenal” she said.

Patalan said she agreed with Stead, and that in their interview, Ray’s representatives emphasized the importance of trusting Ray’s process. Baskett added that she appreciated Ray’s values, and that she likes the average tenure of Ray’s placements – eight years. Lightfoot added that she was impressed with Ray’s focus on the candidates’ well-being as well as the needs of the district. She concluded, “I think we’ve made a wise choice, and I look forward to working with them.”

Mexicotte asked if the board would be amenable to her working with Dave Comsa, AAPS assistant superintendent of human resources and legal services, to finalize the contract with Ray & Associates, and the board agreed.

Baskett asked what the next step will be. Mexicotte said she would request that the selected firm attend the next board meeting.

International Baccalaureate Program

In a memo included in the board’s meeting packet, Roberts reminded the board that one of the goals from Strategy 1 of the district’s strategic plan is to assess the feasibility of starting an International Baccalaureate (IB) program. Due to a high level of interest from other local districts, Roberts invited superintendents from across Washtenaw County to participate in creating an IB school, and the group formed a planning committee.

The board recently approved two additional paths to graduation for the district’s students – Early College Alliance and the WAY Washtenaw program – and creating the IB would add a third additional path.

Three members of the planning committee – Joyce Hunter, AAPS assistant superintendent of middle and high school education; Naomi Norman, director of assessment, planning, and research for the Washtenaw Intermediate School District; and Bert Okema, an IB consultant – introduced the proposed county-wide IB school to the board.

Hunter began by briefly speaking about her work on the IB planning committee.   She noted that the planning committee was very well-organized and explained how its work had been guided by “decision points” regarding the Washtenaw County IB school. These had included decisions about structure, enrollment, school design, site options, governance, personnel, budget, equity, and feeder schools of the new school.

Okema then gave a brief history of the IB. The heart of the IB, he argued, is holding students to rigorous, high academic standards, while assessing students in a broad variety of ways. The IB was founded in Europe, he said, and has a strong emphasis on “international-mindedness.”

Okema explained how the Washtenaw County IB program would connect to Michigan’s high school content expectations, and outlined the general IB curriculum. IB students are required to take courses in each of six areas – first language, second language, experimental sciences, mathematics/computer science, individuals/societies, and the arts. They are also expected to write an independently researched 4,000-word paper, pass a theory of knowledge class, and complete 150 hours of “activity-based learning.” Stead questioned the relevance of the IB program to the 21st century, and was reassured by Okema and Norman that that program exceeded district goals.

In response to questions from Baskett, Okema agreed that some elements of the IB are somewhat Euro-centric, but that it has more recently broadened to include wider influences, such as works of literature in translation from around the world. History in an IB program can be based on European, Asian, or American history, and individual IB schools can choose the focus for their schools. Nelson added that the mathematics element of the IB is not Euro-centric, and math did not develop first in Europe.

Norman then introduced how the IB program would look in Washtenaw County, and reviewed the rationale for its creation. Though there is not currently an IB program in this county, she pointed out, there are currently 33 IB programs in Michigan, including in Oakland and Macomb counties. She noted that over 80% of 800 county families surveyed were interested in a local IB program, including many homeschooling or private school families. Norman also pointed out the economic development opportunity that an IB program would bring the county by attracting international business.

Washtenaw International High School, as it is now being called, would be created as a county-wide consortium, and would grow to serve 600 students. Norman stated that the IB school will have a high commitment to equity, and to supporting students with a wide range of abilities. In similar fashion to the Early College Alliance (ECA) which AAPS just joined, teachers from participating districts would staff the IB.

The IB school would be located at the former East Middle School site in Ypsilanti. Enrollment would be based on lottery, with slots allocated in proportion to the size of each member district. In addition to the 600 county students, Norman explained, up to 80 additional students transferring from other IB schools worldwide could eventually be accommodated. Norman explained that an additional program – the IB Career Certificate program (IBCC), with more of a focus on technical education – could be added in the second year of the program.

Norman reviewed the elements of the consortium agreement. The school would be governed by a board made up of the superintendents of each participating district, as well as the WISD. She explained that the WISD will be the fiscal agent of the IB. The consortium is looking for grants to fund start-up costs, but the WISD is willing to lend the program some of the necessary funds. The program is set to use 100% of the foundation allowance per student, and is planning to be fully enrolled for 150 9th graders in 2011, adding one grade per year year. Baskett asked about the application of the waiting list, and Okema explained that any students on a waiting list will only be able to join the IB during the first two years of high school.

Patalan asked about the support of students with special needs or other difficulties, and Okema assured her the IB would meet their needs. He also mentioned that students are allowed to return to their home schools if they so choose.

Though he expressed general interest and support of the program, Thomas stated multiple concerns. First, he pointed out that it seems like enrolling 600 students might be optimistic. Okema said that a critical mass of roughly 600 students makes the program cost-effective, creates a desirable school climate, and allows more curricular options. Norman added that current student interest from possible member districts confirmed that 600 was a good number.

Thomas also questioned the IB’s proposed location on the very eastern edge of the county. Hunter said the planning committee did consider other sites, but chose the former East Middle School because it was the best fit. Roberts also pointed out that roughly 70% of the population of Washtenaw County is centered around the East Middle School site. Norman confirmed that it is anticipated that students will be transported to and from school by parents, or drive themselves. There is parking available, and the school is on an AATA bus line.

The board had some discussion of what a reasonable driving distance would be to the school, and what enrollment would be expected to be from each participating district. Thomas requested that the planning committee bring more concrete estimates of enrollment to the second briefing.

Baskett asked about how the lottery will work to address equity. Norman answered that the planning committee used guidelines from Los Angeles, which focus on creating anticipation within the county’s middle schools so that all students will feel qualified to apply if interested. Then, in contrast to the ECA, the lottery would not be amended if the diversity of student populations were not proportional to the county populations. Norman also allowed that adjustments can be made by the governing board if the school’s equity goals are not being met.

Baskett also asked about necessary teacher contract adjustments. Norman answered there is a sub-committee of district union representatives meeting to work out those issues, including: the school’s calendar, extracurricular support, structure of the school day, and number of preparation periods. Salary and benefits would be handled by the member districts, but teacher evaluations would be handled by the IB.

Outcome: The district’s participation in a county-wide IB school will come for a second briefing and decision at the next regular board meeting.

Special Needs Service Provision

Elaine Brown, AAPS assistant superintendent for student intervention and support services, presented the board with the first briefing of a renewal contract with Pediatric Therapy Associates (PTA). PTA offers physical, occupational, and speech therapies to complement full-time AAPS special education staff. The total PTA contract would be for $592,592, with AAPS funding roughly 17% of the contract, and the rest supported by federal special education grants.

Thomas asked about the breakdown of AAPS staff versus contracted staff for special education services. Brown’s staff confirmed that all three physical therapists are contracted. Of the occupational therapists, five are contracted, and eight are salaried AAPS employees. All 43 speech therapists are AAPS employees.

Nelson pointed out that there will be a special education renewal millage on the ballot in the spring. While the need for these services does not go away legally or ethically, Nelson pointed out, the failure of this millage would cause a larger proportion of the general fund to be used on special education services.

Trustees asked that additional cost breakdowns comparing last year’s services to this year’s projected service be brought to the second briefing at the next regular meeting.

Outcome: The annual contract with Pediatric Therapy Associates will come before the board for a second briefing its next regular meeting.

Association Reports

As an item of business at the meeting, the board reapproved the slate of associations from which it invites reports at each regular board meeting. Mexicotte noted that other groups could be added later if the board desired. The six groups are: the Youth Senate, the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee on Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council (PTOC), the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). At Wednesday’s meeting, the board heard reports from the Youth Senate, the AAPAC, and the PTOC.

Association Reoprts: Youth Senate

The Youth Senate’s report was focused on lunch at the high schools. Nikila Lakshmanan, a junior senator from Community High School, reported that Community’s 40-minute lunchtime offered off-campus privileges, as well as tutoring and extracurricular activities, and was universally enjoyed by Community students. At Pioneer, she said, lunch also works smoothly, as all students eat together, and seniors are allowed to eat off-campus.

In contrast, Lakshmanan highlighted lunch concerns brought to the Youth Senate from the other two high schools. At Huron High School, she said, some students are upset by the new lunch schedule, which splits freshman from the other students. Finally, Lakshmanan reported that many Skyline High School students feel that their lunch area is already overcrowded, and are concerned about the addition of another grade next year.

AAPAC

Melanie Raubolt thanked outgoing superintendent Todd Roberts for four years of excellent leadership, and welcomed Robert Allen and Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley to their new roles as interim superintendent and deputy superintendent of instruction, respectively. Raubolt reported that it is Augmentative and Alternative Communication Awareness (AAC) month. AAC technology helps people with communication disorders to connect more effectively with those around them.

Raubolt noted that some buses have been late due to new drivers, and construction – AAPAC hopes these issues will be worked out soon. Lastly, she thanked Haisley Elementary School’s principal for implementing training in positive behavior support for all staff, and encouraged other schools to offer similar training.

PTOC

Amy Pachera reported for the PTOC. She mentioned that the group is seeking a recording secretary, though the rest of the board is set. The PTOC participated in training from the NEW Center regarding legal obligations and management of PT(S)Os, and found it extremely useful. The PTOC will hold its annual launch party on Monday, Oct. 18 at Logan Elementary. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Superintendent’s Report

Roberts gave the final report of his tenure as AAPS superintendent. He praised multiple students, teachers, and community groups for their recent successes.

Students in Transition

In a study session before Wednesday’s meeting, the board was introduced to Azibo Stevens, the district’s new liaison to WISD’s Education Project for Homeless Youth (EPHY). According to the federal McKinney-Vento Act, a student should be considered homeless if they “lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.” This does not necessarily mean homeless students are living on the streets; it could mean that they are “doubled-up” with another family, living in a motel room, or staying at a shelter.

Azibo Stevens, AAPS liaison to WISD's Education Project for Homeless Youth.

Stevens explained to the board that this definition is broader than many school personnel are aware of, and thus, the population of homeless youth attending AAPS is likely much larger than the number of students receiving services from EPHY.

He said it is important to identify homeless youth in order to encourage them to access the support services available to them through AAPS and EPHY, such as help with transportation, advocacy, food, and in some cases, extra academic support.

In response to questions from the board, Stevens suggested that AAPS staff could help to identify and refer students to him by noting those students whose address frequently changes, and posting homeless liaison contact information in the main office of each school. He also pointed out that many families are unlikely to self-identify as homeless, even if they meet the definition, and that in order to reach qualified families, it may help to ask parents if their family is “in transition” rather than “homeless,” which is a more stigmatized term.

Consent Agenda Approved

The consent agenda included minutes approvals, gift offers, and one second briefing item – the utility easement recommendations reviewed by Randy Trent at the board’s Sept. 15 meeting. With no questions on the easements, or any other item, the board unanimously approved its consent agenda.

MASB Delegates Chosen

Mexicotte announced that the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB) delegate assembly this year will be held in Grand Rapids, and that it was a good opportunity to be part of shaping the MASB. Lightfoot and Nelson volunteered to attend, and the board approved them.

Organizational Meeting

At its previous meeting, the board had voted to hold its annual organization meeting before the November election, because the five trustees on the November ballot are running unopposed. At Wednesday’s meeting, Mexicotte again noted that should something unforeseen happen, such as a write-in candidate winning a seat, the board could hold another organizational meeting. Trustees then voted to suspend the bylaw that states the organizational meeting should happen after the election, and proceeded to reorganize themselves.

All four officer positions were filled by uncontested self-nomination, and approved by the board. The new configuration of AAPS school board officers is: Deb Mexicotte, president; Susan Baskett, vice president; Andy Thomas, secretary; and Irene Patalan, treasurer. Each officer swore to “abide by the bylaws, rules, and regulations of [their offices] as to the best of [their] knowledge and ability.” Upon Mexicotte’s request, Lightfoot agreed to remain the board’s parliamentarian.

The standing board committees were also reconfigured. The board has two committees: planning, which is proactive in exploring upcoming areas of concern or interest to the board; and performance, which is focused on the assessment and evaluation of current AAPS programs, activities, and initiatives.

Mexicotte noted that the committee representation she was about to suggest was based on trustees’ interests as ascertained in one-on-one discussions with her before Wednesday’s meeting, as well as on the areas in which trustees have shown vigilance and concern. She then requested that Stead, Baskett, and Patalan sit on the planning committee, chaired by Stead; and that Nelson, Lightfoot, and Thomas sit on the performance committee, chaired by Nelson. All of her suggestions were accepted by the board.

While other administrative committee appointments had been made during the previous meeting, Mexicotte explained that a new committee had been formed – the guidance counselor advisory board. She requested that she be able to appoint herself to serve on the new committee, and the board approved that request.

As part of the organizational meeting, the board also sets its calendar. They meet twice monthly, usually on non-consecutive weeks, and the meeting dates for the rest of 2010 have already been posted.

At Wednesday’s meeting, the board considered the remaining meetings for this school year. Of the suggested slate of dates, Nelson pointed out that the board was scheduled to meet during the district’s February break, and suggested moving that meeting to the beginning of March, and the other March meetings down a week. The board agreed to take advantage of March 2011′s five Wednesdays, and set the following as its 2011 meeting dates: Jan. 12 and 26, Feb. 9, March 2, 16, and 30, April 13 and 27, May 11 and 25, and June 8 and 22.

Agenda Planning

One amendment was made to the board’s calendar – an executive session for the purpose of attorney-client privileged communication was approved for Wed., Oct. 6 at 5:30 p.m. [Since the meeting, a study session was also added for 7 p.m. on that day.]

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustee Glenn Nelson, Simone Lightfoot, and Christine Stead. Also present as a non-voting member was Todd Roberts, superintendent of AAPS.

Next Regular Meeting: Oct. 13, 2010, 7 p.m., at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, fourth floor board room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Matt Yankee, deputy clerk with Washtenaw County, marks ticks in columns as candidate names are read aloud during the recount of the Aug. 4 Democratic primary election for the Ward 3 city council seat. (Photo by the writer.)

Friday morning in the lower level of the county building at 200 N. Main, Letitia Kunselman held her cell phone out in the general direction of Melodie Gable, chair of Washtenaw County’s board of canvassers. Gable was wrapping up about 90 minutes of ballot recounting from the Ward 3 Democratic primary for Ann Arbor city council. By that time, her official announcement stated an outcome that everyone in the room already knew.

We’d followed the hand recount of paper ballots table-by-table, as one precinct after the other confirmed individual vote totals from the initial Aug. 4 results.

What Gable reported was exactly the news that Letitia Kunselman’s husband Stephen – on the other end of the cell phone line – wanted to hear: his own 511 votes compared to Leigh Greden’s 505 had been confirmed, leaving Kunselman the winner of the primary. The third candidate, LuAnne Bullington, picked up one vote in the recount in precincts 3-4 and 3-7 (these precincts shared a single polling location on election day), bringing her total to 382.

We include in our report the vote totals, some anecdotal bits from the morning recount, but more importantly, a brief look at the impact that Greden’s departure will have on council’s committee composition.

Results After the Recount

At the end of the recount on Friday morning, here’s how the final vote tally stood:

WARD 3             Bullington  Greden   Kunselman

Precinct 3-1,3-2      3         20        45
Precinct 3-3         92        160        96
Precinct 3-4,3-7    149        159       137
Precinct 3-5         25         32        23
Precinct 3-6,3-9     66         75       118
Precinct 3-8         47         59        92

Totals              382        505       511

-

Miscellaneous Roundup from the Morning Recount

-

Overall Mood: Not Bitter

Given the number of “watchers” on behalf of the various candidates, The Chronicle posed a question to Greden, regarding which people were there on his behalf: “So not all of the watchers are here officially watching for you …” He quipped in reply: “No, Latitia Letitia Kunselman is not here watching on my behalf.”

Greden also showed no visible sign of chaffing when his name was repeatedly mispronounced at one of the counting tables – each candidate’s name is called out when a ballot with a vote for them is examined. Last year, at the Ward 5 Carsten Hohnke-Vivienne Armentrout recount, The Chronicle noted that “… a predictable range of pronunciations for ‘Hohkne‘ ‘Hohnke’ could be heard.” This year, it probably couldn’t have been predicted that Greden would be rendered as “Brenden” – but it was.

Where Was Kunselman?

Why wasn’t Stephen Kunselman there in person? Letitia Kunselman told The Chronicle that he was in California – he’d gone with his son, Shane, to launch him into his freshman year in college.

Who Were the Watchers?

In alphabetical order, the names of the watchers – who helped verify that the recounting was proceeding to the satisfaction of all interested parties:

• Tim Colenbeck Colenback
  
• Dave DeVarti
• Tony Derezinski
• Jack Eaton
• Diane Giannola
• Lou Glorie
• Leah Gunn
• Letitia Kunselman
• Pat Lesko
• Joan Lowenstein
• Lois Mayfield
• Peggy Rabhi
• Karen Sidney
• Christopher Taylor
• Tom Wieder

We leave it as a political puzzle to match watchers with the candidate on whose behalf they attended.

Impact on Committee Structure

The city council reorganizes itself into committees soon after the new council is formally installed every November. Five committees on which Greden currently serves will thus have a different look in a couple of months. Here’s who currently serves on those committees:

• Budget and Labor Committee: Leigh Greden, Stephen Rapundalo, John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall
• Council Administration Committee: Leigh Greden, Stephen Rapundalo, John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall
• DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee: Leigh Greden, Carsten Hohnke, Margie Teall
• City Council Representative to DDA Partnerships Committee: Leigh Greden
• Student Relations Committee: Leigh Greden, Carsten Hohnke

Where Did These Committees Come From?

We’ve pieced together a brief history of these committees based on the description in the 2006 City of Ann Arbor Boards, Commissions and Committees document. Some significant consolidations in committee structure took place in December 2005. One effect of the restructuring was to collapse different committees with similar functions into single committees. One consequence, in some cases, was to reduce the breadth of participation in committees.

Budget and Labor (Negotiation) Committee

The stated purpose of the council’s budget and labor committee is:

To work with City Administrator to advise about City labor issues. To advise the Mayor, Council and City Administrator on matters relating to the City’s comprehensive annual financial report, audited statements and management letter; appointment of independent auditors; the City’s financial condition including revenue issues; financial investment policies and procedures; short- term and long-term borrowing policies and proposals; matters relating to the budget process, implementation and administration; and short-term and long-term financial polices and plans.

The council’s Budget and Labor Committee was established on Dec. 5, 2005 when the city council of that year passed the resolution establishing its committee structure for 2006. The membership of the Budget and Labor Committee is defined as five members – the mayor plus four members of the city council. It included at that time – and appears to continue to include – three ex officio members: the city administrator, the city’s chief financial officer, and a member of the commission on disability issues.

Budget and Labor combined what had previously been two different committees: (i) the Budget/Finance Committee, and (ii) the Labor Negotiation Committee.

Prior to 2006, the Budget/Finance Committee was a 13-member body: the mayor, four councilmembers, three citizen members, the city administrator or representative, the budget director, the finance director, and two other department heads appointed by the city administrator.

Prior to 2006, the only mention of the Labor Negotiation Committee we could find was a reference to the 1997 edition of that 5-member council committee: Stephen C. Hartwell and Elisabeth L. Daley (Democrats), and Ingrid Sheldon, David Kwan, and Jane Lumm (Republicans).

When first established as such in December 2005, the council’s Budget and Labor Committee consisted of John Hieftje, Christopher Easthope, Leigh Greden, Marcia Higgins, and Joan Lowenstein.

Council Administration Committee

The Council Administration Committee was also established in December 2005 as the combination of other previously existing committees when council reorganized its committees:

Established to combine the following committees into one: Special Liquor Committee, Real Estate Committee, Ad Hoc Rules Committee, City Attorney Committee, City Administrator Committee.

The last two committees in the list historically performed the specific task of evaluating the performance of the city attorney and the city administrator. For both of these committees, the membership was specified to be the mayor plus a councilmember of each ward (for a total of six), the specific councilmember to be determined by the two ward representatives.

In council rules, the Council Administration Committee is given a large part of the responsibility of setting and approving the agenda:

Approval of the Draft Agenda. The City Administrator shall submit the draft agenda and supporting materials to the Council Administration Committee for approval 10 days prior to the next Council meeting. The Council Administration Committee will approve the agenda 7 days prior to the next Council meeting. Once approved by the Council Administration Committee, no matter from staff shall be placed on the agenda for action. Council members may add items to the agenda at any time.

When originally constituted as such in December 2005, the membership of the Council Administration Committee consisted of Leigh Greden, Christopher Easthope, Marcia Higgins, John Roberts and Margie Teall.

DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee

The DDA Mutually Beneficial Committee was formed for the specific purpose of renegotiating the parking agreement between the Downtown Development Authority and the city. The city has a goal of convincing the DDA to pay around $2 million to the city for the 2011 budget year, which the DDA is not contractually obligated to pay.

In early 2009, the city council passed a resolution calling on the DDA to open a discussion on the topic. The DDA responded by forming a committee to meet with a corresponding committee on the city council. The city council then delayed formation of its own committee, because some councilmembers did not like the constitution of the DDA’s committee. One place to start for some of the details of that dynamic is a May 23, 2009 article on the DDA mid-year retreat.

[In the original version of this article, the Letitia Kunselman's name was misspelled throughout.]

Seated at the table, Matt Yankee, deputy county clerk, and Frances McMullan, Ypsilanti city clerk, who helped staff one of the recount tables. In red in the background: Melodie Gable, chair of the county's board of canvassers. Holding a cup in the background is Ann Arbor city clerk, Jackie Beaudry. (Photo by the writer.)

Frances McMullan, Ypsilanti city clerk, wields wire snips to break the seal of a bag containing paper ballots. Note: The Chronicle made its civic contribution to the recount by lending out the wire snips (we carry a bag of tools everywhere) to save some time in tracking down scissors. (Photo by the writer.)

Leigh Greden, left, with Joan Lowenstein and Jackie Beaudry, right. (Photo by the writer.)

At right and mostly off camera, Tom Wieder follows the tick marks of the recounting on his own notepad. The orange folder in the background belongs to Leigh Greden. (Photo by the writer.)

"Whoah, there, Larry Kestenbaum, sit back down, I didn't say I was done talking to you!" That, of course, is not what this WEMU reporter said to the county clerk. Kestenbaum gave welcoming and closing remarks at the recount. (Photo by the writer.)

So what happened?

Piecing together remarks made by speakers during public comment time, as well as conversation with AATA community relations manager Mary Stasiak and board chair David Nacht after the meeting, plus a close review of notes from the Sept. 17 board meeting, what happened was this: the new, more efficient monthly AATA board meeting – a meeting that in the future could be reduced to a bi-monthly schedule, if the board heeds what seems to be the urging of board member Sue McCormick, who is the public services area administrator for the city of Ann Arbor.

Public comment

During public speaking time, Jim Mogensen addressed the practice that the board has adopted with its new committee structure to do more of its work at the committee level and to receive the reports of its committees only in written form. Said Mogensen, “It is important that a robust communication effort be made,” to ensure that the public be made aware of the scheduling and content of the meetings in advance. He was not recommending a particular solution, he said, but stressed that this robust effort to inform the public of meeting times, places, and content was an essential complement to the commitment that the board had expressed to make minutes from committee meetings available on its website. [After the meeting, Stasiak confirmed that the evening's agenda items to receive reports from the Local Advisory Council, the Planning and Development Committee, and the Performance Monitoring and External Relations Committee had been dramatically shortened from the roughly half hour estimated on the agenda for them, because they had been received in written form.]

Also during public speaking time, Carolyn Grawi pointed out that if there was no discussion of committees’ work at the board meetings, then the public’s opportunity to address the board when it mattered – namely, before the board voted – was further “sidelined.” As a partial remedy she called on the board, as she had at the Sept. 17 meeting, to schedule public speaking at a time during the meeting before the board voted on various resolutions, instead of at the end, after decisions had been made.

At the same meeting on Sept. 17, Grawi had urged the board to go beyond the requirements of the open meetings act to post changes in meeting times and the scheduling of special meetings by reaching out to inform interested parties. [The AATA board held a special meeting on Oct. 28 between the last regularly scheduled meeting and this one, to pass a resolution committing the AATA to take a leadership role in the WALLY project. If Vivienne Armentrout had not filed a Stopped. Watched. item on that meeting, it would have gone unnoticed by The Chronicle until arrival of AATA's press release on the matter.]

While accessibility to the board’s actions and deliberations were of great concern to Grawi, she was also clearly concerned about continued accessibility to the transportation services offered by the AATA by all members of the community (independent of age, physical mobility, etc.), in the context of the WALLY project. She said she regretted that one board member was absent who had indicated a lack of commitment to accessibility as the WALLY project moved forward, because she particularly wanted him to hear that it was essential that the transportation service that we already do have not be lost as AATA expanded to a better regional system. She said the recent AARP designation of Ann Arbor as a top community to live in was partly due to the good transportation system and not, she joked, a function of our weather.

Board chair David Nacht responded to Grawi’s concerns about accessibility to service by saying the AATA had a commitment to meeting not just the letter of ADA requirements, but also the spirit, and would continue to do so as long as he was chair.

Leading off public speaking time had been LuAnne Bullington, who asked the board to consider adding Election Day to those occasions on which riding the bus is free.

North-South Connector

The Chronicle arrived and settled in as board member Sue McCormick was asking what kind of information would be in the report at the end of the north-south connector study. Chris White, manager of service development, said that the report delivered at the end of the 18-month study would include an analysis and recommendations of the feasibility of various high-capacity transit options along the Plymouth Road and State Street corridors. High-capacity transit translates in layman’s terms into monorail, streetcars, or bus rapid transit.

The geographic focus of the north-south connector study includes primarily the Plymouth corridor, but secondarily includes State Street. In response to a board question about whether the scope went as far south as Briarwood, a nod from city of Ann Arbor transportation manager Eli Cooper, who was in the audience, confirmed that it did. White also clarified that the Plymouth corridor was not constrained to Plymouth Road per se, but rather included “a much wider swath that takes in north campus.”

White said that of the three firms who submitted bids, the contract had been awarded to URS Corporation and that Rick Nau would be project manager, while stressing that there would be a large team involved.

Asked by McCormick for milestones on the 18-month study, White said that URS would be considering the whole universe of possibilities for the corridor, and would likely be able to fairly quickly eliminate any options that had “fatal flaws.” Some options, he said, might require too high a trip density to be realistic, and they could be eliminated from subsequent investigation.

Board member Rich Robben noted that the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation plan, which is currently in the final stages of getting updated, highlights the Plymouth Road and State Street corridors as candidates for “signature service,” confirmed with White that this connector amounted to “signature service” and asked about the possibility in the future of signature connector service in the east-west direction. White said that east-west connectivity would require greater coordination with the proposed commuter rail in those two directions.

After the meeting White clarified that the north-south connector in Ann Arbor and WALLY (commuter rail north between Ann Arbor and Howell) were not contingent on each other. Passengers on WALLY, who would arrive at Barton Road and still need to complete their journey into Ann Arbor, could be serviced by meeting the train with five buses on three routes. It wouldn’t be essential to have a north-south connector in place for WALLY to work. Similarly, the north-south connector does not rely in concept on the existence of WALLY. The north-south connector is expected to help move people who are already traveling between central Ann Arbor and UM north campus.

The three other partners with the AATA on the north-south connector study are the city of Ann Arbor, the DDA and UM. Each of their contributions went from $50,000 to $160,000 to match the level of the AATA contribution for a total project budget of $640,000.

[Editor's note: Mary Stasiak has indicated to The Chronicle that she'll provide board committee meeting times, dates and locations to facilitate first-person reporting on those committee meetings, to the extent that The Chronicle has resources available to attend them.]

Present: David Nacht (chair), Paul Ajegba, Charles Griffith, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben

Absent: Jesse Bernstein, Ted Annis

Next meeting: Wednesday, Dec. 17 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave.